Many more articles were discovered indicating the authors did not perform an adequate literature search. MethodologyThe framework indicates that the methodology should clearly state the research approach, appropriate to the research problem and if strengths and weaknesses are noted.
Although the authors do not identify the study as quantitative the reader understands that it is since it uses findings that can be measured and deals with quantity of results as opposed to interpretation Munhall, Additionally the reader believed it is a deductive study since the authors looked at cross infection and objects in the hospital setting and narrowed it down to cross infection and case notes.
No strengths or weaknesses were acknowledged, which, Byrne states is needed so the reader can ascertain if the research is valid. Furthermore the authors state they sampled the spine of the case notes because this is where most hand contact occurs while reading them, however perhaps it could have been suggested sampling the inside since in, my experience, this is where most hand contact occurs.
However the Department of health state before and after patient contact hands should be washed, consequently the validity of their approach is questionable. Finally the reader would have liked the researches to explain why the notes were incubated at 37 degrees since an assumption could be made that they are simulating a hospital environment. In this paper there are no subjects only case notes.
Sample selectionThe framework suggests the selection approach is congruent to the methodology, clearly stated and if sample size is clearly stated. Since the sample selection method is unclear, it may have been inappropriate, denoting further flaws which affect the remainder of the paper. The sample size is clearly stated however but should have been included in the methodology giving the reader a reference when reading it.
Data collectionThe framework asks if the data collection procedures are adequately described. The authors describe the data collection procedure as recorded and analysed.
This gives the reader no understanding of how the data was collected, who document it, who interpreted it and where it was stored. This could have implications on the results since there may have been weaknesses in these areas such as the reliability of the collection tools, if the people who recorded and analysis it had training and if there could there be any contamination to the notes.
Ethical considerationsThe framework asks if the study involves humans has the study received ethics committee approval, if informed consent was sought, if confidentiality was assured and anonymity guaranteed.
Cormack, Royal college of physicians, The authors make no reference these three ethical codes so it is unknown if the patients agreed to their case notes being tested. This implies no consideration of ethical issues from the authors and questions what other considerations they have overlooked.
ResultsAccording to the framework the results should be clearly presented, internally consistent, have sufficient detail to enable the reader to judge, and asks how much confidence can be placed in the finding. However the table appears complex, confusing and impossible to understand; therefore the reader would question the internal consistency. In addition since the results are difficult to interpret the reader can not judge the reliability of the findings.
Data analysisThe framework states the approach should be appropriate to the type of data collected, statistical analysis should be correctly performed, should be sufficient analysis to decide whether significant differences are not caused by differences in other relevant variables and if the complete information is reported.
The authors approach was appropriate to the type of data collected since no other approach would be suitable. Nevertheless the researches do not state how they analysed the statistics so the reader can not judge any limitations.
DiscussionThe framework states the discussion should be balanced, drawn on previous research, weaknesses of the study acknowledged and clinical implications discussed. The discussion is not balanced since it focus upon the findings of pathogenic bacteria on case notes and subsequently formulates assumptions about MRSA surviving on case notes without research to back this up.
It vaguely draws upon the only previous research and mentions the result, which contradicts their own findings. ConclusionThe framework asks if the conclusions are supported by the results obtained. The conclusion the authors established was the possibility of transferring bacteria, however since the results are indecipherable it is impossible to determine if the conclusions are supported by the results. RecommendationThe framework states the recommendations should suggest further areas for research, and identify how any weaknesses in the study design could be avoided in future research.
There is no suggestion for further research; no weaknesses in the study design mentioned and no recommendations on how issues can be avoided. Therefore the reader believes this paper does not establish contamination from case notes, so is unreliable and lacks validity.
Application to practiceThe Department of Health states Clinical governance is the system through which National Health Service organisations are accountable for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care.
This could include finding gaps in current research, or if performing a study again on a new population would be the next step. The literature review for the qualitative study includes two sources. The sources were from and , while this article came out in The source is recent.
The quantitative study uses mostly primary sources in the literature review. This study was published in with the literature review sources ranging from Sources used in this review are studies about the proper technique for measuring blood pressure, things that affect blood pressure readings, and suggestions to help prevent symptomatic orthostatic hypotension. The literature review provides a basis for the study because it supports the claims that there is inconsistency about whether feet should be kept flat on the floor while measuring blood pressure, and whether it would skew measurements if legs were crossed.
If the study is based on a theory, the framework is a theoretical framework. The framework used by phenomenologists is based on the belief that human experience is property of the experience itself, not an outside observer. This is exactly how this study went. The study focused on the patient and what they were experiencing surrounding their procedure to have an awake craniotomy.
Quantitative research has many approaches to theoretical frameworks. The quantitative study does not seem to follow a theoretical framework. They state in the beginning that there are many things that can affect a blood pressure reading, and then continue on to say that research has not been consistent in whether feet should be flat on the floor.
This study could lead to the formation of hypothesis, or even a null hypothesis, regarding the effects of crossed legs on blood pressure readings. As tests are conducted, these theories would either be confirmed or deconfirmed and new theories can be made based on the results. The quantitative study could have been made stronger by identifying a specific population in the title and purpose statements. It leaves the reader wondering where the study might go.
It was not explained how they chose to only use men for the study. It was not explained how they chose to divide up the two groups of 50 participants each. The researchers could have made it clear to the readers as to why they chose the population that they did. They did, however, point out that further studies would need to be conducted on more populations to conclude a relationship.
There were no hypotheses made in this quantitative study. Their argument would have been made stronger having had one, or had a null hypothesis to refute. With a hypothesis and more detail about some aspects of the research process, this study would have been much stronger. Generally, it is an objective analysis of any piece of work not depending on its genre , which includes your personal thoughts on the subject.
You need to give the reader an idea of whether the author of an article based it on facts and credible information. Your main goal is to show your personal opinion, backed with evidence and arguments, so you need to be very attentive while reading the article and noting down key elements. Many students fail to complete this task, as they simply provide a summary of the analyzed paper, forgetting about personal approach and challenging your own skills and knowledge.
That is why it is so simple to make one of many mistakes, while completing an article critique. These mistakes may include:. If you follow all the recommendations, you will easily complete an outstanding article critique without any efforts! One of the ways of simplifying the whole process of completing the assignment is using an article critique example. Many students decide to download such samples in order to get an overall idea of how the assignment should look like and what key points should be added.
It is your way of making the whole process of creating an article critique simple and fun, following all the common rules and regulations.
Research Critique of Qualitative Research on Registered Nurses. Print Reference this. Published: 23rd March, Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Research Critique of Quantitative Research on Nursing Practice. the nurse must undertake an evaluation and critical review of research studies, to see if the research is useful and of sufficient quality to be applied to their practice (Fink, ). This essay evaluates a quantitative research article which has relevance to nursing practice.
Here is a really good example of a scholary research critique written by a student in EDRS The student who submitted this paper last semester earned a on his critique. When critiquing a research paper, you are evaluating the research and the argument made by the author. To evaluate a research article, one will need to look at what the author is claiming, their research methods, and any problems there might be with the claims made. Are the references in the article reliable? What process [ ].
No failings or limitations of the study or literature review are recognized implying no review or evaluation of the literature, which, according to Benton & Cormack () is central to the research process. Free Essay: The purpose of this paper is to critique a qualitative research article in all phases of the report. For this purpose, the article that will be.