1. research article : Irwin, M., Bergman R., & Richards, R. (2013). The experience of implementing evidence-based practice change: A qualitative analysis. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 17(5), 544-549.
2. Research critique Grid : Attached below
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
assignment2
Just from $13/Page
3. Complete each section of the research critique grid. The “Analysis” section of the research critique grid should be specific. Use bullet points for this section and support each yes/no analysis with comments.
4. Critique the article and include the strengths and weaknesses.
5. The research critique grid should be added as an appendix to this paper.
6. The scholarly paper should be in narrative format 2-3 pages, excluding the title, reference and appendix pages.
7. Include an introductory paragraph, purpose statement, body (summary page) and a conclusion.
8. Include level 1 and 2 headings to organize the paper.
9. Write the paper in third person, not first person (meaning do not use ‘we’ or ‘I’) and in a scholarly manner. To clarify: I, we, you, me, our may not be used. In addition, describing yourself as the researcher or the author should not be used.
10. Include the chosen article in the reference page.
11. APA format is required (attention to spelling/grammar, a title page, a reference page, and in-text citations).
12. Submit the assignment to Turnitin prior to the final submission, review the originality report, and make any needed changes.
13. Submit by the posted due date.
Research Critique Framework: Qualitative
|
Aspect of the Report
|
Critiquing Questions
|
Answer
Yes/No
|
Comment(s)
|
|
Title
|
Is the title a good one, suggesting the phenomena and the group or community understudy?
|
|
Abstract
|
Did the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusion)?
|
|
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
|
Was the problem stated unambiguously, and was it easy to identify?
Is the problem significant for nursing?
Did the problem statement build a persuasive argument for the new study?
Was there a good match between the research problem and the methods used – that is, was a qualitative approach appropriate?
|
|
Research Questions
|
Were research questions explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified?
Were questions consistent with the study’s philosophical basis, underlying tradition, or ideological orientation?
|
|
Literature Review
|
Did the report adequately summarize the existing body of knowledge related to the problem?
Did the literature review provide a strong basis for the new study?
|
|
Conceptual/Theoretical Underpinnings
|
Were key concepts adequately defined conceptually?
Was the philosophical basis, underlying tradition, conceptual framework, r ideological orientation made explicit and was it appropriate for the problem?
|
|
Method
Protection of Human Rights
|
Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants?
Was the study externally reviewed by an IRB/ethics review board?
Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants?
|
|
Research Design
|
Was the identified research tradition congruent with the methods used to collect and analyze data?
Was an adequate amount of time spent with study participants?
Did the design unfold during the data collection, giving researchers opportunities to capitalize on early understandings?
Was there an adequate number of contacts with study participants?
minimized?
|
|
Sample and Setting
|
Was the population adequately identified?
Was the sample described in sufficient detail?
Was the approach used to recruit participants or gain access to the site productive and appropriate?
Was the best possible method of sampling used to enhance information richness and address the needs of the study?
|
|
Data Collection
|
Were the methods of data gathering appropriate?
Were data collected 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 the appropriate fashion?
Was a sufficient amount of data gathered?
|
|
Procedures
|
Were data collection and recording procedures adequately described and do they appear appropriate?
Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Were the staff who collected data appropriated trained?
|
|
Enhancement of trustworthiness
|
Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness and integrity of the study?
Were the methods for trustworthiness adequate?
Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable?
|
|
Results
Data Analysis
|
Were the data management and data analysis methods adequately described?
Did the analysis yield an appropriate “product” (a theory, taxonomy, thematic pattern)?
Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of bias?
|
|
Findings
|
Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments?
Did the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data?
Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation?
|
|
Theoretical integration
|
Were the themes or patterns logically connected to each other to form a convincing and integrated whole?
Were figures, maps, or models used effectively to summarize conceptualizations?
If a conceptual framework or ideological orientation guided the study, were the themes or patterns linked to it in a cogent manner?
|
|
Discussion
Interpretation of the findings
|
Were the findings interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context?
Were major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies?
Were the interpretations consistent with the study’s limitations?
|
|
Implications/recommendations
|
Did the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research-and were those implications reasonable and complete?
|
|
General Issues
Presentation
|
Was the report well-written, organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis?
Was the description of the methods, findings, and interpretations sufficiently rich and vivid?
|
|
Researcher credibility
|
Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?
|
|
Summary Assessment
|
Do the study findings appear to be trustworthy-do you 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?
|
Note. Adapted from “Guide to an Overall Critique of a Qualitative Research Report,” by D. F. Polit and C. T. Beck, 2017, Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice (10th ed.), pp. 106-109.
