Reference no: EM133090534

MSN 600 Qualitative Research Critique Formal Paper

Critically Appraising Literature Reviews

1. Is the review thorough does it include all major studies on the topic? Does it include recent research (studies published within the previous 1-3 years)? Are studies from other related disciplines included, if appropriate?
2. Does the review rely mainly on primary source research articles?
3. Is the review merely a summary of existing work, or does it critically appraise and compare key studies? Does the review identify important trends and gaps in the literature?
4. Is the review well organized? Is the development of ideas clear?
5. Does the review use appropriate language regarding the tentativeness of prior findings? Is the review objective? Does the author paraphrase, or is there an overreliance on quotes from original sources?
6. If the review is part of a research report for a new study, does the review support the need for the study?

7. If it is a review designed to summarize evidence for clinical practice, does the review draw reasonable conclusions about practice implications?

Question Guide Categories with Questions to Address for Qualitative

Research Critique

Title:
-Is the title of study clear and accurate? Explain.
-Does the title reflect the topic of interest (phenomenon) and group or community being studied? Explain.
-Does the title reflect the group or community being studied? Explain.

Abstract:
-Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the article? Explain. Introduction-Purpose:
-Is the study purpose clearly/directly stated? Explain.
-What is the study purpose?

Introduction-Significance:
-Is the significance for the study described? Explain.
-Is the problem significant to nursing? Explain.
Introduction-Statement of Problem:
-Is the problem statement stated clearlyAlinxily and easy to identify? Explain.
-What is the problem statement?
-Does the problem statement build a cogent and persuasive argument for the new study? Explain Introduction-Qualitative Method Used:
-Is the type of qualitative method stated or inferred? Explain.
-What is the type of qualitative method (phenomenology. grounded theory. ethnography, narrative theory, and such)?
-Is the qualitative approach appropriate? Consider if there is a good match between the research problem and the paradigm, tradition, and methods. Explain.

Introduction-Research Question:
- Are the research questions present and explicitly stated? Explain. If not, arc their absence justified? Explain.
-If present, are the research quest ions consistent with the study's philosophical basis, underlying tradition, or ideologic orientation? Explain.
Introduction-Literature Review:
-Was the review thorough-did the review include all major studies on the topic? Did the review include current research (studies published within the last three to five years)? Were studies from other related disciplines included, if appropriate? Explain.
-Did the review rely mainly on primary source research articles? Explain.
-Was the review merely a summary of existing work, or did it critically appraise and compare key studies? Did the review identify important trends and gaps in the literature? Explain. -Was the review well organized? Was the development of ideas clear? Explain.
-Did the review use appropriate language regarding the tentativeness of prior findings? Was the review objective? Did the author paraphrase, or was there an overreliance on quotes from original sources? Explain.
-If the review was part of a research ankle for a new study, did the review support the need for the study? Explain.
-If it was a review designed to summarize evidence for clinical practice. did the review draw reasonable conclusions about practice implications? Explain.

Introduction-Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks:
- Did the article describe an explicit theoretical or conceptual framework for the study? If not. did the absence of a framework detract from the usefulness or significance of the research? Explain.
-Did the article adequately describe the major features of the theory or model so that readers could understand the study's conceptual basis? Explain. Did the theory or model fit the research problem? Would a different framework have been more appropriate? Explain.
-Did the research problem, hypotheses (if any), and study methods naturally flow from the framework, or did the purported link between the problem and the framework seem contrived? Were deductions from the theory logical? Explain.
-Were concepts adequately defined, and in a way that was consistent with the theory? If there
- Were self-report data gathered in a manner that promoted high-quality responses (e.g., in terms of privacy, efforts to put respondents at ease, etc.)? Explain.
-If observational methods were used, did the report adequately describe what the observations entailed? What did the researcher actually observe, in what types of settings did the observations occur, and how often and over how long a period were observations made? Were decisions about positioning described? Explain.
-Was sufficient time spent in data collection? Explain.
-What role did the researcher assume in terms of being an observer and a participant? Was this role appropriate? Explain.
-Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Explain.
-Were the right questions and/or observations recorded in an appropriate fashion? Explain. -Who collected the data, and were they adequately prepared for the task? Explain.

Overall question: Was there evidence that data derived from the research study was trustworthy (as described in Chapter 26 of Polit and Beck, 2020)? Questions to address:
-Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustwonhiness integrity of the study. and was there a good description of those strategies? Which specific techniques did the researcher use to enhance the trustworthiness and integrity of the inquiry? What quality-enhancement strategies were not used? Would additional strategies have strengthened confidence in the study and its evidence? Explain.
- Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings were authentic (auditable and confirmable)? Explain.
- Were results interpreted in light of findings from other studies? Explain.
-Given the efforts to enhance data quality, what can be concluded about the study's validity/rigor/trustworthiness? Explain.
-Did the researchers discuss the study's implications for clinical practice or future research? Were the implications well-grounded in the study evidence? Explain.
-Did the report discuss any study limitations and their possible effects on the credibility of the results or on interpretations of the data? Explain.
-Was there evidence of researcher reflexivity? Explain.

-Was there evidence of researcher reflexivity? Explain.
-Was there "thick description" of the context. pan icipanis. and findings. and was it at a sufficient level to support transferability? Explain.
Refer to chapter 26 in Poll and Beck (2020)

Results-Data Analysis:
-Was the data analysis strategy/method compatible with the research tradition and with the nature and type of data gathered? Explain.
-Were major analytic decisions communicated in the article (e.g., who did the analysis and transcription)? Were the decisions reasonable ones? Explain.
-Were the coding process and coding scheme described? If so. does the process seem reasonable? Does the scheme appear logical and complete? Does there stem to he unnecessary overlap or redundancy in the codes? Explain.
- Were manual methods used to index and organize the data, or was computer software used' Explain.
- Does the article adequately describe the process by which the actual analysis was performed? If codes were collapsed into categories, does the resulting set of categories make sense? Explain. -What major themes or processes were gleaned from the data? If excerpts from the data were provided, do the themes appear to capture the meaning of the narratives-that is, does it appear that the researcher adequately interpreted the data and conceptualized the themes or categories? Explain.
-What evidence does the report provide that the analysis is accurate and appropriate? Were data shared in a manner that allows you to verify the researcher's conclusions? Explain.
-Was a metaphor used to communicate key elements of the analysis? Did the metaphor offer an insightful view of the findings, or did it seem contrived? Explain.
-Was the context of the phenomenon adequately described? Does the ankle give you a clear picture of the social or emotional world of study participants? Explain.
-Did the analysis yield a meaningful and insightful picture of the phenomenon under study-or is the resulting theory or description trivial and obvious? Explain.
-Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of biases? Explain.

Refer to chapter 25 in Polls and Beck (2020) to assist when synthesizing information to provide complete answers. Questions from Bar 252 (Guidelines for Critically Appraising Qualitative Analyses and Interpretations) of chapter 25 in Polls and Beck (2020) Results-Findings:
-Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments? Explain.
-Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation? Explain.
Results-Theoretical integration:
- Were the themes or patterns logically connected to each other to form a convincing and integrated whole?
-Did the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data? Explain.
-Was discussion of key findings congruent with the research approach? Explain. Discussion-Interpretation of the findings:
-Were the findings discussed and interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context and within the context of prior studies? Explain.
-Were interpretations consistent with the study's limitations? Explain.
-Did the article address the transferability and applicability of the findings? Such as: Did the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research, and were those implications reasonable and complete? Explain. Personal Rellection/Coneluslon:

The personal reflectintkonclusion should answer questions such as: -How does the article contribute to your understanding of research? -Does the article change your views of the topic?
-What do you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of the article?
-Do the study findings appear to be trustworthy--do you have confidence in the troth value of the results?
-Does the ankle inspire confidence about the types of people and settings for whom the evidence is applicable?

The paper is to be written using APA (2020) 7th edition format