ASSIGNMENT

ON
RESEARCH
CRITIQUE
INTRODUCTION:-
What is a critique? It is a professional analysis of the weaknesses and strengths of a particular piece of
research. A critique may be done for a variety of purposes: acting as an expert reviewer to assess whether this
research paper should be published; providing helpful comments on a work before it is submitted for
publication (e.g., panel discussant or reading a friend’s paper); or, as in the case here, as a learning experience
for emerging scholars to practice their developing research skills.

A critique emphasizes the same elements as a research design (and then some) and evaluates how well
the author has carried out these elements. The “and then some” part is that, for completed research, a critique
also covers the data analysis and whether that has been properly carried out and interpreted. A critique is not
necessarily 100 percent, or even any percent, critical. It may be predominantly positive. Below are some items
to consider in preparing a critique. Not all will be applicable for every research paper nor are you required to
comment on all of them for each paper. Instead focus on items you identified as the most serious potential
problems or most praiseworthy. Each critique should be about 2-3 pages single spaced or 4-5 pages double
spaced in length.

DEFINITION:

A formal analysis and evaluation of a text, production, or performance--either one's own (a self-critique) or
someone else's

According to Wikipedia

Research critique is thoughtfulexamination of various aspects of research and evaluating the strength and
limitations of the study

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH CRITIQUE:-

• It highlights the strength & weakness of the research.
• It helps to learn the appropriate methods of conducting research
• It improves critical thinking & better presentation
• It helps to master over the methodology and analytical skills.
QUALITIES OF A GOOD CRITIQUE:-
• It should study both strength & limitations
• It should justify criticism
• Be as objective as possible
• Be sensitive in handling negative comments
• Suggest realistic alteration
• Evaluate all aspects of the study

ELEMENTS OF A RESEARCH CRITIQUE:-

A. Substantive and theoretical dimensions

1. Importance & relevance
2. Soundness of conceptualizations
3. Appropriateness of the theoretical framework
4. Is design suited to research problem?

B. Methodological dimensions
1. Design
2. Sample – subjects
3. Data collection methods
4. Data analysis
5. Balance between the ideal and the feasible

C. Ethical dimensions
1. Inadvertent
2. Intentional

D. Interpretive dimensions

E. Presentation and stylistic dimensions

IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH CRITIQUE:-

Nursing research has a tremendous influence on current and future professional nursing practice, thus
rendering it an essential component of the educational process. This article chronicles the learning
experiences of two undergraduate nursing students who were provided with the opportunity to become
team members in a study funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research. The application process,
the various learning opportunities and responsibilities performed by the students, and the benefits and
outcomes of the experience are described. The authors hope that by sharing their learning experiences,
more students will be given similar opportunities using the strategies presented in this article. Nursing
research is critical to the nursing profession and is necessary for continuing advancements that promote
optimal nursing care

WHAT NOT TO INCLUDE IN A CRITIQUE

a) It is not legitimate to criticize the research paper for something beyond its purpose. Don’t complain that an
author did not include something unless that something is a necessary part of a research article. For example, if
a study examines presidential use of news conferences from Kennedy to Reagan, don’t complain that it did not
include later presidents unless there is a clear reason why doing so undermines the research. Focus on what the
author sought to accomplish, not what you wished they had done.

b) Do not require the unobtainable. We all would like perfect data and ideal measures for variables, but
neither usually exists in reality. It is legitimate to criticize data or measures if better ones are readily available.
Otherwise don’t complain if the author has done the best she can with imperfect data.

c) Do not make an abundance of broad and general statements of the type: “This research was well done with
an interesting question and good data.” This means nothing. You must be concrete, describing specific
strengths and weaknesses. Clearly state your reasons for concluding that the author has either done a good or
less-than-good job on one or more parts of the elements of research.

d) Friends don’t let friends turn in sloppy research. Making nothing but positive comments on a fellow
student’s paper is of no value whatsoever. We are here to learn, both as a graduate student and throughout your
scholarly life. Definitely praise items where the author was particularly creative, industrious, or ingenious.
But also comment (politely, but firmly) on weaknesses so the author can address them before turning a paper in
for a grade or as a journal submission.

GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH STUDY CRITIQUE:

I. TITLE:

 Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the study population?

II. ABSTRACT:

 Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features (problem, methods, research
conclusions)

III. INTRODUCTION

I. Problem statement:

a. What is the study problem? Is it easy to locate?

b. Is the problem stated clearly and unambiguously? Is it easy to identify?

c. Does the problem statement build a cogent and persuasive argument for the new study?
Has the research problem been substantiated with adequate experiential and scientific
background material?

d. Does the problem stated, expresses a relationship between two or more variables or at least
between dependent and independent variable, implying empirical testability?

e. Does the problem specify the nature of the population being studied?

f. Does the problem have significance and relevance to nursing? Is the quantitative/
qualitative approach appropriate?

g. Is there a match between the research problem and paradigm and methods used?

h. Is the problem sufficiently narrow in scope without being trivial?

i. Was this study feasible to conduct in terms of money commitment; the researcher’s
expertise; availability of subjects, facility, equipment; ethical considerations?
j. Has the research problem been placed within the context of an appropriate theoretical
framework?

k. Does the statement or purpose specify the nature of the population being studied?

ii. Purpose:

a. What is the study purpose?

b. Does the purpose narrow and clarify the focus or aim of the study and identify the research
variables, population and setting?

c. Is it worded appropriately? Are verbs used appropriately to suggest the nature of the
inquiry and or the research tradition?

iii. Objectives:

a. Formally stated? Clearly and concisely stated?

b. Logically linked to purpose?

c. Linked to concepts and relationships from the framework?

d. Measurable or potentially measurable and achievable?

e. Do they clearly identify the variables and population studied?

iv. Hypotheses:

Are they

a. Properly worded?

b. Stated objectively without value laden words?

c. Stating a predictive relationship between variables?

d. Stated in such a way that they are testable?

e. Directional or non directional/ research or statistical? Is the direction clearly stated? Are
they causal, associative or simplex versus complex?

f. Is there a rationale for how they were stated?

g. Clearly and concisely expressed with variables and study population?

h. Logically linked to the research problem and purpose?

i. Linked to concepts, relationships from the framework and literature review?

j. Used to direct the conduct of the study?

k. Absent? If so is their absence justified? Are statistical tests used in analyzing the data
despite the absence of stated hypothesis?

l. Derived from a theory or previous research? Is there a justifiable basis for the predictions?

m. Specific to one relationship so that each hypothesis can be either supported or not
supported?

v. Conceptual framework:

a. Is the study framework identified? Is a particular theory or model identified as a

framework for the study?

b. Is the framework explicitly expressed or must be extracted from the literature review?

c. Does the absence of a framework detract from the usefulness or significance of the
research?

d. Does the framework describe and define the concepts of interest or major features of the
theory/ model so that readers can understand the conceptual basis of the study?

e. Does the framework present the relationships among the concepts?

f. Is a map or model of the framework provided for clarity? If a map or model is not
provided, develop one that presents the study’s framework and describe it.

g. If there was an intervention, was there a cogent theoretical basis or rationale for the
intervention?

h. Is the theory or model used as the basis for generating hypothesis that were tested or is it
used as an organizational or interpretive framework? Was this appropriate?

i. Is the theory/ model appropriate for the research problem? Would a different framework
have been fitting?

j. Are deductions from theory are logical?

k. Links the concepts in the framework, with the variables in the study

l. Is the framework presented with clarity?

m. Are the concepts adequately defined in way that is consistent with the theory? If there is
an intervention, are intervention components consistent with the theory?

n. Do the problem and hypothesis naturally flow from the framework? Or is the link
contrived?

o. Is the framework related to nursing’s body of knowledge? Is it based on a conceptual

model of nursing or a model developed by nurses? Is it borrowed from another discipline,
is there adequate justification for its use?

p. Is the framework linked to the research purpose?

q. Is there a link between the framework, concepts being studied and the methods of
measurement

r. If the proposition from a theory is to be tested, is the proposition clearly identified and
linked to the study hypotheses?

s. Was sufficient literature presented to support study of the selected concepts?

t. Did the framework guide the study methods?

u. Does the researcher tie the findings of the study back to the framework at the end of the
report? How do the findings support or undermine the framework? Are the findings
interpreted within the context of the framework?

vi. Variables

a. Do the variables reflect the concepts identified in the framework?

b. Are the variables clearly defined (conceptually and operationally) based on previous
research and or theories?

c. Is the conceptual definition of a variable consistent with the operational definition? Do the
theoretical definitions correspond to the conceptual definitions?

d. Are the variables that are manipulate or measured in the study consistent with the variables
identified in the purpose or the objectives, hypothesis?

e. Are the major variables or concepts identified and defined (conceptually and
operationally)? Identify and define the appropriate variables included in the study:
Independent variables, Dependent variables, Research variables or concepts

f. What attribute or demographic variables are examined in the study?

 g. Were the extraneous variables identified and controlled as necessary in the study?

h. Are there uncontrolled extraneous variables that may have influenced the findings? Is the
potential impact of these variables on the findings discussed?

IV. Review of literature

a. Is the literature review presented? Does it reflect critical thinking?

b. Are all relevant concepts and variables included in the review?

c. Are relevant previous studies (including, from other disciplines) identified and described?

d. Are relevant theories and models identified and described?

e. Are the references current? Examine the number of sources in the last five and ten years in
the reference list.

f. Is the review thorough? Does it identify/uncover the gaps or inconsistencies in literature?

g. Is the review up-to-date?

h. Is it based on primary sources? Are secondary sources cited?

i. Provides a state of the art synthesis of evidence on the research problem?

j. Does it provide solid basis for the new study? Does the summary of the current empirical
and theoretical knowledge provide a basis for the study

k. Are the studies critiqued by the author?

l. Is a summary of the current knowledge provided? This summary needs to include what is
known and not known about the research problem.

m. Does the critique of each reviewed study include strengths, weakness, limitations of the
design; conflicts; essential components of the design like size and type of sample,
instruments its validity and reliability

n. Is the review well organized, flow logically, written concisely? Is the development of ideas
clear to demonstrate the progressive development of ideas through previous research?

o. Is the review objective?

p. Is there use of appropriate language?

q. If it is a review designed to summarize evidence for clinical practice. Does the review,
draw appropriate conclusions about practice implications?
 r. Is a theoretical knowledge base developed for the problem and purpose? Does it follow the
purposes of the study?

s. Does the literature review provide a rationale and direction for the study?

t. Are both conceptual and data based literature included?

u. Is there a written summary synthesis of the reviewed scholarly literature?

v. Does the summary follow a logical sequence that leads reader to reasons why the
particular research or non research project is needed?

V. Methodology:

i. Ethical considerations:

a. Are the rights of human subjects protected?

b. Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants used?

c. Was the study subjected to an external review? Was the study approved and monitored by
an institutional review board, research ethics board or other similar ethics review
committee?

d. Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants? Did the
benefits outweigh any potential risks or actual discomfort they experienced?

e. Did the benefits to society outweigh the costs to participants?

f. Was any undue coercion or undue influence used to recruit participants? Did they have the
right to refuse to participate or to withdraw without penalty?

g. Were the study participants subjected to any physical harm, discomfort or psychological
distress? Did the researchers take appropriate steps to remove or prevent harm?

h. Were participants deceived in anyway? Were they fully aware of participating in a study
and did they understand the purpose and nature of research?

i. Were the subjects informed about the purpose and nature of the study?

j. Were appropriate informed consent procedures used with all subjects? Was the information
essential for the consent provided? If not were there valid and justifiable reasons. Were
the subjects capable of comprehending the information, competent to give consent? Did it
seem that the subjects participated voluntarily?
k. Were adequate steps taken to safeguard the privacy of the participants. How data was kept
anonymous or confidential? Was a certificate of confidentiality obtained?

l. Were vulnerable groups involved in the research? If yes, were special precautions
instituted because of their vulnerable status?.

m. Were groups omitted from the enquiry without a justifiable rationale?

n. Discuss the institutional review board approval obtained from University/agency where the
study was conducted

ii. Design:

a. Is the research design clearly addressed? Identify the specific design of the study. Is the
design employed appropriate?

b. Does the research question imply a question about the causal relationship between the
independent and dependent variables?

c. What would be strongest design for the research question? How does this compare to the
design actually used? Was the most rigorous possible design used, given the purpose of
the research?

d. Does the researcher use the various concepts of control that are consistent with the type of
design chosen?

e. Does the design seem to reflect the issues of economy?

f. What elements are controlled? What elements could have been controlled to improve the
design?

g. What was the feasibility of controlling particular elements of the study? What was the
effect of not controlling these elements on the validity of the study findings?

h. Were appropriate comparisons made to enhance interpretability of findings?

i. What elements of the design were manipulated and how were they manipulated? How
adequate was the manipulation? What elements should have been manipulated to improve
the validity of findings?

j. Does the design used seem to flow from the proposed research problem, theoretical
framework, literature review and the hypothesis?

k. What are the threats to internal and external validity?

l. What are the controls for the threats of internal and external validity?

m. Does the study include a treatment or intervention? If so is the treatment is clearly defined
conceptually and operationally? Clearly described and consistently implemented? Was the
control of comparison condition adequately explained? What justification from the
literature provided for development of the experimental intervention? Was the
intervention best that could be provided given current knowledge?

n. Does the study report, who implemented the treatment? If more than one person were they
trained to ensure consistency in the delivery of the treatment? Was any control or
comparison group intervention described?

o. Was there a protocol developed to ensure consistent or reliable implementation of the

treatment with each subject throughout the study? Was an intervention theory provided to
explain why the intervention causes the outcomes and exactly how the intervention
produced the desired effects?

p. If experimental (or quasi) study, what specific experimental (or quasi) design was used?
Were randomization procedures adequately explained? Is there adequate justification for
failure to randomize subjects to treatment conditions? What evidence does the report
provide that any groups being compared were equivalent before interventions?

q. If the study was non experimental, was the study inherently non experimental? What was
the design used? If retrospective, was there adequate justification for failure to use
prospective design? What evidence does the report provide that any groups being
compared were similar with regard to important extraneous characteristics?

r. If the study has more than one group, how were the subjects assigned to groups?

s. What type of comparisons are specified in the design (before-after, between groups)? Do
these comparisons adequately illuminate the relationship between the independent and
dependent variables? If there are no comparisons, or flawed comparisons, how does this
affect the integrity of the study and the interpretability of the results?

t. Was the study longitudinal? Was the timing of the collection of data appropriate? Was he
number of data collection points reasonable?

u. Was masking and blinding used at all? If yes who was blinded and was this adequate? If
not was there an adequate rationale for failure to mask? Is the intervention such that could
raise expectation that in and of themselves could alter the outcomes? Did the design
minimize biases and threats to the internal and external validity of the study?
v. Are the extraneous variables identified and controlled?

w. Were pilot study findings used to design the major study? Briefly discuss the pilot study
and the findings. Indicate the changes made in the major study based on the pilot.

x. Is the design logically linked to the sampling method and statistical analyses?

y. Does the design provide a mean to examine all of the objectives, questions or hypothesis
and the study purpose?

iii. Setting:

Discuss the setting and whether it was appropriate for the conduct of the study.

iv. Population and Sample:

a. Was the population identified and described? Was the sample described in sufficient
detail? Is the target population to which the findings will be generalized defined?

b. Was the best possible sampling design was used to enhance sample’s representativeness?
Were sample biases minimized? What was the possibility of type II error?

c. Is the sampling method adequate to produce a sample that is representative of the study
population? Is the sample representative of accessible and target population?

d. Was the sample size adequate? Identify the sample size. Indicate if a power analysis was
conducted to determine sample size

e. Identify the inclusion and exclusion sample criteria. Are the sample selection procedures
clearly delineated?

f. Indicate the method used to obtain the sample. Did the researchers identify the sampling
frame for the study?

g. Do the sample and population specifications support an inference of construct validity with
regard to population construct?

h. What type of sampling plan was used? What alternative sampling plan have been
preferable? Was it the one that could be expected to yield a representative sample?

i. How were subjects recruited into the sample? Does the method suggest potential biases?

j. Did some factor other than the sampling plan affect the representativeness of the sample?
k. Are possible sample biases or weaknesses identified? What are the potential biases in the
sampling method

l. Is the sample sufficiently large to support statistical conclusion validity? Was the sample
size justified on the basis of a power analysis or other rationale?

m. Does the sample support inferences about external validity? To whom can the study
results reasonably be generalized?

n. Are key characteristics of the sample described (female or male percentage, mean age etc.)

o. What number and percentage of the potential subjects refused to participate? Identify the
sample mortality or attrition from the study. If so are justifications given?

p. If more than one group is used do the groups appear equivalent?

q. Have sample delimitations been established?

r. Would it be possible to replicate the study population? Does the researcher indicate how
replication of the study with other samples would provide increased support for the
findings?

v. Instrument/tools:

a. Are all of the measurement strategies /instruments identified and described? Identify the
author of each measurement strategy. Identify the type of each measurement strategy
(Likert, visual analogue, physiological measurement, questionnaire, interview,
observation). Is there rationale for their selection given?

b. Is the method used appropriate to the problem being studied? Were the methods used
appropriate to the clinical situation? Are they similar for all subjects?

c. Identify the level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval or ration) achieved with each
instrument. Discuss how each study instrument was developed.

d. Report the reliability and validity of each instrument or scale from previous studies and the
current study. Discuss the precision and accuracy of the physiological measurement
methods used in a study.

e. Was the set of data collection instruments adequately pretested?

f. Do the instruments adequately measure the study variables? Were key variables
operationalized using the best possible method( e.g. interviews, observations and so on)
 and with adequate justifications? Determine whether the type of measurement is direct or
indirect.

g. Are the specific instruments adequately described in terms of reading level of questions,
length of time to complete it, number of modules included and so on? Were they good
choices, given the study purpose and study population? Was the mode of obtaining data
was appropriate? (in person interview, mailed questionnaire, internet questioning)

h. Were self report data gathered in a manner that promoted high quality and unbiased
responses( e.g. Privacy, efforts to put respondents at ease)

i. If observational data were used did the report adequately describe what specific constructs
were observed? What was the unit of observation – was the approach molar or molecular?

j. Does the report provide evidence that data collection methods yielded data that were high
on reliability and validity?

k. Are the instruments sufficiently sensitive to detect differences between subjects?

l. Is the validity and reliability of the instruments adequate for use in the study? Does the
report offer evidence of the validity and reliability of measures? Does the evidence come
from the research sample itself or is it based on other studies? If the latter is it reasonable
to conclude that data quality would be similar for the research sample as for the reliability
sample?

m. If validity and reliability is reported, which method of validity and reliability appraisal
have been used? Was it appropriate? Is the reliability sufficiently high or the validity
appear adequate? Should another method would have been used?

n. Do the instruments need further research to evaluate validity and reliability? If no

information on validity and reliability, what conclusions can be reached on the quality of
data?

vi. Data collection:

a. Did the researcher make the right decision about collecting new data versus existing data
for the study?

b. Did the researcher make good data collection decisions with regard to structure,
quantification, researcher obtrusiveness and objectivity?
c. Were the right methods used to collect the data? Was triangulation of methods used
appropriately – were multiple methods used sensibly? Are the data collection procedures
were same for all subjects?

d. Was the right amount of data collected? Were data collected to address the varied needs of
the study? Were too many data were collected in terms burdening study participants? And
is so how this might have affected data quality?

e. Did the researcher use good instruments, in terms of congruence with underlying
constructs, data quality, reputation, efficiency and so on? Were new instruments
developed unnecessarily?

f. Did the report provide adequate information about data collectors and data collection
procedure? Is the data collection process clearly described?

g. Is the data collection process conducted in a consistent manner? Are the data collection
methods ethical? Do the data collected address the research objectives, questions or
hypotheses?

h. Who collected the data? Were data collectors judiciously chosen? Did they have traits that
undermined the collection of unbiased, high quality data or did their traits enhance data
quality?

i. Was the training of data collectors described? Was the training adequate? Were steps taken
to improve the data collector’s ability to elicit or produce high quality data or to monitor
their performance?

j. Where and under what circumstances were data gathered? Was the setting for data
collection appropriate?

k. Were other people present during data collection? Could the presence of others have
resulted in any biases?

l. Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Did the intervention group did
receive in intervention?

m. Was a category system or rating system used to organize and record observations? Were
decisions about exhaustiveness and degree of observer inference appropriate?

n. What methods were used to sample observational units? Was the sampling approach good
one? Did it likely to yield a representative sample of behavior? To what degree were
observer biases controlled or minimized?
 o. Were biophysiologic measures used in the study and was this appropriate? Were
appropriate methods used to measure the variables of interest? Did the researcher appear
to have the skills necessary for proper interpretation of bio-physiologic measures?

VI. Data analysis

a. Are data analysis procedures clearly described? What statistical analyses are included in
the research report? Identify the analysis techniques used to describe the sample

b. Do data analyses address each objective, Question or hypothesis?

c. Are data analyses procedures appropriate to the type of data collected?

d. Are the results presented in an understandable way?

e. Are tables and figures used to synthesize and emphasize certain findings? Do the tables/
graphs figures used agree with the text and extend it or do they merely repeat it? Were the
tables, graphs, pictures clear, with a good title, carefully labeled headings.

f. Were appropriate descriptive statistics used? What descriptive statistics were reported? Do
these statistics describe the major characteristics of the data set?

g. What level of measurement is used to measure each of the major variables? Were these
descriptive statistics appropriate to the level of measurement of each variable?

h. Were any risk indexes computed? If not should they have been?

i. Is there appropriate summary statistics for each major variable?

j. Was the most powerful analytic method was used? Were type I and II errors were avoided
or minimized?

k. Does the level of measurement and sample size permit the use of parametric statistics?

l. Are the statistics used appropriate to the problem, the hypothesis, the method, the sample
and the level of measurement?

m. If non parametric tests were used was a rationale provided and does the rationale seem
sound? Should more powerful parametric procedures have been used instead?

n. Are the results for each of the hypotheses presented appropriately? Are the tests that were
used to analyze the data presented?
 o. Is the information regarding the results presented, concise and sequential? Is the result
interpreted in light of the hypotheses and theoretical framework an all the steps that
preceded the results? Do the findings support the study framework?

p. Are the results clearly and completely stated? Presented objectively? Is there enough
information to judge the results?

q. Was the level of significance or alpha identified? If so indicate the level. Identify the focus
(description, relationship, differences) of each analysis technique, statistical procedures,
test statistic, specific results, specific probability value in a table form

r. Are significant and nonsignificant findings explained? If the results were nonsignificant,
was the sample size sufficient to detect significant differences? Was a power analysis
conducted to examine nonsignificant findings?

s. Are the analyses interpreted appropriately? Does the interpretation of findings appear
biased? Are the biases in the study identified?

t. Are there uncontrolled extraneous variables that may have influenced the findings? Do the
conclusions fit the results from the analyses? Are the conclusions based on statistically
and clinically significant results?

u. Were the statistically significant findings also examined for clinical significance? Is a
distinction made between practical significance and statistical significance? How?

v. What conclusions did the researcher identify based on this study and previous research?
Are any generalizations made, how did the researcher generalize the findings? Are the
generalizations within the scope of the findings or beyond the findings?

w. Are findings reported in manner that facilitates a meta-analysis and with sufficient
information needed for evidence based practice? Are the findings adequately
summarized?

VII. Discussion

a. What is the researcher’s interpretation of findings? Are all important results discussed? If
not what is the likely explanation for omissions?

b. Did the researcher identify and discuss important study limitations and their effects on the
results??
 c. Are there inconsistencies of the report? Are the findings consistent with the results and
with study’s limitations? Do the interpretations suggest distinct biases?

d. Are all major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior research and or
the study’s conceptual framework? Are the findings consistent with previous research
findings

e. Does the report address the issue of the generalizability of the findings? Are
generalizations made that are not warranted on the basis of the sample used? Which
findings are unexpected?

f. Are alternative explanations for the findings mentioned and is the rationale for their
rejection presented?

g. Does the interpretation distinguish between practical and statistical significance? Are any
unwarranted interpretations of causality made?

h. Do the researchers discuss the study’s implications for clinical practice, nursing education,
nursing administration, nursing theory or make specific recommendations? What
implications do the findings have for nursing practice? Are they reasonable and complete?

i. Are given implications appropriate given the study’s limitations and given the body of
evidence from other studies? Are there important implications that the report neglected to
include?

j. What suggestions/recommendations are made for further studies?

k. What are the missing elements of the study? Is the description of the study sufficiently
clear to allow replication?

VIII. Application and utilization:

a. How much confidence can be placed in the study findings? Are the findings an accurate
reflection of reality? Do the study appear valid?

b. Are the findings related to the framework? Are the findings linked to those of previous
studies? Are there other studies with similar findings? What do the findings add to the
current body of knowledge? To what populations can the findings be generalized?

c. What research questions emerge from the findings? Are these questions identified by the
researcher?
 d. What is the overall quality of the study when strengths and weaknesses are summarized?
Could any of the weaknesses have been corrected? Do the strengths outweigh the
weaknesses?

e. Do the findings have potential for use in nursing practice? What risk/ benefit are involved
for patients if the research findings would be used in practice?

f. Can the study be replicated by other researchers? Did the researcher use sound
methodology? Do the findings accurately reflect reality? Are the findings credible?

g. Is direct application of the research findings feasible in terms of time, effort money and
legal and ethical crisis? How and under what circumstances are the findings applicable to
nursing practice?

h. Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or
that is useful to the nursing discipline?

IX. Researcher credibility and presentation:

a. Does the researchers’ clinical, substantive or methodological qualifications and experience

enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?

b. Is the report well written, well organized and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis? Is
the report placed logical sequence and useful location?

c. Was the written in a manner that makes the findings accessible to practicing nurses?

X. Conclusion:

The exercise of a critique was a useful task to apply the knowledge of research.
Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the study including the constraints and
limitations, helped to review the research process. The exercise gives a room for
thoughtfulness and to hold the analysis in practical terms. Thus the research critique gives
room for the authenticity of the information and to analyze the credibility of the findings
and to weigh the evidence base in terms of practicality, objectivity, utilization, application
and replication possibility.

X. Reference
 Are the in text referances cited asper recommended guidelines eg.(using super script format)?
 Are the references relevant and completely follow recommended style eg.(vancouver’s format)?