Critical review of research papers

Critique

Research evidence is typically communicated via research reports, which describe what was studied, how it was studied and what was found (Polit & Beck, 2014). However, research is not always scientifically sound, even though it has been published. Therefore, it is important that Nurses can critically assess a research paper.

The next part of this assignment involves critiquing your two articles and critically discussing this process. A critique generally examines the strengths and weaknesses of the research and its contribution to theory and practice. Various critiquing tools are available to help with this process (e.g. Polit & Beck, 2010; 2014; Holland & Rees, 2010;

There is no one-right-way of doing this; some students structure their critique section around the different sections of the reports (i.e. ‘Introduction/Literature-review’, ‘Methods’, ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’) whilst others may structure it around the categories suggested by Polit and Beck (2010): ‘Substantive’, ‘Theoretical’, ‘Methodological’, ‘Interpretive’, ‘Ethical’ and ‘Stylistic’. You should also consider discussing more general quality indicators arising from your critique (e.g. bias, validity and reliability for quantitative studies and Trustworthiness for qualitative studies).

It is advisable to critique both of your studies in draft, before writing this part of the assignment. This section should be about 1600 words (approx. 800 per study). It is recommended that you write about both of the studies separately in this section.

You may wish to structure this part of the assignment around the key sections of the research reports. For example: ‘introductory sections’ (i.e. title, abstract, introduction/literature review); ‘methods sections’ (i.e. sample, design, procedures, theoretical background etc.); ‘results’ (statistical analysis or themes), and ‘Discussion’.

For each section, it is useful to provide a short DESCRIPTION (keep this succinct and focused). Then ANALYSE what this actually means, or what can be interpreted. Then discuss your CRITIQUE by looking at positive factors as well as limitations/gaps and drawbacks.

Remember, do not just describe the studies – you need to show evidence of having critiqued them and writing about them in a critical way (this is what will get you high marks).

Whist each critiquing tool is a little different, here are some examples of the things you might choose to critically discuss:

Introductory sections – Are the title and abstract clear, informative and accessible? – What are the implications for this? Does the introduction clearly describe and discuss the phenomena, concepts or variables to be examined? Des the literature they review help to justify and provide rationale for their study? Do they show the clinical importance, public awareness or theoretical implications behind the research? Are the aims clearly stated? Do they lead to one or more hypotheses or research questions?

Method – This part of a research paper usually consists of a variety of subsections which can include: Participants, Design (quantitative) or Methodological Background (qualitative), Materials, Procedure and Analysis. This is an important section and will require some reading about research methodology. You may also refer back to the lecture slides surrounding methods, methodology and research design. Methods sections usually begin with a description of the sample of participants used. You may want to focus on whether the population and sample was clearly described, and whether the sampling strategy was effective. Was the sample size adequate? – What are the implications for this? is there any sampling bias? Depending on your study, the authors may make use of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then may also include discussion on attrition (people may leave or die before results can be obtained). The following snippet provides two examples of what this may look like using two fictitious studies. These are a quantitative experimental study by Griffin el al. (2010) and a qualitative thematic study by Knifton et al. (2015):

You will need to show some understanding of the methods and offer critique (remember again that critique can be both positive as well as negative). What research design or methodology was used? Was it an RCT / experimental design? Quasi-experiment? Correlational design? Survey? Longitudinal study? (quants) Or was it a thematic analysis, IPA study, grounded theory? Framework analysis? (quals). What are the strengths and limitations of the approach used (use additional literature to read about the type of approach that was used?) Was it the most rigorous approach considering the research aims? What data collection tools were used? If it is a questionnaire, was it developed by the research team? Or was it developed elsewhere? Is it valid and reliable? What variables were measured? (quants). If it was an experiment what were the IV(s) and DV(s)? Critically discuss these areas.

Was the procedure clearly described? Was it appropriate? Was data collected in a manner that minimised bias?

What about ethics? – Are these discussed? Look at the slides from the session you have had on research ethics.

Analysis and Results – How do the studies describe, analyse and present their results? This may include you critically discussing the type of statistical tests used, the data characteristics and distributions (quants), or the categories / themes, theories or models generated from the data (quals). For your quantitative paper, consider what level of data were analysed? (i.e. nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio) – If it were an experiment/quasi-experiment, what level were the DVs? – Was the statistical test appropriate? Do you think there was any measurement bias? If it was more of a survey, how were the results presented? (i.e. graphs, pie charts, tables, box-plots etc). Look at the lecture slides on qualitative and quantitative research.  These should help you pick out things to look at.

If your quantitative paper uses inferential statistics (i.e. tests of difference, multivariate analysis, correlation or regression), you should discuss the numerical components, including effect sizes, p-values, (were the findings statistically significant?) and the statistical tests used.

Were the researchers comparing scores from two groups? If so, they may have used chi-square (x²) for ordinal level variables (e.g. stages of cancer), or an independent-samples t-test (t) for interval/ratio level data (e.g. weight). If they were comparing scores for more than two groups, they may have used ANOVA (F) for interval/ratio level data, or Kruskal Wallis for ordinal data. Some studies may look for differences in a groups before and after an intervention and use a paired-samples t-test or a mixed ANOVA.  MANOVA (F) is more complicated and is for comparing scores on two or more dependent variables between two or more groups.

Some researchers may be interested in looking for relationships between variables (i.e. blood-pressure and weight). They may use Pearson’s correlation (r) for interval/ratio data, or Spearman’s correlation (r_s) for ordinal data. Regression (R), is sometimes used to examine whether changes in one or more variables (i.e. smoking frequency and BMI) can predict changes in another variable (i.e. fitness). Analyse and critique not only what was done, but the ways in which the studies communicated this to the reader. The following snippet reflects a section of the critique discussing the analysis of two fictitious papers:

“Using a thematic approach, Knifton et al. (2015) examined the experiences of taking FX43 to treat depression. They conducted semi-structured interviews with adults diagnosed with affective dis (N = 12). Braun and Clarke (2006) emphasise the importance of rigour and transparency when conducting thematic analysis and suggest six sequential steps involved in generating themes. However, Knifton et al (2015) do not provide much detail as to how their themes were derived, which brings into question how rigorous the analysis was.”

“Griffin et al.’s (2010) experimental study offered only vague details about the data analysis. Whilst they reported a significant reduction in depression using ANOVA, they did not discuss the size of the effect. Whilst this lack of detail may reflect word limitations of the journal, it raises questions surrounding the methodological rigour and trustworthiness of the findings. Field (2010) argues that effect sizes are important to understand the………” 

Discussion and Conclusion Sections – You may wish to critique the discussion and conclusion sections of the papers. These sections are meant to interpret the results and to put them in context for the reader. How the two papers have done this? Do they refer back to the research question(s) or hypotheses? Do they relate their research to practice, theory and to the ‘bigger picture’? It should also indicate the authors thoughts – do they discuss the limitations of their study?  Again, refer back to the lecture on ethics to help you critique this.  Discussions should never contain new data/findings.  If it does, critique this. Consider why this has been done.

Your Discussion Section (200 words):

Summarise your critique, and discuss the papers together – Compare them. Discuss the strengths and limitations of each and their associated research paradigms (i.e. quantitative and qualitative). Is one approach more suitable for your research area?

Use 18 and above references ( DMU Harvard referencing style)

References should be from DMU library – CINAHL or British Nursing Database ( BNI) + peer reviewed – no older than 10 years