Qualitative Mini Critique Due (10 points)
- Identify an area of clinical interest
- Find one peer-reviewed journal article (no older than 5 years) related to your clinical topic of interest. Do not use a meta-analysis or systematic review.
- Critique the journal article, fully answering the following questions
- This critique should be 3-4 pages (not including the cover page and reference page)
- Utilize the APA levels of headings on page 62 of the APA Manual- APA MANUAL
- APA formatting required (Include appropriate APA level/headings)
|Ethical Aspects of a Study||Were adequate steps taken to safeguard participant’s privacy?
How was confidentiality maintained?
Were vulnerable groups involved in research?
If yes, were special precautions instituted because of their vulnerable status?
|Research Tradition||Was the research tradition for the study identified?
If none was identified, can one be inferred? Are the data sources, research methods and analytic approach congruent with the research tradition?
Was there evidence of reflexivity in the design?
|Sampling||What type of sampling strategy was used?
Are sampling procedures clearly delineated in the study?
|Data Collection||Given the research question and characteristics of study participants, did the researcher use the best method of capturing study phenomena (self-reports, observation)?
If self-report methods, did the researcher make good decisions about the specific method used to solicit information (focus group interviews, critical incident interviews)?
Were interviews tape recorded and transcribed?
What methods of data collection were utilized (Self-reports, Scales, Observation, and Rating Scales)? If self-report methods were used, did the researchers make good decisions about specific methods (in-person interviews, mailed questionnaires, etc.)?
|Clinical Practice||Did the researchers discuss the study’s implications for clinical practice or future research and if so, were the implications grounded in the study evidence, and in evidence from earlier research?|
|Guidelines for Scholarly Research Critique: QUALITATIVE ARTICLE
|Title||Was the title a good one, suggesting the key phenomenon and the group or community under study?|
|Abstract||Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report?|
|Introduction||Is the phenomenon of interest clearly identified?
Is the problem stated unambiguously?
|Literature Review||Does the report summarize the existing body of knowledge related to the problem or phenomenon of interest?
Is the literature review adequate?
Does the literature review lay a solid basis for the new study
|Research Questions||Are research questions explicitly stated? If not, is their absence justified?|
Research design and research tradition
|Is the identified research tradition (if any) congruent with the methods used to collect and analyze data?
|Sample and setting||Was the group or population of interest adequately described? Were the setting and sample described in sufficient detail?
Was the best possible method of sampling used to enhance information richness and address the needs of the study?
Was the sample size adequate? Was saturation achieved?
|Data collection and measure||Were the methods of gathering data appropriate? Were data gathered through two or more methods to achieve triangulation?
Was a sufficient amount of data gathered? Was the data of sufficient depth and richness?
|Procedures||Were data collection and recording procedures adequately described and do they appear appropriate?
Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias or behavioral distortions? Were data collection staff appropriately trained?
Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants?
|Enhancement of rigor||Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable?|
|Were the data management (e.g., coding) and data analysis methods sufficiently described?
Was the data analysis strategy compatible with the research tradition and with the nature and type of data gathered?
Did the analysis yield an appropriate product (e.g., theory, taxonomy, thematic pattern, etc.)?
Did the analytic procedure suggest the possibility of biases?
|Findings||Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of experts?
Do the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data? Does it appear that the researcher satisfactorily conceptualized the themes or patterns in the data?
Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation?
|Theoretical Integration||Are the themes or patterns logically connected to each other to form a convincing and integrated whole?
Were figures, maps, or models used effectively to summarize conceptualizations?
|Discussion||Are the findings interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context?
Are major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies?
Are the implications consistent with the study’s limitations?
Does the report address the issue of transferability of the findings?
|Implications/Recommendations||Do the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or future inquiry-and are those implications reasonable?|
|Global Issue||Was the report well-written, well-organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis?
Was the description of the methods, findings, and interpretations sufficiently rich and vivid?
|Summary Assessment||Do the study findings appear to be trustworthy-do you have confidence in the truth value of the results?
Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline