|
< Previous Page 1, 2
Outline
< Previous Page 1, 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
There are four critical thinking phases namely comprehension, comparison, analysis and evaluation. Comparison and analysis are done simultaneously.
1. Comprehension:
understanding the terms and concepts in the report, identifying the elements or steps of the research process such as problem, purpose, framework and design. It grasps the meaning, nature and significance of these steps.
2. Comparison:
3. Analysis:
4. Evaluation:
As the critique is on a quantitative study for the assignment, the guidelines are presented in detail below.
V. Guidelines for a quantitative study critique: BACK TO TOP
I. Title:
II. Abstract:
III. Introduction BACK TO TOP
I. Problem statement:
a. What is the study problem? Is it easy to locate?
b. Is the problem stated clearly and unambiguously? Is it easy to identify?
c. Does the problem statement build a cogent and persuasive argument for the new study? Has the research problem been substantiated with adequate experiential and scientific background material?
d. Does the problem stated, expresses a relationship between two or more variables or at least between dependent and independent variable, implying empirical testability?
e. Does the problem specify the nature of the population being studied?
f. Does the problem have significance and relevance to nursing? Is the quantitative/ qualitative approach appropriate?
g. Is there a match between the research problem and paradigm and methods used?
h. Is the problem sufficiently narrow in scope without being trivial?
i. Was this study feasible to conduct in terms of money commitment; the researcher’s expertise; availability of subjects, facility, equipment; ethical considerations?
j. Has the research problem been placed within the context of an appropriate theoretical framework?
k. Does the statement or purpose specify the nature of the population being studied?
ii. Purpose:
a. What is the study purpose?
b. Does the purpose narrow and clarify the focus or aim of the study and identify the research variables, population and setting?
c. Is it worded appropriately? Are verbs used appropriately to suggest the nature of the inquiry and or the research tradition?
iii. Objectives:
a. Formally stated? Clearly and concisely stated?
b. Logically linked to purpose?
c. Linked to concepts and relationships from the framework?
d. Measurable or potentially measurable and achievable?
e. Do they clearly identify the variables and population studied?
iv. Hypotheses:
Are they
a. Properly worded?
b. Stated objectively without value laden words?
c. Stating a predictive relationship between variables?
d. Stated in such a way that they are testable?
e. Directional or non directional/ research or statistical? Is the direction clearly stated? Are they causal, associative or simplex versus complex?
f. Is there a rationale for how they were stated?
g. Clearly and concisely expressed with variables and study population?
h. Logically linked to the research problem and purpose?
i. Linked to concepts, relationships from the framework and literature review?
j. Used to direct the conduct of the study?
k. Absent? If so is their absence justified? Are statistical tests used in analyzing the data despite the absence of stated hypothesis?
l. Derived from a theory or previous research? Is there a justifiable basis for the predictions?
m. Specific to one relationship so that each hypothesis can be either supported or not supported?
v. Conceptual framework:
a. Is the study framework identified? Is a particular theory or model identified as a framework for the study?
b. Is the framework explicitly expressed or must be extracted from the literature review?
c. Does the absence of a framework detract from the usefulness or significance of the research?
d. Does the framework describe and define the concepts of interest or major features of the theory/ model so that readers can understand the conceptual basis of the study?
e. Does the framework present the relationships among the concepts?
f. Is a map or model of the framework provided for clarity? If a map or model is not provided, develop one that presents the study’s framework and describe it.
g. If there was an intervention, was there a cogent theoretical basis or rationale for the intervention?
h. Is the theory or model used as the basis for generating hypothesis that were tested or is it used as an organizational or interpretive framework? Was this appropriate?
i. Is the theory/ model appropriate for the research problem? Would a different framework have been fitting?
j. Are deductions from theory are logical?
k. Links the concepts in the framework, with the variables in the study
l. Is the framework presented with clarity?
m. Are the concepts adequately defined in way that is consistent with the theory? If there is an intervention, are intervention components consistent with the theory?
n. Do the problem and hypothesis naturally flow from the framework? Or is the link contrived?
o. Is the framework related to nursing’s body of knowledge? Is it based on a conceptual model of nursing or a model developed by nurses? Is it borrowed from another discipline, is there adequate justification for its use?
p. Is the framework linked to the research purpose?
q. Is there a link between the framework, concepts being studied and the methods of measurement
r. If the proposition from a theory is to be tested, is the proposition clearly identified and linked to the study hypotheses?
s. Was sufficient literature presented to support study of the selected concepts?
t. Did the framework guide the study methods?
u. Does the researcher tie the findings of the study back to the framework at the end of the report? How do the findings support or undermine the framework? Are the findings interpreted within the context of the framework?
vi. Variables
a. Do the variables reflect the concepts identified in the framework?
b. Are the variables clearly defined (conceptually and operationally) based on previous research and or theories?
c. Is the conceptual definition of a variable consistent with the operational definition? Do the theoretical definitions correspond to the conceptual definitions?
d. Are the variables that are manipulate or measured in the study consistent with the variables identified in the purpose or the objectives, hypothesis?
e. Are the major variables or concepts identified and defined (conceptually and operationally)? Identify and define the appropriate variables included in the study: Independent variables, Dependent variables, Research variables or concepts
f. What attribute or demographic variables are examined in the study?
g. Were the extraneous variables identified and controlled as necessary in the study?
h. Are there uncontrolled extraneous variables that may have influenced the findings? Is the potential impact of these variables on the findings discussed?
IV. Review of literature BACK TO TOP
a. Is the literature review presented? Does it reflect critical thinking?
b. Are all relevant concepts and variables included in the review?
c. Are relevant previous studies (including, from other disciplines) identified and described?
d. Are relevant theories and models identified and described?
e. Are the references current? Examine the number of sources in the last five and ten years in the reference list.
f. Is the review thorough? Does it identify/uncover the gaps or inconsistencies in literature?
g. Is the review up-to-date?
h. Is it based on primary sources? Are secondary sources cited?
i. Provides a state of the art synthesis of evidence on the research problem?
j. Does it provide solid basis for the new study? Does the summary of the current empirical and theoretical knowledge provide a basis for the study
k. Are the studies critiqued by the author?
l. Is a summary of the current knowledge provided? This summary needs to include what is known and not known about the research problem.
m. Does the critique of each reviewed study include strengths, weakness, limitations of the design; conflicts; essential components of the design like size and type of sample, instruments its validity and reliability
n. Is the review well organized, flow logically, written concisely? Is the development of ideas clear to demonstrate the progressive development of ideas through previous research?
o. Is the review objective?
p. Is there use of appropriate language?
q. If it is a review designed to summarize evidence for clinical practice. Does the review, draw appropriate conclusions about practice implications?
r. Is a theoretical knowledge base developed for the problem and purpose? Does it follow the purposes of the study?
s. Does the literature review provide a rationale and direction for the study?
t. Are both conceptual and data based literature included?
u. Is there a written summary synthesis of the reviewed scholarly literature?
v. Does the summary follow a logical sequence that leads reader to reasons why the particular research or non research project is needed?
V. Methodology: BACK TO TOP
i. Ethical considerations:
a. Are the rights of human subjects protected?
b. Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants used?
c. Was the study subjected to an external review? Was the study approved and monitored by an institutional review board, research ethics board or other similar ethics review committee?
d. Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants? Did the benefits outweigh any potential risks or actual discomfort they experienced?
e. Did the benefits to society outweigh the costs to participants?
f. Was any undue coercion or undue influence used to recruit participants? Did they have the right to refuse to participate or to withdraw without penalty?
g. Were the study participants subjected to any physical harm, discomfort or psychological distress? Did the researchers take appropriate steps to remove or prevent harm?
h. Were participants deceived in anyway? Were they fully aware of participating in a study and did they understand the purpose and nature of research?
i. Were the subjects informed about the purpose and nature of the study?
j. Were appropriate informed consent procedures used with all subjects? Was the information essential for the consent provided? If not were there valid and justifiable reasons. Were the subjects capable of comprehending the information, competent to give consent? Did it seem that the subjects participated voluntarily?
k. Were adequate steps taken to safeguard the privacy of the participants. How data was kept anonymous or confidential? Was a certificate of confidentiality obtained?
l. Were vulnerable groups involved in the research? If yes, were special precautions instituted because of their vulnerable status?.
m. Were groups omitted from the enquiry without a justifiable rationale?
n. Discuss the institutional review board approval obtained from University/agency where the study was conducted
ii. Design: BACK TO TOP
a. Is the research design clearly addressed? Identify the specific design of the study. Is the design employed appropriate?
b. Does the research question imply a question about the causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables?
c. What would be strongest design for the research question? How does this compare to the design actually used? Was the most rigorous possible design used, given the purpose of the research?
d. Does the researcher use the various concepts of control that are consistent with the type of design chosen?
e. Does the design seem to reflect the issues of economy?
f. What elements are controlled? What elements could have been controlled to improve the design?
g. What was the feasibility of controlling particular elements of the study? What was the effect of not controlling these elements on the validity of the study findings?
h. Were appropriate comparisons made to enhance interpretability of findings?
i. What elements of the design wee manipulated and how were they manipulated? How adequate was the manipulation? What elements should have been manipulated to improve the validity of findings?
j. Does the design used seem to flow from the proposed research problem, theoretical framework, literature review and the hypothesis?
k. What are the threats to internal and external validity?
l. What are the controls for the threats of internal and external validity?
m. Does the study include a treatment or intervention? If so is the treatment is clearly defined conceptually and operationally? Clearly described and consistently implemented? Was the control of comparison condition adequately explained? What justification from the literature provided for development of the experimental intervention? Was the intervention best that could be provided given current knowledge?
n. Does the study report, who implemented the treatment? If more than one person were they trained to ensure consistency in the delivery of the treatment? Was any control or comparison group intervention described?
o. Was there a protocol developed to ensure consistent or reliable implementation of the treatment with each subject throughout the study? Was an intervention theory provided to explain why the intervention causes the outcomes and exactly how the intervention produced the desired effects?
p. If experimental (or quasi) study, what specific experimental (or quasi) design was used? Were randomization procedures adequately explained? Is there adequate justification for failure to randomize subjects to treatment conditions? What evidence does the report provide that any groups being compared were equivalent before interventions?
q. If the study was non experimental, was the study inherently non experimental? What was the design used? If retrospective, was there adequate justification for failure to use prospective design? What evidence does the report provide that any groups being compared were similar with regard to important extraneous characteristics?
r. If the study has more than one group, how were the subjects assigned to groups?
s. What type of comparisons are specified in the design (before-after, between groups)? Do these comparisons adequately illuminate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables? If there are no comparisons, or flawed comparisons, how does this affect the integrity of the study and the interpretability of the results?
t. Was the study longitudinal? Was the timing of the collection of data appropriate? Was he number of data collection points reasonable?
u. Was masking and blinding used at all? If yes who was blinded and was this adequate? If not was there an adequate rationale for failure to mask? Is the intervention such that could raise expectation that in and of themselves could alter the outcomes? Did the design minimize biases and threats to the internal and external validity of the study?
v. Are the extraneous variables identified and controlled?
w. Were pilot study findings used to design the major study? Briefly discuss the pilot study and the findings. Indicate the changes made in the major study based on the pilot.
x. Is the design logically linked to the sampling method and statistical analyses?
y. Does the design provide a mean to examine all of the objectives, questions or hypothesis and the study purpose?
iii. Setting:
Discuss the setting and whether it was appropriate for the conduct of the study.
iv. Population and Sample:
a. Was the population identified and described? Was the sample described in sufficient detail? Is the target population to which the findings will be generalized defined?
b. Was the best possible sampling design was used to enhance sample’s representativeness? Were sample biases minimized? What was the possibility of type II error?
c. Is the sampling method adequate to produce a sample that is representative of the study population? Is the sample representative of accessible and target population?
d. Was the sample size adequate? Identify the sample size. Indicate if a power analysis was conducted to determine sample size
e. Identify the inclusion and exclusion sample criteria. Are the sample selection procedures clearly delineated?
f. Indicate the method used to obtain the sample. Did the researchers identify the sampling frame for the study?
g. Do the sample and population specifications support an inference of construct validity with regard to population construct?
h. What type of sampling plan was used? What alternative sampling plan have been preferable? Was it the one that could be expected to yield a representative sample?
i. How were subjects recruited into the sample? Does the method suggest potential biases?
j. Did some factor other than the sampling plan affect the representativeness of the ample?
k. Are possible sample biases or weaknesses identified? What are the potential biases in the sampling method
l. Is the sample sufficiently large to support statistical conclusion validity? Was the sample size justified on the basis of a power analysis or other rationale?
m. Does the sample support inferences about external validity? To whom can the study results reasonably be generalized?
n. Are key characteristics of the sample described (female or male percentage, mean age etc.)
o. What number and percentage of the potential subjects refused to participate? Identify the sample mortality or attrition from the study. If so are justifications given?
p. If more than one group is used do the groups appear equivalent?
q. Have sample delimitations been established?
r. Would it be possible to replicate the study population? Does the researcher indicate how replication of the study with other samples would provide increased support for the findings?
v. Instrument/tools: BACK TO TOP
a. Are all of the measurement strategies /instruments identified and described? Identify the author of each measurement strategy. Identify the type of each measurement strategy (Likert, visual analogue, physiological measurement, questionnaire, interview, observation). Is there rationale for their selection given?
b. Is the method used appropriate to the problem being studied? Were the methods used appropriate to the clinical situation? Are they similar for all subjects?
c. Identify the level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval or ration) achieved with each instrument. Discuss how each study instrument was developed.
d. Report the reliability and validity of each instrument or scale from previous studies and the current study. Discuss the precision and accuracy of the physiological measurement methods used in a study.
e. Was the set of data collection instruments adequately pretested?
f. Do the instruments adequately measure the study variables? Were key variables operationalized using the best possible method( e.g. interviews, observations and so on) and with adequate justifications? Determine whether the type of measurement is direct or indirect.
g. Are the specific instruments adequately described in terms of reading level of questions, length of time to complete it, number of modules included and so on? Were they good choices, given the study purpose and study population? Was the mode of obtaining data was appropriate? (in person interview, mailed questionnaire, internet questioning)
h. Were self report data gathered in a manner that promoted high quality and unbiased responses( e.g. Privacy, efforts to put respondents at ease)
i. If observational data were used did the report adequately describe what specific constructs were observed? What was the unit of observation – was the approach molar or molecular?
j. Does the report provide evidence that data collection methods yielded data that were high on reliability and validity?
k. Are the instruments sufficiently sensitive to detect differences between subjects?
l. Is the validity and reliability of the instruments adequate for use in the study? Does the report offer evidence of the validity and reliability of measures? Does the evidence come from the research sample itself or is it based on other studies? If the latter is it reasonable to conclude that data quality would be similar for the research sample as for the reliability sample?
m. If validity and reliability is reported, which method of validity and reliability appraisal have been used? Was it appropriate? Is the reliability sufficiently high or the validity appear adequate? Should another method would have been used?
n. Do the instruments need further research to evaluate validity and reliability? If no information on validity and reliability, what conclusions can be reached on the quality of data?
Scales and Questionnaires:
Are the instruments clearly described? Described well enough to know whether it covers the subject?
-
Are techniques to administer, complete and score instruments provided?
-
Is the validity and reliability of the instruments described?
-
Did the researcher examine the reliability and the validity of the instruments for the present sample?
-
If the instrument was developed for the study, is the instrument process development described?
-
Are the majority of the items appropriately close or open ended?
-
Is there a clear indication that the subjects understood the questionnaire?
-
Is there evidence that subjects were able to perform the task?
-
·Observation:
-
Is what is to be observed clearly identified and defined?
-
Are interrater and intrarater reliability described?
-
Are the techniques for recording observations described?
-
Was there an observational guide?
-
Is there any reason to believe that the presence of the observers affected the behavior of the subjects?
-
Were observations performed using the principles of informed consent?
-
Was the researcher required to make inferences about what they saw?
Interviews:
Is the interview schedule described adequately enough to know whether it covers the subject?
-
Do the interview questions address concerns expressed in the research problem?
-
Are the interview questions relevant for research purpose and objectives, questions or hypotheses?
-
Does the design of the questions tend to bias subject’s responses?
-
Does the sequence of questions tend to bias subjects responses?
-
Is there clear indication that the subjects understood the task and questions?
Physiological measure:
Are the measures or instruments clearly described? If appropriate are the brand names identified?
-
Is the instrument used appropriate to the research problem and forced to fit it?
-
Is a rationale given for why a particular instrument was selected?
-
Is there a provision for evaluating the accuracy of the instrument and those who use it?
-
Are the accuracy, precision, selectivity, sensitivity, error of the physiological instruments discussed?
-
Are the methods for recording data from the physiological measures clearly described?
Available data and records:
Are the records used appropriate to the problem being studied?
-
Are the data examined in such a way as to provide new information and not summarize the records?
-
Has the author addressed questions of internal and external criticism?
-
Is there any indication of selection bias in the available records?
Focus groups:
What was the aim of the focus group?
-
Was he group size appropriate for the focus group method?
-
Was he group sufficiently homogeneous for its members to speak candidly?
-
Was the moderator successful in keeping the discussion focused?
-
Was the aim of the focus group achieved?
-
Did the conclusions appear to be valid representation of the discussion?
-
Were minority positions identified and explored?
Rating scale/ semantic differential scales/visual analogue scales:
Is the instrument clearly described?
-
Are the techniques that were used to administer and score the scale provided?
-
Is information about validity and reliability of the scale described from previous studies or present sample? Was the instrument development process described, if scale was developed for the study?
vi. Data collection:
a. Did the researcher make the right decision about collecting new data versus existing data for the study?
b. Did the researcher make good data collection decisions with regard to structure, quantification, researcher obtrusiveness and objectivity?
c. Were the right methods used to collect the data? Was triangulation of methods used appropriately – were multiple methods used sensibly? Are the data collection procedures were same for all subjects?
d. Was the right amount of data collected? Were data collected to address the varied needs of the study? Were too many data were collected in terms burdening study participants? And is so how this might have affected data quality?
e. Did the researcher use good instruments, in terms of congruence with underlying constructs, data quality, reputation, efficiency and so on? Were new instruments developed unnecessarily?
f. Did the report provide adequate information about data collectors and data collection procedure? Is the data collection process clearly described?
g. Is the data collection process conducted in a consistent manner? Are the data collection methods ethical? Do the data collected address the research objectives, questions or hypotheses?
h. Who collected the data? Were data collectors judiciously chosen? Did they have traits that undermined the collection of unbiased, high quality data or did their traits enhance data quality?
i. Was the training of data collectors described? Was the training adequate? Were steps taken to improve the data collector’s ability to elicit or produce high quality data or to monitor their performance?
j. Where and under what circumstances were data gathered? Was the setting for data collection appropriate?
k. Were other people present during data collection? Could the presence of others have resulted in any biases?
l. Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Did the intervention group did receive in intervention?
m. Was a category system or rating system used to organize and record observations? Were decisions about exhaustiveness and degree of observer inference appropriate?
n. What methods were used to sample observational units? Was the sampling approach good one? Did it likely to yield a representative sample of behavior? To what degree were observer biases controlled or minimized?
o. Were biophysiologic measures used in the study and was this appropriate? Were appropriate methods used to measure the variables of interest? Did the researcher appear to have the skills necessary for proper interpretation of bio-physiologic measures?
VI. Data analysis. BACK TO TOP
a. Are data analysis procedures clearly described? What statistical analyses are included in the research report? Identify the analysis techniques used to describe the sample
b. Do data analyses address each objective, Question or hypothesis?
c. Are data analyses procedures appropriate to the type of data collected?
d. Are the results presented in an understandable way?
e. Are tables and figures used to synthesize and emphasize certain findings? Do the tables/ graphs figures used agree with the text and extend it or do they merely repeat it? Were the tables, graphs, pictures clear, with a good title, carefully labeled headings.
f. Were appropriate descriptive statistics used? What descriptive statistics were reported? Do these statistics describe the major characteristics of the data set?
g. What level of measurement is used to measure each of the major variables? Were these descriptive statistics appropriate to the level of measurement of each variable?
h. Were any risk indexes computed? If not should they have been?
i. Is there appropriate summary statistics for each major variable?
j. Was the most powerful analytic method was used? Were type I and II errors were avoided or minimized?
k. Does the level of measurement and sample size permit the use of parametric statistics?
l. Are the statistics used appropriate to the problem, the hypothesis, the method, the sample and the level of measurement?
m. If non parametric tests were used was a rationale provided and does the rationale seem sound? Should more powerful parametric procedures have been used instead?
n. Are the results for each of the hypotheses presented appropriately? Are the tests that were used to analyze the data presented?
o. Is the information regarding the results presented, concise and sequential? Is the result interpreted in light of the hypotheses and theoretical framework an all the steps that preceded the results? Do the findings support the study framework?
p. Are the results clearly and completely stated? Presented objectively? Is there enough information to judge the results?
q. Was the level of significance or alpha identified? If so indicate the level. Identify the focus (description, relationship, differences) of each analysis technique, statistical procedures, test statistic, specific results, specific probability value in a table form
r. Are significant and nonsignificant findings explained? If the results were nonsignificant, was the sample size sufficient to detect significant differences? Was a power analysis conducted to examine nonsignificant findings?
s. Are the analyses interpreted appropriately? Does the interpretation of findings appear biased? Are the biases in the study identified?
t. Are there uncontrolled extraneous variables that may have influenced the findings? Do the conclusions fit the results from the analyses? Are the conclusions based on statistically and clinically significant results?
u. Were the statistically significant findings also examined for clinical significance? Is a distinction made between practical significance and statistical significance? How?
v. What conclusions did the researcher identify based on this study and previous research? Are any generalizations made, how did the researcher generalize the findings? Are the generalizations within the scope of the findings or beyond the findings?
w. Are findings reported in manner that facilitates a meta-analysis and with sufficient information needed for evidence based practice? Are the findings adequately summarized?
VII. Discussion: BACK TO TOP
a. What is the researcher’s interpretation of findings? Are all important results discussed? If not what is the likely explanation for omissions?
b. Did the researcher identify and discuss important study limitations and their effects on the results??
c. Are there inconsistencies of the report? Are the findings consistent with the results and with study’s limitations? Do the interpretations suggest distinct biases?
d. Are all major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior research and or the study’s conceptual framework? Are the findings consistent with previous research findings
e. Does the report address the issue of the generalizability of the findings? Are generalizations made that are not warranted on the basis of the sample used? Which findings are unexpected?
f. Are alternative explanations for the findings mentioned and is the rationale for their rejection presented?
g. Does the interpretation distinguish between practical and statistical significance? Are any unwarranted interpretations of causality made?
h. Do the researchers discuss the study’s implications for clinical practice, nursing education, nursing administration, nursing theory or make specific recommendations? What implications do the findings have for nursing practice? Are they reasonable and complete?
i. Are given implications appropriate given the study’s limitations and given the body of evidence from other studies? Are there important implications that the report neglected to include?
j. What suggestions/recommendations are made for further studies?
k. What are the missing elements of the study? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear to allow replication?
VII. Application and utilization: BACK TO TOP
a. How much confidence can be placed in the study findings? Are the findings an accurate reflection of reality? Do the study appear valid?
b. Are the findings related to the framework? Are the findings linked to those of previous studies? Are there other studies with similar findings? What do the findings add to the current body of knowledge? To what populations can the findings be generalized?
c. What research questions emerge from the findings? Are these questions identified by the researcher?
d. What is the overall quality of the study when strengths and weaknesses are summarized? Could any of the weaknesses have been corrected? Do the strengths outweigh the weaknesses?
e. Do the findings have potential for use in nursing practice? What risk/ benefit are involved for patients if the research findings would be used in practice?
f. Can the study be replicated by other researchers? Did the researcher use sound methodology? Do the findings accurately reflect reality? Are the findings credible?
g. Is direct application of the research findings feasible in terms of time, effort money and legal and ethical crisis? How and under what circumstances are the findings applicable to nursing practice?
h. Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline?
IX. Researcher credibility and presentation: BACK TO TOP
a. Does the researchers’ clinical, substantive or methodological qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?
b. Is the report well written, well organized and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis? Is the report placed logical sequence and useful location?
c. Was the written in a manner that makes the findings accessible to practicing nurses?
VII. Conclusion:
The exercise of a critique was a useful task to apply the knowledge of research. Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the study including the constraints and limitations, helped to review the research process. The exercise gives a room for thoughtfulness and to hold the analysis in practical terms. Thus the research critique gives room for the authenticity of the information and to analyze the credibility of the findings and to weigh the evidence base in terms of practicality, objectivity, utilization, application and replication possibility.
VIII. References
- Polit H, Beck C T. Nursing research. 8th ed. New Delhi: Williams and Wilkins; 2008.
- Burns N, Grove S K. Understanding nursing research. 4th ed. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2007.
- Wood G L, Haber J. Nursing research methods, critical appraisal and utilization. 5th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2002.
- Parahoo K. Nursing research. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave; 2006.
- .Mateo M A, Kirchhoff K T. Using and conducting nursing research in the clinical setting. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders company; 1999.
- Talbot L A. Principles and practice of nursing research. St. Louis: Mosby 1995.
< Previous Page 1, 2
BACK TO TOP
|
