Name: ___________________________________________ Date: ______________________
Directions: First, insert you name and date above (do it now . . . we regularly receive multiple papers without names!
There are TWO SECTIONS to this assignment. Save this file per file naming video.
Section I:
Using this assignment FORM (this completed form), you will type your answers beside each question in the following Table. Support rationale for your answers by including “Evidence from the Study” in the second column of the Table. This means I need a rational for the yes and no’s. In the third column, indicate whether you consider this aspect of the study as a “strength” or a “weakness” or “not applicable” by placing an “X” in the appropriate column.
Section II:
Question 1: indicate where you think this study falls on a continuum from “1 “ – not being worthy of consideration for changing practice or incorporating into research to “10 “ – being worthy of consideration for changing practice or incorporation into research. Your rating should be a result of your analysis of the study based on the questions you answered in Section I.
Question 2: Give rationale for your rating in Question 1. Remember that you have been critiquing the steps of the research process in Section I, so your rationale (using examples) should relate to that process . . . i.e., study design, sample size and selection, limitations, internal validity of study, reliability and validity of instruments, data collection, etc.
We have talked about how to read an article. Read the article the way I told you…should take less than 5-10 minutes, then STOP. Put it down. Relax. Think a bit about how what you already believe might change if you were open to this article. Think about what you will not change if this article is bad and found unworthy. Either way, for better or worse, something will change. After some time has passed, (two or three days) read the whole intro and discussion section marking the areas you know you will need. Then when you are ready…hit the method and results section. Read these last two parts like your job depends on you replicating the study. Appraise the article from there. Good luck.
Section I: Critique Questions. Each question is worth 2 points for a total of 92 points.
| Question | Answer with Rationale Supported by Evidence from Study (Do not forget to self-cite) | Strength | Weakness | Not Applicable | Points Earned |
| TITLE Does the title clearly indicate the study’s focus? What is it? | |||||
| Does the title include the major variables? What are they? | |||||
| Does the title indicate the type of study conducted? What is it? | |||||
| AUTHORS Do authors have appropriate educational, clinical & scientific background & credentials to conduct the study? What are they? | |||||
| ABSTRACT Is the study’s purpose clearly stated? If so, what is it? | |||||
| Is the design stated? What is it? | |||||
| Is the sample identified? What is it? | |||||
| Are interventions (if any) identified? What is it? | |||||
| Are major results revealed? What are they? | |||||
| PROBLEM | |||||
| Is the problem stated or just inferred? What is the stated or inferred problem? | |||||
| How is the significance of the problem addressed? | |||||
| Is the problem significant to nursing and/or clinical practice? How? | |||||
| PURPOSE Is the purpose stated? What is the purpose? | |||||
| LITERATURE REVIEW | |||||
| Are relevant, previous research studies described? How do you know this? | |||||
| Are the research studies critically appraised? Explain | |||||
| Is a summary provided of the current knowledge (what is known/not known about the current problem)? Where is it? | |||||
| Are references current? (<6 years old) | |||||
| THEORTEICAL/CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Is a theoretical/conceptual framework identified by the researcher? If so, what was the framework? | |||||
| If identified, how does the framework identify, define, and describe the relationship among the concepts of interest? | |||||
| Is a schematic model of the framework provided for clarity? | |||||
| RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, QUESTIONS, HYPOTHESES Are any (1) objectives, (2) questions and/or (3) hypotheses identified? If so, what are they? This is 3 questions. | |||||
| VARIABLES | |||||
| Are any study variables identified? What are they? List them. | |||||
| Are the variables reflective of the concepts identified in the theoretical/conceptual framework? | |||||
| Are there any independent and dependent variables? If so, what are those variables? (This is a different question from 22) | |||||
| RESEARCH DESIGN 25. Is the research design specifically identified? Be specific. Is it considered a weaker or stronger design? What is the study’s “level of research evidence”? John Hopkin LOE. | |||||
| 26. Did the researchers identify any threats to design validity and/or construct validity & minimize them as much as possible? How? | |||||
| 27. If a treatment or intervention discussed, is it clearly described? What is it. | |||||
| If the study has an experimental and a control group, how were subjects assigned to groups? | |||||
| Were previous pilot study findings used to design the study? | |||||
| SAMPLE & SETTING 30. What was the population for the study? | |||||
| 31. What were sample inclusion and exclusion criteria? What was sample size? | |||||
| 32. What was sampling method? Is this method a probability or a nonprobability method? | |||||
| What efforts were made to protect patients’ rights? | |||||
| What is the setting for the study? Is it appropriate for the type & purpose of the study conducted? | |||||
| What instruments were used to collect data? (SPSS is not an Instrument.) What is the reliability & validity of instruments used to collect data? | |||||
| DATA COLLECTION What method(s) were used for data collection? Were these methods appropriate for the type of data collected? | |||||
| Who collected data? | |||||
| When were data collected? | |||||
| How were data collectors trained? By whom? | |||||
| What statistical tests were performed on data? Were these tests appropriate for the type of data collected? Why or why not? | |||||
| If statistical data was displayed in Tables, did content agree with data discussed in narrative? | |||||
| FINDINGS/RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS Were findings/results/conclusions clearly stated? What are they? | |||||
| Were findings consistent or inconsistent with previous research studies? | |||||
| What limitations were identified by the researcher? What were the potential effects of those limitation on study findings? (something to think about…are limitations cited by the author a good or bad thing?) | |||||
| What were the implications for nursing practice identified by the researcher? | |||||
| What suggestions for future study/research were identified by the researcher? | |||||
| Total Points Earned Section I |
Section II: Answer the following questions which are worth 2 points each for a total of 8 points. Double space between questions.
- Where would you rank this study on the following scale from 1 to 10 with “1” being “not worthy of consideration for changing
practice” or incorporating into research” to “10” being “worthy of consideration for changing practice or incorporation”? Mark answer on this number line and explain why.
1 10
(not worthy) (worthy)
- Give rationale for you ranking of this study. Your rationale needs to be based on the study’s strengths and weaknesses that you identified.
- Do you think this study’s results can be used for evidenced based nursing practice? Why or why not?
- How long do you think it took the authors to complete this study? Total Points Earned Section II _____
Total Points Earned Section I _____
Total Points Earned Section II _____
TOTAL POINTS EARNED _____
Comments:
