1. Critiquing Quantitative Research

2.  A critical appraisal is careful evaluation of all aspects of a research study in order to assess the merits, limitations, meaning, and significance  Critiquing research is the link between research and nursing practice.  A critical appraisal of research: Enables nurses to broaden their knowledge Provides evidence that can be used in practice and future research studies Enables the reader to have confidence in the evidence presented

3.  When we read anything, we appraise it at the same time we are looking to gather the information we need  Regardless of the source, you wouldn’t read and gather evidence from something that was not well done  Appraisals are described as a multi-step process in this presentation but in real life, appraisals are done simultaneously with reading and comprehending

4.  Students/nurses: learning research process, conducting a literature review, and evaluating studies for evidence to be used in practice  Administrators: compiling evidence to change policies and implement programs  Researchers: need to understand and evaluate current evidence for grant proposals

5.  Read entire study  Examine organization and presentation of the research report  Think about the significance of the questions  Provide specific examples of the strengths and weaknesses  Suggest usefulness of findings for practice

6.  Phase 1 – Comprehension  Phase 2 – Comparison  Phase 3 – Analysis  Phase 4 – Evaluation

7.  Process by which you read the study to understand what it is about  Involves reading and re-reading  Identifying terms you do not understand  Highlighting each step of the research process

8.  Requires knowledge of what each step of the research process should be like  Involves comparison of what researcher did with the ideal research process and logical development of the study  The following slides describe the kinds of questions to think about when evaluating an ideal research process

9.  Is the problem sufficiently limited in scope without being trivial?  Is the problem significant to nursing?  Was the study feasible in terms of funding, expertise, subjects, facility, equipment, and ethical considerations?

10.  Does it demonstrate progressive development of ideas through previous research?  Does the literature review provide rationale and direction for the study?  Is a clear and concise summary presented of the current empirical and theoretical knowledge in the area of study?

11.  Is the framework presented with clarity?  Is the framework linked to the research purpose?  Would another framework fit more logically with the study?  Is the framework related to nursing knowledge?

12.  Are objectives, questions, or hypotheses expressed clearly?  Are the objectives, questions or hypotheses logically linked to concepts and relationships from the framework?  Do the variables reflect the concepts identified in the framework?  Are the variables clearly identified?

13.  Is the design used the most appropriate to obtain the needed data?  Does the design provide a means to examine all of the objectives, questions, or hypotheses?  Is the design logically linked to the sampling method and statistical analyses?

14.  Is the sampling method adequate to produce a representative sample?  What are the potential biases in the sampling method?  Are any subjects excluded from the study based on age, socio-economic status, or race, without a sound rationale?  Were the sampling criteria appropriate?

15.  Do the instruments adequately measure study variables?  Does the instrument have adequate validity and reliability?  Are the instruments clearly described?  Are techniques to complete and score the instrument described?  If the instrument was developed for the study, is the instrument development process described?

16.  Are the phenomenon to be observed clearly identified and defined?  Are techniques of recording observations described?  Do the interview questions address research concerns?  Are physiologic measures or instruments described?

17.  Are data analysis procedures clearly defined?  Are results presented in an understandable way?  Do the results address the research questions or hypothesis?  Were power analyses and/or statistically significant differences reported?  Do findings address research objectives and hypotheses?

18.  Are findings discussed in relation to each objective, questions, or hypothesis?  Are conclusions based on statistically and clinically significant results?  Are there limitations the researcher did not identify?

19.  Involves determining if a connection was made between the study findings and the overall purpose of the study