Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies
Topic: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies
➢ Critiquing between a qualitative study and quantitative study in participants who have suffered a myocardial infarction (MI).
To complete this Assignment:
➢ Complete the two critiques using the appropriate templates.
➢ Write a 2- to 3-page paper that addresses the following:
➢ Contrast the types of information that you gained from examining the two different research approaches in the articles that you selected.
o Describe the general advantages and disadvantages of the two research approaches featured in the articles. Use examples from the articles for support.
o Formulate a response to the claim that qualitative research is not real science. Highlight the general insights that both quantitative and qualitative studies can provide to researchers. Support your response with references to the Learning Resources and other credible sources.
Critique Template for a Qualitative Study
Article reference (in APA style):
URL:
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
• Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
• What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
• How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research study of your choice.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study? What is its purpose? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the question must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
2. Researcher Pre-understandings
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-understandings? What does the article disclose about the researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the research problem?
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current, relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
5. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research question? What type of sampling strategy was used? Was it appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher stipulate that information redundancy was achieved?
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
8. Data Collection/Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation? Was triangulation used?
9. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
10. Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was provided that the researcher’s analysis was accurate and replicable?
11. Findings
What were the findings?
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings? Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings described?
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
Article reference (in APA style):
URL:
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
• Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
• What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
• How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Problem and Purpose
What are the problem and purpose of the referenced study? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the problem must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
2. Hypotheses and Research Questions
What are the hypotheses (or research questions/objectives) of the study? (Sometimes the hypotheses or study questions are listed in the Results section, rather than preceding the report of the methodology used. Occasionally, there will be no mention of hypotheses, but anytime there are inferential statistics used, the reader can recognize what the hypotheses are from looking at the results of statistical analysis.)
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current? Relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
5. Population
What population was sampled? How was the population sampled? Describe the method and criteria. How many subjects were in the sample?
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
8. Instruments and Strategies for Measurement
What instruments and/or other measurement strategies were used in data collection? Was information provided regarding the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments? If so, describe it.
9. Data Collection
What procedures were used for data collection?
10. Data Analysis
What methods of data analysis were used? Were they appropriate to the design and hypotheses?
11. Interpretation of Results
What results were obtained from data analysis? Is sufficient information given to interpret the results of data analysis?
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings? Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings described?
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their hypotheses as they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
Critique Template for a Mixed-Methods Study
Article reference (in APA style):
URL:
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
• Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
• What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
• How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research study of your choice.
MIXED-METHODS RESEARCH CRITIQUE
17. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study? What is its purpose? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the question must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
17. Researcher Pre-understandings and / or Hypotheses and Research Questions
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-understandings? What does the article disclose about the researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the research problem? What are the hypotheses (or research questions/objectives) of the study? (Sometimes the hypotheses or study questions are listed in the Results section, rather than preceding the report of the methodology used. Occasionally, there will be no mention of hypotheses, but anytime there are inferential statistics used, the reader can recognize what the hypotheses are from looking at the results of statistical analysis.)
18. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current, relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
19. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
20. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research question? What type of sampling strategy was used? Was it appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher stipulate that information redundancy was achieved?
21. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
22. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
23. Instruments, Data Collection, Data Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation? What instruments and/or other measurement strategies were used in data collection? Was information provided regarding the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments? If so, describe it. Was triangulation used?
24. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
25. Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was provided that the researcher’s analysis was accurate and replicable?
26. Findings
What were the findings?
27. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings? Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings described?
28. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
29. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
30. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
31. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
Critiquing Quantitative and Qualitative Studies
Name
Institution
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH TECHNIQUE
Petriček, G., Buljan, J., Prljević, G., Owens, P., & Vrcić-Keglević, M. (2015). Facing the diagnosis of myocardial infarction: a qualitative study. The European journal of general practice, 21(1), 19-25.
URL: /doi/full/10.3109/13814788.2014.907269
1 Research Issue and PurposeThe purpose of the study is to explore the early experience of patients who are newly diagnosed with myocardial infarction otherwise known as MI. The research question is what the new diagnosis of MI means to them emotionally and physically.
2 Researcher Pre-understandings The article includes the researchers' pre-understandings when it discloses the background information that they have about the topic they are studying which means that they are professionals in the health care sector and they perceive that failure to take into account the patient's experience hurts quality health care. While discussing the background, they identify the patient experience as one of the pillars of quality in health care and are concerned that little attention has been paid to address the issue.
3 Literature ReviewThe quality of the literature review is weak because the authors have not critiqued the literature and they only mentioned "other studies" without being specific on what the studies were all about and did not say the authors. There is just mentioned a study by Schaufel which they did not exhaust by doing analysis and critiquing. The article does not synthesize the literature as expected of any study.
4 Theoretical or Conceptual FrameworkThe theoretical framework used in the study is grounded theoretical framework, and it is used in nursing, especially in the qualitative research, The grounded theory is used alongside the theoretical sampling framework.
5 ParticipantsThe participants were 32 patients. Seventeen of the patients were interviewed in the GP's surgeries while 15 were interviewed in their own homes. The Purposeful sampling strategy was used, and it was appropriate. The sample size was not adequate, and the researchers did not show that information redundancy was achieved.
6 Protection of Human Research ParticipantsThere was a fair subject selection, informed consent and the participants addressed the vulnerability of the patients. The patients were asked where they would want the interviews conducted. A range of social characteristics was taken into consideration.
7 Research DesignSemi-structured individual interviews were carried out, and during the analysis, triangulation method was used. The research design was modeled from the previous studies.
8 Data Collection/Generation MethodsTriangulation technique was used. Interviews were conducted using an interview guide that involved five open-ended questions that dwelt on patients' experiences, and supplementary questions were applied to seek clarification, and the research questions were developed from literature.
9 CredibilityThe generated data were credible because they were collected from the participants who experienced the topic under study and the triangulation method was used to prove the validity of the data.
10 Data Analysis Open coding was applied in the data analysis where concepts were identified, and their dimensions and theoretical framework was developed, and at the 18th interview, data saturation was reached. All the investigators reached a consensus after doing independent investigations, and that enhanced the accuracy of the analysis.
FindingsThe patients who were diagnosed with MI for the first time felt that it threatened their life and the way they perceive their experience. There were feelings and expectations in which the patients who had an encounter with death expected biomedical approach while those that felt that their lives were not threatened needed emotional support.
Discussion of Findings<...