Qualitative Research Critique-Nursing

Aspect of the Report

Critiquing Questions

Answer

Yes/No

Comment(s)

Title

· Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the study population?

Abstract

· Did the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusion)?

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

· Was the problem stated unambiguously, and was it easy to identify?

· Is the problem significant for nursing?

· Did the problem statement build a persuasive argument for the new study?

· Was there a good match between the research problem and the methods used – that is, was a quantitative approach appropriate?

Research Questions

· Were research questions explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified?

· Were the questions consistent with the study’s philosophical basis, underlying tradition, or ideological orientation?

Literature Review

· Did the report adequately summarize the existing body of knowledge related to the problem or phenomenon of interest?

· Did the literature review provide a strong basis for the new study?

Conceptual Underpinnings

· Were key concepts defined conceptually?

· Was the philosophical basis, underlying tradition, conceptual framework, or ideologic orientation made explicit and was it appropriate for the problem?

Method

Protection of Human Rights

· Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants?

· Was the study subject to external review by an IRB/ethics review board?

· Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants?

Research Design and Research Tradition

· Was the identified research tradition (if any) congruent with the methods used to collect and analyze data?

· Was an adequate amount of time spent with study participants?

· Did the design unfold during data collection, giving researchers opportunities to capitalize on early understandings?

· Was there an adequate number of contacts with study participants?

Sample and Setting

· Was the group or population of interest adequately described? Were the setting and sample described in sufficient detail?

· Was the approach used to recruit participants or gain access to the site productive and appropriate?

· 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

· Were the methods of gathering data appropriate? Were data gathered through two or more methods to achieve triangulation?

· Did the researcher ask the right questions or make the right observations, and were they recorded in an appropriate fashion?

· Was a sufficient amount of data gathered? Were the data of sufficient depth and richness?

Procedures

· Were data collection and recording procedures adequately described and do they appropriately trained?

Enhancement of Trustworthiness

· Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness/integrity of the study, and was there a good description of those strategies?

· Were the methods used to enhance trustworthiness adequate?

· Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings and auditable and confirmable?

· Was there evidence of researcher reflexivity?

· Was there “thick description” of the context, participants, and findings, and was it at a sufficient level to support transferability?

Results

Data Analysis

· Were the data management and data analysis methods adequately 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. a theory, taxonomy, thematic pattern)?

· Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of biases?

Findings

· Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments?

· Did 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, authentic, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation?

Theoretical Integration

· Were 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?

· If a conceptual framework or ideologic orientation guided the study, were the themes or patterns linked to it in a cogent manner?

Discussion

Interpretation of

the Findings

· Were the findings interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context?

· Were major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies?

· Were the interpretations consistent with the study’s limitations?

Implications/

recommendations

· Did the researchers discuss the implication of the study for clinical practice or further research – and were those implications reasonable and complete?

General Issues

Presentation

· Was the report well-written, organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis?

· Was the description of the methods, findings, and interpretations sufficiently rich and vivid?

Researcher Credibility

· Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?

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?