Flashcards in Chapter 14 Critiquing Research Reports Deck (9)
1. Critical evaluation of a piece of reported research. Usually 2 or 3 pages long; typically not published.
2. Involves evaluating the *strengths and weaknesses* of the research process to determine the overall *applicability* of findings.
1. Identification and summary of major findings and characteristics of a study.
2. Involves giving a synopsis of the study, pointing out major characteristics of the study, highlighting key points and major features, and discussing implications for practice.
Constructive vs. destructive critique
Professionalism, etiquette, and empathy for the researcher should be used; strengths/areas of excellence should be discussed first; weaknesses/criticisms should be supported by explanations; focus should be on advising the researcher and improving the work and nursing science at large.
Deciding the overall usefulness of a research report requires _
Systematic review and critical appraisal.
Research Appraisal Checklist
A tool for evaluating research reports consisting of a set of 50 statements grouped into eight categories (title; abstract; problem; review of literature; methodology; data analysis; discussion; form and style). Each statement is scored from 1 to 4, and the eight categories are weighted (by the evaluator) to reflect the relative importance of each category.
Main sections of a research critique
1. Problem statement.
2. Research methodology.
3. Results, conclusions, and interpretations.
4. Recommendations/implications for further study in practice, education, research.
Limitations in qualitative research reports
Qualitative research studies should *not* include sample size as a limitation (qualitative research studies will always have a small sample size); lack of information for how saturation was achieved *is* a limitation.
In critiquing a research report, where does the researcher state the particular question(s) to be investigated?