|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instructions: Select an article from the choices provided within the module. Read the article and then review the checklist of items for each section of the article. In Column C, indicate if the article addressed the items in the corresponding row by writing
| Yes |
,
No |
, or
N/A |
. If the item is asking for a specific response, address the question in
|
| 1 |
–
|
| 3 |
sentences in the corresponding row.
Rate each section of the article on a scale of 1-
|
|
|
| 5 |
, with 1 being very low quality and 5 as very high quality. Place an “
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X |
” in the gray area directly below the rating. Include a comment in the relevant row to support the evaluation.
In each section, highlight the strengths and opportunities (if applicable) to justify your ratings.
|
Assignment Score |
Faculty Comments |
| Title |
|
|
|
| Check |
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes, No, N/A |
1 2 3
| 4 |
5
|
|
|
|
|
| Strengths |
|
|
|
|
|
| Opportunities for Improvement |
| 5 points |
X
| Is the title specific, concise, and effective in helping you to understand what the article is about? |
5
| Abstract |
Check Yes, No, N/A X Strengths Opportunities for Improvement 5 points
| Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the research problem, sample, methodology, results, and recommendations? |
5
| Background/Introduction |
Yes, No, N/A X Strengths Opportunities for Improvement
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
points
| Is the purpose for the study or the research problem clearly introduced?
|
15
| Is adequate essential background information on the topic/problem area provided? |
| Is the importance of the research as it relates to the larger population discussed? |
| Is the literature review comprehensive and relevant? |
| Does the literature review adequately support the need for the study? |
| Are the majority of sources original research that have been published in peer-reviewed journals within about 5 years of the study? |
| Do the authors identify gaps in the field that support a need for the current study? |
| Are the aims of this study clearly stated? |
| If a hypothesis is being tested, is it clearly stated? If so, what is it? |
| For the qualitative component – was a theoretical framework identified? |
| Methods & Procedures |
Check Yes, No, N/A X Strengths Opportunities for Improvement
|
|
| 15 points |
| Is the research design clearly described and is it appropriate for the study questions? |
15
| Are all procedures described in sufficient detail so that they could be duplicated? |
| Did the study receive IRB/ethics committee approval? |
| Do the methods minimize potential sources of bias? (consider randomization, blinding) |
| Has the target population been clearly described? |
| Is the sample selection criteria clearly described (including selection methods, eligibility and exclusion criteria, sample size) and does the sample represent the target population? |
| If experimental, is the intervention or treatment appropriate for addressing the study question? |
| If experimental, was there a control group or intervention and was it appropriate? |
| If experimental, was compliance with treatment measured? |
| Were data collection procedures clear and appropriate? (quantitative section) |
| Was the reliability and validity of each instrument discussed? (quantitative section) |
| Were data analysis procedures clearly explained? (quantitative and qualitative if applicable) |
| If longitudinal, was the study duration appropriate to observe outcomes and was frequency of measurements adequate? (quantitative) |
| Was data saturation received? (qualitative) |
| Did the researcher include at least one of the following strategies to enhance the quality of the study: triangulation, external audits, member checking, negative case analysis, peer review /debriefing, prolonged engagement/persistent observation, or reflexivity? (qualitative) |
| Results |
Yes, No, N/A X Strengths Opportunities for Improvement 15 points
| Are all results clearly presented in text, tables and/or graphs? |
15
| If the study included groups, were any baseline differences between groups controlled for in the statistical analyses? (quantitative) |
| Are all participants who entered the study accounted for in the results? If some dropped-out, was adequate explanation provided? |
| If experimental, was compliance addressed in the results? Were negative side-effects of treatment presented for all groups? (quantitative) |
| Did the researchers attempt to control for potential confounding variables in their analyses? (quantitative) |
| Was significance and/or effect size presented for all analyses of interest? (quantitative) |
| Are the results explained in a relationship to the theoretical framework? (qualitative) |
| Based on the data presented, are the findings credible? (qualitative)
|
| Was there any method of triangulation used to confirm the results ? (qualitative) |
| Discussion/Conclusion |
Check Yes, No, N/A X Strengths Opportunities for Improvement 15 points
| Is a summary of key findings and how they relate to the study objectives (or hypothesis) provided? |
15
| Do the researchers conservatively interpret the result, rather than extrapolate too far beyond the scope of the study design or target population? |
| Were the limitations of the study and related implications discussed? |
| Were the study results discussed in the context of the existing research, explaining possible differences in outcomes or how these results further our knowledge? |
| Do the researchers describe the implications for practice? |
| Do the researchers make recommendations for further research? |
| Report Quality |
Check Yes, No, N/A X Strengths Opportunities for Improvement 15 points
| Is the article well written, free of grammatical errors, concise yet complete, organized? |
15
| Are all images, tables, or figures clearly labeled and understandable? |
| Are authors’ affiliations and any conflicts of interest discussed? |
| If applicable, is the study’s funding source or donation of any study items (e.g., dietary supplements, foods) disclosed? |
| Are the majority of sources cited in the introduction and discussion original research published in peer-reviewed journals? Are they mostly recent (within ~ 5 years prior publication)? |
| Points Earned from Rating Table |
85 |
| Points Earned on Final Feedback |
15
| Overall Rating of Article
|
1 2 3 4 5
| Exceptional |
Total Points for Assignment |
100 |
X
| Refer to your notes above to respond to the three questions in the space below (in less than 150 words per question). |
| 1. Identify three strengths of the article and explain the reasons why. |
| 2. Identify three opportunities to improve the article and explain the reasons why.
|
| 3. Offer your ideas for future research that expands upon this study.
|
| PLEASE CITE THE ARTICLE YOU USED HERE |
| *Checklist adapted from Jolley (2013, pp. 216-219); Kaplan (n.d.). http://www.nursingworld.org/research-toolkit/Framework-for-How-to-Read-and-Critique-a-Research-Study); Ryan, Coughlan, and Cronin (2007). |
