Critique Of A Research Article Nursing Essay

Critique research articles mean careful and critical appraisal of strength and limitations of a piece of research, rather than hunting for and exposing mistake (Polt and Beck 2008).

A critical review is an evaluation of an academic article or essay. It makes judgment, positive or negative, about the text using various criteria. It is an overall critical appraisal, which mainly focus on the reliability, validity, strengths and weakness, rather than the faults or weakness of the research (New South Wales University, learning Centre).

It is the summarization and evaluation of the ideas and information in an article. It expresses the writer’s point of view in the light of what you already know on the subject and what is acquired from related texts.

Purpose of the essay- The aim of this assignment is to develop a solid understanding of the experiences of residents in nursing home care by critiquing a published qualitative health research.

In this article critical thinking frame work is based on critical review guideline for qualitative studies by Beck, C 2009, ‘Critiquing Qualitative Research, Aorn Journal, vol 90,issue 4, pp. 543-545.

Reason behind to use this frame is that this frame provides specific guideline and cover all most all questions of critique such as how to do critique on title, phenomenon, structure, research design analysis data, findings and other prospective of the article.

TITLE: The title is catchy and peaks the interest of the reader. Title of the study is well described and self-explanatory. Resident’s while living in a nursing home are clearly identified as the key phenomenon being investigated. The article title included o age of participants, their experiences of interpersonal relationship factors in nursing home care (Kitto, 2010, p-201).

Title indicates that it is a qualitative study and title match with context of article. The objective of study is clearly stated in title.

ABSTRACT: The abstract is clearly and concisely summarised the main features of the

report like background, objectives, participants, method, design, setting, results and

conclusion. Background stated that the number of those who needing care in nursing home

will also increase dramatically over the period of next 20 years (Huber et al., 2009).

Quality of care across developed countries mainly focus on patient safety, excellence in care

and patient satisfaction (Nakrem et al., 2009)

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The problem statement is unequivocally and easily located

in the first paragraph of the article. The researcher focus on how nursing home quality can be

understand from resident point of view. The problem certainly has significance for nursing

because the life expectancy and number of resident will increase in next 20 years. The

problem statement convinced clearly and having a ability to persuade because the study is a

great under standing of interpersonal factors which are very important for improving the

quality of patient nurse relationship in nursing homes. This Statement of problem does build

a cogent and persuasive argument for the new study as the consideration of interpersonal

relationship factors and quality of nursing care could be difference from nurses and

resident’s perspective. It has great significance in nursing as people who were the owners

of the house is now the resident’s of the nursing home. So they feel their integrity is at risk

in nurse patient interaction and care. They feel more dependent and sometime helpless. So it

is very important to study those aspects and find out the drawbacks and rectified them so

the residents feel safer, secure and live their life happily in nursing home. The match

between the research problem and the qualitative paradigm and tradition used in the study is

good. The researcher used the phenomenological methods in order to explain the life

experience of people in nursing home in regards to quality of care and their expectations.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Nursing question mean generating and assessing evidence for

nursing (Hilarie, 2011, p-105).

In this article author did not clearly state the researcher question, the author did ask research

question, and author further divided the each research question in to sub categories for more

understanding of problems. Qualitative method of data collection fit the research question by

using phenomenological theory, in residents with lived experience (Polit, Beck & Hungler

2001,p-214).

LITERATURE REVIEW: The reporter adequately summarized research that had been

conducted on the phenomenon of interpersonal aspects of nursing care. The author clearly

stated the gaps in the knowledge, in previous study it was identified that to provide good

quality of care and to understand interpersonal aspect of care is essential and residents are

primary source to find out the interpersonal factor and outcomes of care, on other hand recent

study provide better understanding of interpersonal factor by taking depth interviews of the

residence in order to improve the residents relationship with their nurses and also in the

improvement of the quality of nursing.

CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS: The researcher provided a conceptual definition of

the key concept of interpersonal aspects of quality care. This helps the reader to understand

what interpersonal aspects of nursing referred to, and it include not only medical care but also

physical and psychological care, to protect their integrity and to recognize their individual

psychosocial needs. The researcher did not stated philosophical basis of this study in

introduction. The author did not make any conceptual framework for this study, he just

compare and contrast the content on one research theory to compare the content of the

study.

METHODS:

PROTECTING THE PARTICIPANT’S RIGHTS: Approval was obtained from regional committee for medical and health research. The Ethical issues related to the research include informed consent, the identity of the researcher, the purpose and nature of the study, the right to refuse and to participate and other such as responsibilities of researcher and possible study benefits, privacy, autonomy, confidentiality, etc. these all aspects were taken into consideration by regional committee of medical and health research ethics. For data collection, confidentiality and right to refuse and withdrawal and written consent in addition to oral consent was taken from residents (Minichiello et al, 2004).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND RESEARCH TRADITION

This is a qualitative study and the author has used a descriptive and exploratory research design. A phenomenological method is used in which the idea is taken from of the individuals who have actually experienced the situation ( Poor in text referencing

The researchers used the phenomenological study to describe the life experiences of people in nursing home in regards to quality of care and their expectations. An adequate time was spent with participants, each interview was lasted for one hour, and author find that the long-term residents are individuals with individual background but they also have a shared meaning of experience living in nursing home.

SAMPLE AND SETTING

Participate individuals are selected to participate in qualitative research is based on there

first hand experience with a culture social or phenomenon interest (poor in text referencing, see the student learning centre for help with this, Strabert, Dona,

Rinaldi, Carpenta, 2011,p-28)

There are no hard and fast rules about numbers, Participants were selected on based of

condition and on the eligible criteria completed by the team. This is the plus point

for the research (Rawlinson &Annette 1999, p.859)

Initially 24 participants between the ages of 45 to 100 years were chosen from four

municipal public nursing homes in Norway. But only 15 participants chosen 9 women,

75-92 years old and 6 men 80- 96 years old. For qualitative study it could be 10 -100 but

minimum 30 should be when looking for evidence or trying to achieve maximum variation

(Tuckett, 2004,p-2)

The inclusion criteria was set on the basis that they were mentally sound residents in the nursing home for minimum of a month and longer and had physical and mental capacity to participate.

DATA COLLECTION: Yes, the method of gathering data is appropriate. The data was collected by in-depth interviews with the residents. To assist the residents an interview guide with open-ended questions, conducted all interviews and probes were used. Three experts reviewed it. A narrative approach was used to encourage the resident to freely speak about their experience. The interviewer repeated and summarised during the interviews to check whether it was correct.

PROCEDURE: The procedure used to collect and record data were adequately described

and were appropriate for phenomenological study. Because resident tell there views to the

researcher in interviews and bias were minimised but the author did not discussed about

staff training for data collection.

ENCHANCEMENT AND RIGOR: The rigor in qualitative research is demonstrated through researches attention to confirmation of information discovered. The goal of rigor in qualitative research is to accurately represent study participant experiences (Helen, Streubert, Dona, Rinaldi 2011,p-48)

Yes, different methods was used to enhance the trustworthiness of the data and analysis, to enhance rigour in data analysis the authors of the article were all involved in discussions about development of analytical concepts. Researcher documented researcher procedures and decision process sufficiently to confirm that the finding is suitable and confirmable, the author himself and two other interviewers coded interview separately and compared with the coding done by main author and discussed for abstraction in categories and subgroups in meeting.

DATA ANALYSIS: Yes data is sufficiently described, data was analysed by recording and transcribed the data by verbally, the data analytical approach was consisted of coding with categorization, and Interviewer took notes and summarized them. An electronic tool was used for mind mapping as well. To enhancing the rigour of the study all authors were involved in discussion about the development of analytical concepts (Ryan, Nichollas & Will 2009).

FINDINGS: Finding from the qualitative studies may be a show constructive format of phenomena (Polit, Beck & Hungler 2001.p.313).

The findings of this research highlight and acknowledge the importance of nurses in general and specialized care, prevention of complications and prioritizing the individual needs. In this article Findings also expressed the quality of care according to resident’s point of view to optimize and fulfil their medical, physical and psychosocial needs whilst protecting their integrity. Findings were all expressed in the article under separate subheadings for easy review and understanding.

INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDING: Finding is interpreted within an appropriate frame. Author focused on finding related to interpersonal factor of direct nursing care. Yes the finding interpreted and discussed within the context of previous studies. The author compares the study with the previous study. Both studies focus on the interpersonal aspect of care so that nurses can provide better quality of care to residents the author also mention about limitation of this study nurse as representative of the health care took interview from the residents might be reluctant to criticize the nursing home quality and author did not put much efforts to understand cultural of the interviewees. Author did not address the issue of transferability of the finding due to small sample consisting of mentally lucid residents from four nursing homes.

IMPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION:

PRESENTATION: The report was well written, flowed logically, and was written in enough detail for critical analysis the description of finding was rich and powerful.

RESEARCHER CREDIBILITY: The researcher qualification enhanced confidence in the

finding. Researcher was member of Norway college of nursing facility.

SUMMARY ASSESMENT: The study result appears trustworthy. This study provide some

evidence that can be used in nursing practice in help in improving (Beck, 2009).

This study provide some evidence that can be used in nursing practice in help in improving interpersonal relationship and quality of care in nursing homes. Appear to be trustworthy but author could take more sample/ participants in this study to make finding more general.

CONCLUSION

Study provides a snap shot of how residential care is experienced by older person. There is a

need for more innovative carring of programmes, which combine nursing homes, such as

intimacy, privacy, autonomy (Galvin, Cathy, and Roiste 2005,p-92).

Overall, this was a good qualitative article. The research used a qualitative research design to

explore the experience of residents those who live in the nursing home and providing the

evidence for the practice for the healthcare to fulfill the individual needs through

interpersonal relationship. However, study sample taken was small and the interview was

taken by one of the nurse of the nursing may be this effect the views of the resident. Does this affect the study really as many qualitative studies are like this?

REFERENCES

Beck, C 2009, ‘Critiquing Qualitative Research,’ Aorn Journal, vol. 90, no.4, pp. 543-545.

Galvin, Cathy, Roiste and Aine 2005, Living in care: older person experience of nursing homes, Irish Journal of applied social studies, vol. 6, issue.1.

Minichiello, V Sullivan, G Greenwood, K and Axford, R 2004, Handbook of research methods for nursing and health science, 2nd Pearson Education Australia, Australia.

Nakrem, S, Vinsnes, A. G, Seim, A, 2011. ‘Residents experiences of interpersonal factors in nursing home care: A qualitative study’, International Journal of Nursing Studies vol .48 no.11, pp. 1357-1366.

New South Wales University Learning Centre n.d., Writing a Critical Review, viewed 21 Oct 2011.

Polit, D.F & Beck, C.T, 2008, Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice, 8thedn, pp.105-138, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, USA.

Polit, DF, Beck, CT & Hungler, BP 2001, Essential of nursing research methods, appraisal, and utilization, 5th edn, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, USA.

Ryan-Nicholls, KD & Will, CI 2009, ‘Rigour in qualitative research: mechanisms for control’, Nurse Researcher, vol. 16, no. 3, viewed 9 September 2012.

Taylor, B & Roberts, K 2007, Research in nursing and health care: evidence for practice, 3rd edn, Thomson, South Melbourne.

Thomas, Sp & Pollio, HR 2002, Listening to patients: a phenomenological approach to nursing research and practice, Springer, New York.

Vivilaki, V & Johnson, M 2008, ‘Research philosophy and Socrates: rediscovering the birth of phenomenology’, Nurse Researcher, vol. 16, no. 1, viewed 9 September 2012).

Hello Amanpreet your paper is sadly too similar to that of Gurpreet Kaur (see below)

Which of you wrote this paper? Anyway to hand up the same paper even substantially is a violation of Academic Integrity Rules at Flinders.

I have shared this paper with Dr Lily Xiao.

I am very sorry to read this. Victoria

Critiquing Qualitative Research

Basic Questions for Critiquing Title & Introduction in Qualitative Reports

Title

Was the title a good one, suggesting the key

phenomenon and the group or community under

study?

Introduction    

Statement of the problem

Is the problem stated unambiguously and is it easy

to identify?

Does the problem statement build a cogent and

persuasive argument for the new study?

Does the problem have significance for nursing?

Is there a good match between the research

problem on the one hand and the paradigm, tradition,

and methods on the other?

Research questions

Are research questions explicitly stated?  If not, is

their absence justified?

Are the questions consistent with the study’s

philosophical basis, underlying tradition, conceptual

framework, or ideological orientation?

Literature review

Does the report adequately summarize the existing

body of knowledge related to the problem or

phenomenon of interest?

Does the literature review provide a solid basis for

the new study?

Conceptual underpinnings

Are key concepts adequately defined conceptually?

Is the philosophical basis, underlying tradition,

conceptual framework, or ideological orientation

made explicit and is it appropriate for the problem?

Basic Questions for Critiquing Results in Qualitative Reports

 

Results

Data analysis

Were the data management (e.g., coding) and data

analysis methods sufficiently described?

Was the data analysis strategy compatible with the

research tradition and with the nature and type of data

gathered?

Did the analysis yield an appropriate “product”

(e.g., a theory, taxonomy, thematic pattern, etc.)?

Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of

biases?

Findings

Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use

of excerpts and supporting arguments?

Do the temes adequately capture the meaning of the

data?

Does it appear that the research satisfactorily

conceptualized the themes or patterns in the data?

Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, and

meaningful picture of the phenomenon under

investigation?

Theoretical integration

Are the themes or patterns logically connected to each

other to form a convincing and integrated whole?

Were the figures, maps, or models used effectively to

summarize conceptualizations?

If a conceptual framework or ideological orientation

guided the study, are the themes or patterns linked to it

in a cogent manner?

Basic Questions for Critiquing Discussion in Qualitative Reports

 

Discussion

Interpretation of the findings

Are the findings interpreted within an

appropriate frame of reference?

Are major findings interpreted and

discussed within the context of prior studies?

Are the interpretations consistent with the

study’s limitations?

Does the report address the issue of the

transferability of the findings?

Implications and recommendations

Do the researchers discuss the implications

of the study for clinical practice or further

inquiry, and are those implications

reasonable and complete?

Basic Questions for Critiquing Methods in Qualitative Reports

Methods

Protection of participants’ rights

Were appropriate procedures used to

safeguard the rights of study

participants?

Was the study subject to external

review?

Was the study designed to minimize

risks and maximize benefits to

participants?

Research design and research tradition

Is the identified research tradition

(if any) congruent with the methods

used to collect and analyze data?

Was an adequate amount of time

spent in the field or with study

participants?

Did the design unfold in the field,

giving researchers opportunities to

capitalize on early understandings?

Was there evidence of reflexivity in the

design?

Was there an adequate number of

contacts with study participants?

Sample and setting

Was the group or population of interest

adequately described?

Were the setting and sample described

in sufficient detail?

Was the approach used to gain access

to the site or to recruit participants

appropriate?

Was the best possible method of

sampling used to enhance information richness and

address the needs of the study?

Was the sample size adequate?

Was saturation achieved?

Data collection

Were the methods of gathering data

appropriate?

Were data gathered through two or

more methods to achieve triangulation?

Did the researcher ask the right

questions or make the right

observations, and were they recorded

in an appropriate fashion?

Was a sufficient amount of data

gathered?

Was the data of sufficient depth and

richness?

Procedures

Were data collection and recording

procedures adequately described and

do they appear appropriate?

Was data collected in a manner that

minimized bias or behavioral distortions?

Were the staff who collected data appropriately trained?

Enhancement of rigor

Were methods used to enhance the trustworthiness of the data

(and analysis), and was the description of those methods adequate?

Were the methods used to enhance credibility appropriate and

sufficient?

Did the researcher document research procedures and decision

processes sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable?

Basic Questions for Critiquing Global Issues in Qualitative Reports

Global Issues

Presentation

Was the report well written, well organized, and sufficiently detailed

for critical analysis?

Were the descriptions of the methods, findings, and interpretations

sufficiently rich and vivid?

Researcher(s) credibility

Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodological

qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings

and their interpretation?

Summary assessment

Do the study findings appear to be trustworthy and do you have

confidence in the truth value of the results?

Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be

used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline?

Please add rubric

FU logo L mono

Faculty of Health Sciences

School of Nursing & Midwifery

NURS2107/NURS2107A Evidence for Health Care Practice 2

Content marking guide for assignment 3

Introduction (20%)

Grade

HD

D

C

P

F

Purpose of essay clearly stated (2.5%)

x

No stated purpose

A critical review explained/defined (2.5%)

x

No explanation/definition

Potential benefits of conducting critical reviews clearly explained (5%)

x

Potential benefits of conducting critical reviews not stated

Article to be reviewed introduced and context set (2.5%)

x

No introduction of article to be reviewed or context set

Critical thinking framework(s) clearly outlined and rationale for using them explained (5%)

x

No explanation of critical thinking framework(s)

Structure/headings of essay clearly stated (2.5%)

x

Structure/headings of essay not clear

Critical review: quantitative study (40%)

Grade

HD

D

C

P

F

Critique of title, authors and journal (2.5%)

No critique of title, authors and journal

Critique of abstract (2.5%)

No critique of abstract

Critique of introduction/literature review /background (10%)

No critique of literature review

Critique of research design/methodology/methods (10%)

No critique of research design/methodology/methods

Critique of validity and reliability (2.5%)

No critique of validity and reliability

Critique of ethical issues (2.5%)

No critique of ethical issues

Critique of findings (5%)

No critique of findings

Critique of discussion, conclusions, implications, limitations and recommendations (5%)

No critique of discussion, conclusions, implications, limitations and recommendations

Conclusions: quantitative study (10%)

Grade

HD

D

C

P

F

Effective and succinct summary of main findings of critical review (5%)

No summary of main findings of critique process

Established significance of study’s findings relating to evidence-based practice (5%)

Significance of study’s findings relating to evidence-based practice not stated

Critical review: qualitative study (40%)

Grade

HD

D

C

P

F

Critique of title, authors and journal (2.5%)

x

No critique of title, authors and journal

Critique of abstract (2.5%)

x

No critique of abstract

Critique of introduction/literature review /background (10%)

x

No critique of literature review

Critique of research design/methodology/methods (10%)

x

No critique of research design/methodology/methods

Critique of study rigour (2.5%)

x

No critique of validity and reliability or rigour

Critique of ethical issues (2.5%)

x

No critique of ethical issues

Critique of findings (5%)

x

No critique of findings

Critique of discussion, conclusions, implications, limitations and recommendations (5%)

x

No critique of discussion, conclusions, implications, limitations and recommendations

Conclusions: qualitative study (10%)

Effective and succinct summary of main findings of critical review (5%)

x

No summary of main findings of the critique process

Establishing significance of study’s findings relating to evidence-based practice (5%)

x

Significance of study’s findings relating to evidence-based practice not stated

Critical thinking and writing (15%)

Grade

HD

D

C

P

F

Relevant guidelines for critical reviews developed and attached to assignment (5%)

x

No guidelines developed for critical reviews

Sound arguments developed and examples, evidence, reasoning, comparisons and so on used to support arguments (5%)

x

No arguments developed in the essay

Writing expression and presentation clear and well organised (5%)

x

Unclear expression of ideas and inadequate presentation or no use of headings

References (15%)

Grade

HD

D

C

P

F

Correct use of in-text referencing style (5%)

x

Incorrect use of in-text references style

Correct use of reference list style (5%)

x

Incorrect use of reference list style

At least three articles and one additional research textbook used as references besides required textbooks and readings (5%)

x

No additional articles and textbooks used as references

Further comments

Please ensure that you make a critique more ‘objective’ by having clear evidence to support or refute you statements against. You also need help with academic writing and referencing, I suggest visiting the Student Learning Centre (ask at the Sturt Library) for help with this, however you would have passed had you not copied from someone else.

Overall grade / mark: Pass- NOW FAIL DUE TO ACADEMIC INTEGRITY ISSUES_ THIS PAPER IS TOO SIMILAR TO Gurpreet GAUR’s work

FU logo L mono

Faculty of Health Sciences

School of Nursing & Midwifery

NURS2107/NURS2107A Evidence for Health Care Practice 2

Content marking guide for assignment 3

Introduction (20%)

Grade

HD

D

C

P

F

Purpose of essay clearly stated (2.5%)

y

No stated purpose

A critical review explained/defined (2.5%)

No explanation/definition

Potential benefits of conducting critical reviews clearly explained (5%)

Potential benefits of conducting critical reviews not stated

Article to be reviewed introduced and context set (2.5%)

No introduction of article to be reviewed or context set

Critical thinking framework(s) clearly outlined and rationale for using them explained (5%)

No explanation of critical thinking framework(s)

Structure/headings of essay clearly stated (2.5%)

Structure/headings of essay not clear

Critical review: quantitative study (40%)

Grade

HD

D

C

P

F

Critique of title, authors and journal (2.5%)

No critique of title, authors and journal

Critique of abstract (2.5%)

No critique of abstract

Critique of introduction/literature review /background (10%)

No critique of literature review

Critique of research design/methodology/methods (10%)

No critique of research design/methodology/methods

Critique of validity and reliability (2.5%)

No critique of validity and reliability

Critique of ethical issues (2.5%)

No critique of ethical issues

Critique of findings (5%)

No critique of findings

Critique of discussion, conclusions, implications, limitations and recommendations (5%)

No critique of discussion, conclusions, implications, limitations and recommendations

Conclusions: quantitative study (10%)

Grade

HD

D

C

P

F

Effective and succinct summary of main findings of critical review (5%)

No summary of main finding