critical appraisal of qualitative research example essay

Teesside University Student & Library Services
Learning Hub Group

Critical Appraisal for Health Students

Critical Appraisal of a qualitative paper
Critical Appraisal: Help
Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper
Useful resources

Appraisal of a Qualitative paper : Top tips

Introduction

Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper

This guide aimed at health students, provides basic level support for appraising qualitative research papers. It's designed for students who have already attended lectures on critical appraisal. One framework for appraising qualitative research (based on 4 aspects of trustworthiness) is provided and there is an opportunity to practise the technique on a sample article.

Support Materials

Framework for reading qualitative papers
Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper PowerPoint

To practise following this framework for critically appraising a qualitative article, please look at the following article:

Schellekens, M.P.J. et al (2016) 'A qualitative study on mindfulness-based stress reduction for breast cancer patients: how women experience participating with fellow patients', Support Care Cancer , 24(4), pp. 1813-1820.

Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper: practical example.

Credibility
Transferability
Dependability
Confirmability

How to use this practical example

Using the framework, you can have a go at appraising a qualitative paper - we are going to look at the following article:

Step 1. take a quick look at the article, step 2. click on the credibility tab above - there are questions to help you appraise the trustworthiness of the article, read the questions and look for the answers in the article. , step 3. click on each question and our answers will appear., step 4. repeat with the other aspects of trustworthiness: transferability, dependability and confirmability ., questioning the credibility:, who is the researcher what has been their experience how well do they know this research area, was the best method chosen what method did they use was there any justification was the method scrutinised by peers is it a recognisable method was there triangulation ( more than one method used), how was the data collected was data collected from the participants at more than one time point how long were the interviews were questions asked to the participants in different ways, is the research reporting what the participants actually said were the participants shown transcripts / notes of the interviews / observations to ‘check’ for accuracy are direct quotes used from a variety of participants, how would you rate the overall credibility, questioning the transferability, was a meaningful sample obtained how many people were included is the sample diverse how were they selected, are the demographics given, does the research cover diverse viewpoints do the results include negative cases was data saturation reached, what is the overall transferability can the research be transferred to other settings , questioning the dependability :, how transparent is the audit trail can you follow the research steps are the decisions made transparent is the whole process explained in enough detail did the researcher keep a field diary is there a clear limitations section, was there peer scrutiny of the researchwas the research plan shown to peers / colleagues for approval and/or feedback did two or more researchers independently judge data, how would you rate the overall dependability would the results be similar if the study was repeated how consistent are the data and findings, questioning the confirmability :, is the process of analysis described in detail is a method of analysis named or described is there sufficient detail, have any checks taken place was there cross-checking of themes was there a team of researchers, has the researcher reflected on possible bias is there a reflexive diary, giving a detailed log of thoughts, ideas and assumptions, how do you rate the overall confirmability has the researcher attempted to limit bias, questioning the overall trustworthiness :, overall how trustworthy is the research, further information.

See Useful resources for links, books and LibGuides to help with Critical appraisal.

<< Previous: Critical Appraisal: Help
Next: Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper >>
Last Updated: Aug 25, 2023 2:48 PM
URL: https://libguides.tees.ac.uk/critical_appraisal

- Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

Access provided by Google Indexer
My email alerts
BMA member login
Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

Advanced search
Search responses
Search blogs
Critically appraising...

Critically appraising qualitative research

Related content
Peer review
Ayelet Kuper , assistant professor 1 ,
Lorelei Lingard , associate professor 2 ,
Wendy Levinson , Sir John and Lady Eaton professor and chair 3
1 Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Room HG 08, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5
2 Department of Paediatrics and Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto and SickKids Learning Institute; BMO Financial Group Professor in Health Professions Education Research, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Eaton South 1-565, Toronto
3 Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Correspondence to: A Kuper ayelet94{at}post.harvard.edu

Six key questions will help readers to assess qualitative research

Summary points

Appraising qualitative research is different from appraising quantitative research

Qualitative research papers should show appropriate sampling, data collection, and data analysis

Transferability of qualitative research depends on context and may be enhanced by using theory

Ethics in qualitative research goes beyond review boards’ requirements to involve complex issues of confidentiality, reflexivity, and power

Over the past decade, readers of medical journals have gained skills in critically appraising studies to determine whether the results can be trusted and applied to their own practice settings. Criteria have been designed to assess studies that use quantitative methods, and these are now in common use.

In this article we offer guidance for readers on how to assess a study that uses qualitative research methods by providing six key questions to ask when reading qualitative research (box 1). However, the thorough assessment of qualitative research is an interpretive act and requires informed reflective thought rather than the simple application of a scoring system.

Box 1 Key questions to ask when reading qualitative research studies

Was the sample used in the study appropriate to its research question, were the data collected appropriately, were the data analysed appropriately, can i transfer the results of this study to my own setting, does the study adequately address potential ethical issues, including reflexivity.

Overall: is what the researchers did clear?

One of the critical decisions in a qualitative study is whom or what to include in the sample—whom to interview, whom to observe, what texts to analyse. An understanding that qualitative research is based in experience and in the construction of meaning, combined with the specific research question, should guide the sampling process. For example, a study of the experience of survivors of domestic violence that examined their reasons for not seeking help from healthcare providers might focus on interviewing a sample of such survivors (rather than, for example, healthcare providers, social services workers, or academics in the field). The sample should be broad enough to capture the many facets of a phenomenon, and limitations to the sample should be clearly justified. Since the answers to questions of experience and meaning also relate to people’s social affiliations (culture, religion, socioeconomic group, profession, etc), it is also important that the researcher acknowledges these contexts in the selection of a study sample.

In contrast with quantitative approaches, qualitative studies do not usually have predetermined sample sizes. Sampling stops when a thorough understanding of the phenomenon under study has been reached, an end point that is often called saturation. Researchers consider samples to be saturated when encounters (interviews, observations, etc) with new participants no longer elicit trends or themes not already raised by previous participants. Thus, to sample to saturation, data analysis has to happen while new data are still being collected. Multiple sampling methods may be used to broaden the understanding achieved in a study (box 2). These sampling issues should be clearly articulated in the methods section.

Box 2 Qualitative sampling methods for interviews and focus groups 9

Examples are for a hypothetical study of financial concerns among adult patients with chronic renal failure receiving ongoing haemodialysis in a single hospital outpatient unit.

Typical case sampling —sampling the most ordinary, usual cases of a phenomenon

The sample would include patients likely to have had typical experiences for that haemodialysis unit and patients who fit the profile of patients in the unit for factors found on literature review. Other typical cases could be found via snowball sampling (see below)

Deviant case sampling —sampling the most extreme cases of a phenomenon

The sample would include patients likely to have had different experiences of relevant aspects of haemodialysis. For example, if most patients in the unit are 60-70 years old and recently began haemodialysis for diabetic nephropathy, researchers might sample the unmarried university student in his 20s on haemodialysis since childhood, the 32 year old woman with lupus who is now trying to get pregnant, and the 90 year old who newly started haemodialysis due to an adverse reaction to radio-opaque contrast dye. Other deviant cases could be found via theoretical and/or snowball sampling (see below)

Critical case sampling —sampling cases that are predicted (based on theoretical models or previous research) to be especially information-rich and thus particularly illuminating

The nature of this sample depends on previous research. For example, if research showed that marital status was a major determinant of financial concerns for haemodialysis patients, then critical cases might include patients whose marital status changed while on haemodialysis

Maximum-variation sampling —sampling as wide a range of perspectives as possible to capture the broadest set of information and experiences)

The sample would include typical, deviant, and critical cases (as above), plus any other perspectives identified

Confirming-disconfirming sampling —Sampling both individuals or texts whose perspectives are likely to confirm the researcher’s developing understanding of the phenomenon under study and those whose perspectives are likely to challenge that understanding

The sample would include patients whose experiences would likely either confirm or disconfirm what the researchers had already learnt (from other patients) about financial concerns among patients in the haemodialysis unit. This could be accomplished via theoretical and/or snowball sampling (see below)

Snowball sampling —sampling participants found by asking current participants in a study to recommend others whose experiences would be relevant to the study

Current participants could be asked to provide the names of others in the unit who they thought, when asked about financial concerns, would either share their views (confirming), disagree with their views (disconfirming), have views typical of patients on their unit (typical cases), or have views different from most other patients on their unit (deviant cases)

Theoretical sampling —sampling individuals or texts whom the researchers predict (based on theoretical models or previous research) would add new perspectives to those already represented in the sample

Researchers could use their understanding of known issues for haemodialysis patients that would, in theory, relate to financial concerns to ensure that the relevant perspectives were represented in the study. For example, if, as the research progressed, it turned out that none of the patients in the sample had had to change or leave a job in order to accommodate haemodialysis scheduling, the researchers might (based on previous research) choose to intentionally sample patients who had left their jobs because of the time commitment of haemodialysis (but who could not do peritoneal dialysis) and others who had switched to jobs with more flexible scheduling because of their need for haemodialysis

It is important that a qualitative study carefully describes the methods used in collecting data. The appropriateness of the method(s) selected to use for the specific research question should be justified, ideally with reference to the research literature. It should be clear that methods were used systematically and in an organised manner. Attention should be paid to specific methodological challenges such as the Hawthorne effect, 1 whereby the presence of an observer may influence participants’ behaviours. By using a technique called thick description, qualitative studies often aim to include enough contextual information to provide readers with a sense of what it was like to have been in the research setting.

Another technique that is often used is triangulation, with which a researcher uses multiple methods or perspectives to help produce a more comprehensive set of findings. A study can triangulate data, using different sources of data to examine a phenomenon in different contexts (for example, interviewing palliative patients who are at home, those who are in acute care hospitals, and those who are in specialist palliative care units); it can also triangulate methods, collecting different types of data (for example, interviews, focus groups, observations) to increase insight into a phenomenon.

Another common technique is the use of an iterative process, whereby concurrent data analysis is used to inform data collection. For example, concurrent analysis of an interview study about lack of adherence to medications among a particular social group might show that early participants seem to be dismissive of the efforts of their local pharmacists; the interview script might then be changed to include an exploration of this phenomenon. The iterative process constitutes a distinctive qualitative tradition, in contrast to the tradition of stable processes and measures in quantitative studies. Iterations should be explicit and justified with reference to the research question and sampling techniques so that the reader understands how data collection shaped the resulting insights.

Qualitative studies should include a clear description of a systematic form of data analysis. Many legitimate analytical approaches exist; regardless of which is used, the study should report what was done, how, and by whom. If an iterative process was used, it should be clearly delineated. If more than one researcher analysed the data (which depends on the methodology used) it should be clear how differences between analyses were negotiated. Many studies make reference to a technique called member checking, wherein the researcher shows all or part of the study’s findings to participants to determine if they are in accord with their experiences. 2 Studies may also describe an audit trail, which might include researchers’ analysis notes, minutes of researchers’ meetings, and other materials that could be used to follow the research process.

The contextual nature of qualitative research means that careful thought must be given to the potential transferability of its results to other sociocultural settings. Though the study should discuss the extent of the findings’ resonance with the published literature, 3 much of the onus of assessing transferability is left to readers, who must decide if the setting of the study is sufficiently similar for its results to be transferable to their own context. In doing so, the reader looks for resonance—the extent that research findings have meaning for the reader.

Transferability may be helped by the study’s discussion of how its results advance theoretical understandings that are relevant to multiple situations. For example, a study of patients’ preferences in palliative care may contribute to theories of ethics and humanity in medicine, thus suggesting relevance to other clinical situations such as the informed consent exchange before treatment. We have explained elsewhere in this series the importance of theory in qualitative research, and there are many who believe that a key indicator of quality in qualitative research is its contribution to advancing theoretical understanding as well as useful knowledge. This debate continues in the literature, 4 but from a pragmatic perspective most qualitative studies in health professions journals emphasise results that relate to practice; theoretical discussions tend to be published elsewhere.

Reflexivity is particularly important within the qualitative paradigm. Reflexivity refers to recognition of the influence a researcher brings to the research process. It highlights potential power relationships between the researcher and research participants that might shape the data being collected, particularly when the researcher is a healthcare professional or educator and the participant is a patient, client, or student. 5 It also acknowledges how a researcher’s gender, ethnic background, profession, and social status influence the choices made within the study, such as the research question itself and the methods of data collection. 6 7

Research articles written in the qualitative paradigm should show evidence both of reflexive practice and of consideration of other relevant ethical issues. Ethics in qualitative research should extend beyond prescriptive guidelines and research ethics boards into a thorough exploration of the ethical consequences of collecting personal experiences and opening those experiences to public scrutiny (a detailed discussion of this problem within a research report may, however, be limited by the practicalities of word count limitations). 8 Issues of confidentiality and anonymity can become quite complex when data constitute personal reports of experience or perception; the need to minimise harm may involve not only protection from external scrutiny but also mechanisms to mitigate potential distress to participants from sharing their personal stories.

In conclusion: is what the researchers did clear?

The qualitative paradigm includes a wide range of theoretical and methodological options, and qualitative studies must include clear descriptions of how they were conducted, including the selection of the study sample, the data collection methods, and the analysis process. The list of key questions for beginning readers to ask when reading qualitative research articles (see box 1) is intended not as a finite checklist, but rather as a beginner’s guide to a complex topic. Critical appraisal of particular qualitative articles may differ according to the theories and methodologies used, and achieving a nuanced understanding in this area is fairly complex.

Journal articles

Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: papers that go beyond numbers. BMJ 1997;315:740-3.

Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ 1995;311:109-12.

Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50-2.

Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res 1998;8:341-51.

Internet resources

National Health Service Public Health Resource Unit. Critical appraisal skills programme: qualitative research appraisal tool . 2006. www.phru.nhs.uk/Doc_Links/Qualitative%20Appraisal%20Tool.pdf

Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1035

Related to doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a288
doi: , 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47
doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a1020
doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a879
doi: 10.1136/bmj.a949

This is the last in a series of six articles that aim to help readers to critically appraise the increasing number of qualitative research articles in clinical journals. The series editors are Ayelet Kuper and Scott Reeves.

For a definition of general terms relating to qualitative research, see the first article in this series.

Contributors: AK wrote the first draft of the article and collated comments for subsequent iterations. LL and WL made substantial contributions to the structure and content, provided examples, and gave feedback on successive drafts. AK is the guarantor.

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

↵ Holden JD. Hawthorne effects and research into professional practice. J Evaluation Clin Pract 2001 ; 7 : 65 -70. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
↵ Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: principles in practice . 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1995 .
↵ Silverman D. Doing qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000 .
↵ Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000 ; 320 : 50 -2. OpenUrl FREE Full Text
↵ Lingard L, Kennedy TJ. Qualitative research in medical education . Edinburgh: Association for the Study of Medical Education, 2007 .
↵ Seale C. The quality of qualitative research . London: Sage, 1999 .
↵ Wallerstein N. Power between evaluator and community: research relationships within New Mexico’s healthier communities. Soc Sci Med 1999 ; 49 : 39 -54. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
↵ Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J, Miller T, eds. Ethics in qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002 .
↵ Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree F, Miller WL, eds. Doing qualitative research . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999 :33-45.

📕 Studying HQ

Critical appraisal of two qualitative research -workplace violence against nurses essay, dr. wilson mn.

February 22, 2022

This is a Critical Appraisal of two qualitative research articles that focuses on Workplace Violence against Nurses. It is also a critical appraisal example essay and critical appraisal assignment example focusing on Workplace Violence against Nurses Essay for Critical Appraisal of two qualitative research studies

This essay was a solution to the question

What You'll Learn

Instructions for the Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles

Write a critical appraisal of two qualitative research studies. Use the \”Research Critique Guidelines – Part 1\” document to organize your essay. Successful completion of this assignment requires that you provide the rationale, include examples, and reference content from the studies in your responses.

Use the practice problem and two qualitative, peer-reviewed research articles you identified in the Topic 1 assignment to complete this assignment.

In a 1,000–1,250 word essay, summarize two qualitative studies, explain the ways in which the findings might be used in nursing practice, and address ethical considerations associated with the conduct of the study.

Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles

Background of the study.

Workplace violence is one of the main challenges nurses face in the modern healthcare workplace. In the first qualitative study, Henderson, Kamp, Niedbalski, Abraham, & Gillum (2018) explore nurses’ perspectives on patient and visitor violence. The study underlines the prevalence of violence to nurses and nursing students to be up to 43% for verbal and physical assaults. To effectively investigate the issue, the study engages 19 registered nurses through open-ended questions and follow-up probes to understand their perspectives on patient and nurse violence.

Patent care is intrinsically linked with the safety and well-being of healthcare providers. In the second study, Vrablik et al. (2019) investigate how workplace violence affects patient care by identifying the cognitive and behavioral processes affected by workplace violence. The study, through 23 ED practitioners, investigates why workplace violence has a variable impact on individual healthcare workers. Vrablik et al. (2019) focus on the ED because over 78% of health care workers in ED have experienced a physical assault by a patient or patient visitor in their career. Hence through interviews, the study gathers the experiences of nurses and nurse assistants on workplace violence.

Support to the Issue of Workplace Violence

The two studies offer an in-depth qualitative analysis of the issue of workplace violence. Findings from qualitative methods often offer insights from real experiences and could help formulate effective nursing practices. The findings point out the high incidence rates of workplace violence, and the adverse effects violence has on nurses. The findings and recommendations of these studies can sufficiently inform and guide organizations on developing frameworks to equip nurses with skills and protect them from violent events.

One of the key findings relates to my PICOT question as it shows that nurses should receive crisis intervention training as well as behavioral management skills to help in navigating the high-risk clinical settings such as the ED and mental health institutions. The finding not only equips organizations but also sets apart the practices that could make the healthcare environment safer to nurses and patients alike. Further, the findings are also critical in guiding the conduct of nurses in violent situations and the importance of nursing managers and supervisors to follow up on occurrences.

Method of Study per Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

Both studies take a qualitative phenomenological approach that enables the researchers to collect first-hand experiences with workplace violence. Henderson et al. (2018) works with 19 nurses and uses a snowballing sampling technique to select the participants. This is similar to Vrablik et al. (2019), who also use a qualitative phenomenological approach with 23 nurses all attained through purposive sampling.

The qualitative phenomenological method is effective in collecting unique perspectives on an issue and how it affects people. This advantage makes the approach ideal in investigating workplace violence. However, the researcher has to be keen to avoid research-induced bias which could influence the study. Snowball sampling helps get participants especially where few are willing to participate. On the other hand, it is impossible to determine the sampling error in studies using snowball sampling. Purposive sampling leads to the selection of a sample based on their knowledge about the subject being studied . The sampling approach makes it easier to generalize findings even though a selection bias or error may occur in such a study.

Results of studies of the Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

In approaching workplace violence, Henderson et al. (2018) emphasize that understanding the occurrence of workplace violence can help reduce the risk it poses to nurses. The results are analyzed in four themes. The themes include violence, long-term consequences of violence, education on violence, and support from the organization. The study identified the main types of violence against nurses to be verbal and physical. The analysis showed that the nurses experienced different forms of physical and verbal abuse in the ED, with visitors being more violent than patients. On the long term consequences of violence, the nurses note that they have had to change their interactions with patients following violent experiences. The findings show that constant exposure to workplace violence results in long term emotionally effects, such as being anxious inside and outside of the hospital.

The findings also highlighted that education and training for violence intervention have helped the nurses handle violent situations. The participants who had received the Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training and behavioral management training noted that they were able to de-escalate situations. Nurses also cited that the support of the organization has helped them deal with violent situations. However, six nurses noted not receiving assistance from supervisors or security with violent events and having a hard time addressing the event.

The study shows that workplace violence is one of the primary challenges nurses face daily. Henderson et al. (2018) note that it is imperative to recognize the extent of emotional, psychological, and physical trauma and experiences nurses face and how it undermines the quality of care, functionality of nurses, and quality of life of nurses. Henderson et al. (2018) recommend CPI training and de-escalation training to assist nurses to navigate their day-to-day lives, and policies and procedures by organizations to follow up on violent incidences. Even though the study is limited by the number of participants interviewed, it shows that addressing workplace violence against nurses is critical.

Vrablik et al. (2019) on the other hand find that workplace violence is a frequent, inevitable hazard. Nurses and the other ED practitioners point out that verbal abuse is an almost daily occurrence, and physical abuse was common. The participants’ highlight that the violence made them feel manifestations of burnout, such as being fatigued, worn out, and stressed daily (Vrablik et al., 2019). The impact of these manifestations was different for participants. While some noted that it made them emotionally exhausted, some underlined that it made them cold and jaded or diminished any sense of personal and professional accomplishment (Vrablik et al., 2019). Further, the findings show that the primary cognitive appraisals of participants varied from harm and threat appraisals to challenge appraisals. Vrablik et al. (2019) report that harm appraisals were manifested through negative emotions such as sadness and anger, threat appraisals as emotions of fear and anxiety, as well as a threat to their safety and challenge appraisals as positive emotions of growth and learning from stressful events.

Vrablik et al. (2019) also reviewed the data for secondary cognitive appraisals. Some participants underlined that they lacked adequate resources to overcome the challenge, especially when they felt less skilled or susceptible in violent situations. The findings also showed that most practitioners in ED resort to coping strategies. Some resorted to avoidant strategies that could take a few minutes away from the situation, or in some cases, alcohol after a shift in a bid to avoid dealing with the situations (Vrablik et al., 2019). On the contrary, others took an approach-oriented coping strategy where the practitioner actively attempts to address the situation directly.

The study acknowledges its selection bias as all participants had experienced some level of workplace violence (Vrablik et al., 2019). However, through the research, the study shows that workplace violence is a frequent occurrence, and practitioners approach the issue differently. The study urges organizations to actively institute measures to reduce the incidence rates of workplace violence and curtail the harmful effects of workplace violence.

Ethical Considerations in the Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

Critical appraisal of two qualitative research -workplace violence against nurses essay 1

The studies collect personal and professional information from nurses. The privacy and confidentiality of participants have to be maintained, and approval of the College Institutional Review Board obtained. The study has to provide written consent forms to participants. The collected data is recorded without identifiable information and stored in secure systems. Dealing with qualitative studies requires critical ethical considerations, especially on not collecting identifiable information, ensuring the participants are not in distress and obtaining written consent.

Looking for a Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles, chat with us and we will write one for you

Learn more on the strategies that may be implemented to manage the impact of violence

Henderson, L., Kamp, B., Niedbalski, K., Abraham, S. P., & Gillum, D. R. (2018). Nurses’ Perspectives on Patient and Visitor Violence: A Qualitative Study. International Journal of Studies in Nursing, 3(2), 117.

Vrablik, M. C., MD, Chipman, A. K., Rosenman, E. D., Simcox, N. J., Huynh, L., Moore, M., & Fernandez, R. (2019). Identification of processes that mediate the impact of workplace violence on emergency department healthcare workers in the USA: results from a qualitative study. BMJ open , 9 (8), e031781. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031781

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow.

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS.

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You

Term-Long Project Nursing Paper Example
Case Study on Moral Status
Applying the Concepts of Epidemiology and Nursing Research on Measles Nursing Paper Essay
A Comprehensive Guide to Writing a Nursing Research Paper
50 Potential Research Summary Topics
Free Essays
Citation Generator
Topic Generator
Paraphrasing Tool
Conclusion Maker
Research Title Generator
Thesis Statement Generator
Summarizing Tool
How to Guides
Essay Topics and Ideas
Manage Orders
Business StudyingHq
Writing Service
Discounts / Offers

Study Hub:

Studying Blog
Topic Ideas
Business Studying
Nursing Studying
Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools

Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Confidentiality Policy
Cookies Policy
Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty.

📧 [email protected]

📞 +15512677917

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
Write for Us
BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

Calvin Moorley 1 ,
Xabi Cathala 2
1 Nursing Research and Diversity in Care, School of Health and Social Care , London South Bank University , London , UK
2 Institute of Vocational Learning , School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University , London , UK
Correspondence to Dr Calvin Moorley, Nursing Research and Diversity in Care, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK; Moorleyc{at}lsbu.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2018-103044

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

In order to make a decision about implementing evidence into practice, nurses need to be able to critically appraise research. Nurses also have a professional responsibility to maintain up-to-date practice. 1 This paper provides a guide on how to critically appraise a qualitative research paper.

What is qualitative research?

View inline

Useful terms

Some of the qualitative approaches used in nursing research include grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, case study (can lend itself to mixed methods) and narrative analysis. The data collection methods used in qualitative research include in depth interviews, focus groups, observations and stories in the form of diaries or other documents. 3

Authenticity

Title, keywords, authors and abstract.

In a previous paper, we discussed how the title, keywords, authors’ positions and affiliations and abstract can influence the authenticity and readability of quantitative research papers, 4 the same applies to qualitative research. However, other areas such as the purpose of the study and the research question, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, sampling and methodology also need consideration when appraising a qualitative paper.

Purpose and question

The topic under investigation in the study should be guided by a clear research question or a statement of the problem or purpose. An example of a statement can be seen in table 2 . Unlike most quantitative studies, qualitative research does not seek to test a hypothesis. The research statement should be specific to the problem and should be reflected in the design. This will inform the reader of what will be studied and justify the purpose of the study. 5

Example of research question and problem statement

An appropriate literature review should have been conducted and summarised in the paper. It should be linked to the subject, using peer-reviewed primary research which is up to date. We suggest papers with a age limit of 5–8 years excluding original work. The literature review should give the reader a balanced view on what has been written on the subject. It is worth noting that for some qualitative approaches some literature reviews are conducted after the data collection to minimise bias, for example, in grounded theory studies. In phenomenological studies, the review sometimes occurs after the data analysis. If this is the case, the author(s) should make this clear.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks

Most authors use the terms theoretical and conceptual frameworks interchangeably. Usually, a theoretical framework is used when research is underpinned by one theory that aims to help predict, explain and understand the topic investigated. A theoretical framework is the blueprint that can hold or scaffold a study’s theory. Conceptual frameworks are based on concepts from various theories and findings which help to guide the research. 6 It is the researcher’s understanding of how different variables are connected in the study, for example, the literature review and research question. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks connect the researcher to existing knowledge and these are used in a study to help to explain and understand what is being investigated. A framework is the design or map for a study. When you are appraising a qualitative paper, you should be able to see how the framework helped with (1) providing a rationale and (2) the development of research questions or statements. 7 You should be able to identify how the framework, research question, purpose and literature review all complement each other.

There remains an ongoing debate in relation to what an appropriate sample size should be for a qualitative study. We hold the view that qualitative research does not seek to power and a sample size can be as small as one (eg, a single case study) or any number above one (a grounded theory study) providing that it is appropriate and answers the research problem. Shorten and Moorley 8 explain that three main types of sampling exist in qualitative research: (1) convenience (2) judgement or (3) theoretical. In the paper , the sample size should be stated and a rationale for how it was decided should be clear.

Methodology

Qualitative research encompasses a variety of methods and designs. Based on the chosen method or design, the findings may be reported in a variety of different formats. Table 3 provides the main qualitative approaches used in nursing with a short description.

Different qualitative approaches

The authors should make it clear why they are using a qualitative methodology and the chosen theoretical approach or framework. The paper should provide details of participant inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as recruitment sites where the sample was drawn from, for example, urban, rural, hospital inpatient or community. Methods of data collection should be identified and be appropriate for the research statement/question.

Data collection

Overall there should be a clear trail of data collection. The paper should explain when and how the study was advertised, participants were recruited and consented. it should also state when and where the data collection took place. Data collection methods include interviews, this can be structured or unstructured and in depth one to one or group. 9 Group interviews are often referred to as focus group interviews these are often voice recorded and transcribed verbatim. It should be clear if these were conducted face to face, telephone or any other type of media used. Table 3 includes some data collection methods. Other collection methods not included in table 3 examples are observation, diaries, video recording, photographs, documents or objects (artefacts). The schedule of questions for interview or the protocol for non-interview data collection should be provided, available or discussed in the paper. Some authors may use the term ‘recruitment ended once data saturation was reached’. This simply mean that the researchers were not gaining any new information at subsequent interviews, so they stopped data collection.

The data collection section should include details of the ethical approval gained to carry out the study. For example, the strategies used to gain participants’ consent to take part in the study. The authors should make clear if any ethical issues arose and how these were resolved or managed.

The approach to data analysis (see ref 10 ) needs to be clearly articulated, for example, was there more than one person responsible for analysing the data? How were any discrepancies in findings resolved? An audit trail of how the data were analysed including its management should be documented. If member checking was used this should also be reported. This level of transparency contributes to the trustworthiness and credibility of qualitative research. Some researchers provide a diagram of how they approached data analysis to demonstrate the rigour applied ( figure 1 ).

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint

Example of data analysis diagram.

Validity and rigour

The study’s validity is reliant on the statement of the question/problem, theoretical/conceptual framework, design, method, sample and data analysis. When critiquing qualitative research, these elements will help you to determine the study’s reliability. Noble and Smith 11 explain that validity is the integrity of data methods applied and that findings should accurately reflect the data. Rigour should acknowledge the researcher’s role and involvement as well as any biases. Essentially it should focus on truth value, consistency and neutrality and applicability. 11 The authors should discuss if they used triangulation (see table 2 ) to develop the best possible understanding of the phenomena.

Themes and interpretations and implications for practice

In qualitative research no hypothesis is tested, therefore, there is no specific result. Instead, qualitative findings are often reported in themes based on the data analysed. The findings should be clearly linked to, and reflect, the data. This contributes to the soundness of the research. 11 The researchers should make it clear how they arrived at the interpretations of the findings. The theoretical or conceptual framework used should be discussed aiding the rigour of the study. The implications of the findings need to be made clear and where appropriate their applicability or transferability should be identified. 12

Discussions, recommendations and conclusions

The discussion should relate to the research findings as the authors seek to make connections with the literature reviewed earlier in the paper to contextualise their work. A strong discussion will connect the research aims and objectives to the findings and will be supported with literature if possible. A paper that seeks to influence nursing practice will have a recommendations section for clinical practice and research. A good conclusion will focus on the findings and discussion of the phenomena investigated.

Qualitative research has much to offer nursing and healthcare, in terms of understanding patients’ experience of illness, treatment and recovery, it can also help to understand better areas of healthcare practice. However, it must be done with rigour and this paper provides some guidance for appraising such research. To help you critique a qualitative research paper some guidance is provided in table 4 .

Some guidance for critiquing qualitative research

↵ Nursing and Midwifery Council . The code: Standard of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives . 2015 https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf ( accessed 21 Aug 18 ).
Barrett D ,
Cathala X ,
Shorten A ,

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Critical Appraisal of Research Articles: Qualitative Studies

Systematic Reviews
Clinical Practice Guidelines
Qualitative Studies

What is a Qualitative Study?

Qualitative research is defined as research that derives data from observation, interviews, or verbal interactions and focuses on the meanings and interpretations of the participants. (Holloway and Wheeler, 1995).

Examples of Qualitative Research Methods

Passive observation
Participant observation
In-depth interviews
Focus group interviews

Questions to Ask

Did the paper describe an important clinical problem addressed via a clearly formulated question?
How were the setting and the subjects selected?
What was the researcher's perspective, and has this been taken into account?
What methods did the researcher use for collecting data and are these described in enough detail?
What methods did the researcher use to analyze the data?
Has the relationship between researchers and participants been adequately considered?
Are the results credible, and if so, are they clinically important?
What conclusions were drawn, and are they justified by the results?
Are the findings of the study transferable to other clinical settings?

How to Find Qualitative Studies

1. Use thesaurus terms. Qualitative research is indexed in PubMed as "Qualitative Research" or "Nursing Methodology Research", while in CINAHL, the subject heading "Qualitative Studies" is complemented by more detailed terms, including "Phenomenological Research" and "Grounded Theory".

2. Use text words. For example: qualitative, ethnographic, lived experience, life experiences, observational method, content analysis, field study, theoretical sample, focus group, ethnological research, interview.

3. Use qualitative research filters. See http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hedges/HSR_queries_table.html

Appraisal Checklists for Qualitative Studies

Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP)
Joanna Briggs Institute
<< Previous: Clinical Practice Guidelines

Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 11:56 AM
URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/CriticalAppraisal

Himmelfarb Intranet
Privacy Notice
Terms of Use
GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 994-2850
[email protected]
https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review pp 51–68 Cite as

Critical Appraisal: Assessing the Quality of Studies

Edward Purssell ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3748-0864 3 &
Niall McCrae ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9776-7694 4
First Online: 05 August 2020

7025 Accesses

There is great variation in the type and quality of research evidence. Having completed your search and assembled your studies, the next step is to critically appraise the studies to ascertain their quality. Ultimately you will be making a judgement about the overall evidence, but that comes later. You will see throughout this chapter that we make a clear differentiation between the individual studies and what we call the body of evidence , which is all of the studies and anything else that we use to answer the question or to make a recommendation. This chapter deals with only the first of these—the individual studies. Critical appraisal, like everything else in systematic literature reviewing, is a scientific exercise that requires individual judgement, and we describe some tools to help you.

Bias (MeSH)
Credibility
Critical appraisal
Dependability
Reliability
Reproducibility of results (MeSH)
Risk of bias

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) (2016) OCEBM levels of evidence. In: CEBM. https://www.cebm.net/2016/05/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/ . Accessed 17 Apr 2020

Aromataris E, Munn Z (eds) (2017) Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide

Google Scholar

Daly J, Willis K, Small R et al (2007) A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. J Clin Epidemiol 60:43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.014

Article PubMed Google Scholar

EQUATOR Network (2020) What is a reporting guideline?—The EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/ . Accessed 7 Mar 2020

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19:349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 4:e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296

Article Google Scholar

Brouwers MC, Kerkvliet K, Spithoff K, AGREE Next Steps Consortium (2016) The AGREE reporting checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 352:i1152. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1152

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Lundh A, Hróbjartsson A (2019) Chapter 7: Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019), Cochrane. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018) CASP checklists. In: CASP—critical appraisal skills programme. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ . Accessed 7 Mar 2020

Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J et al (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, London

Chapter Google Scholar

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al (2011) GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1283–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919

Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D et al (2019) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp . Accessed 7 Mar 2020

Cochrane Community (2020) Glossary—Cochrane community. https://community.cochrane.org/glossary#letter-R . Accessed 8 Mar 2020

Messick S (1989) Meaning and values in test validation: the science and ethics of assessment. Educ Res 18:5–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018002005

Sparkes AC (2001) Myth 94: qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qual Health Res 11:538–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230101100409

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Aguinis H, Solarino AM (2019) Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: the case of interviews with elite informants. Strat Manag J 40:1291–1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015

Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA

Book Google Scholar

Hannes K (2011) Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K et al (eds) Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, London

Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C et al (2014) Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:108. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-108

Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N et al (2013) ‘Trying to pin down jelly’—exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-46

Katikireddi SV, Egan M, Petticrew M (2015) How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study. J Epidemiol Community Health 69:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204711

McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE et al (2019) Chapter 9: Summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J et al (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, London

Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (2019) Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J et al (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, London

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK

Edward Purssell

Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King’s College London, London, UK

Niall McCrae

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Purssell .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Purssell, E., McCrae, N. (2020). Critical Appraisal: Assessing the Quality of Studies. In: How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49672-2_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49672-2_6

Published : 05 August 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-49671-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-49672-2

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Library Services

UCL LIBRARY SERVICES

Guides and databases
Library skills

LibrarySkills@UCL for NHS staff

Critical appraisal of a qualitative study.

Library skills for NHS staff
Accessing resources
Evidence-based resources
Bibliographic databases
Developing your search
Reviewing and refining your search
Health management information
Critical Appraisal of a quantitative study (RCT)
Critical appraisal of a systematic review
Referencing basics
Referencing software
Referencing styles
Publishing and sharing research outputs
Publishing a protocol for your systematic or scoping review
Communicating and disseminating research
Help and training

The following video (4 min 5 sec.) considers the background knowledge needed to critically appraise a qualitative study. Includes what critical appraisal means, and the tools available to help carry out critical appraisal.

Appraisal of qualitative research using a CASP checklist

The following video (3 min. 5 sec.) summarizes what to look for in a piece of qualitative research, and an introduction to the CASP checklist for qualitative research.

Critical appraisal of qualitative research (webinar)

The following is a recording of a webinar, based upon the critical appraisal of qualitative research, using a CASP checklist:

'Focus on' videos (qualitative research)

The following videos (all approx. 4-9 min.) focus on particular aspects of critical appraisal methodology for qualitative studies.

<< Previous: Critical Appraisal of a quantitative study (RCT)
Next: Critical appraisal of a systematic review >>
Last Updated: Feb 28, 2024 12:08 PM
URL: https://library-guides.ucl.ac.uk/nhs

20.3.2.2 Critical appraisal

Assessment of study quality (critical appraisal) is a particularly contested issue in relation to qualitative evidence synthesis. At present, opinion on the value of formal quality assessment is divided and there is insufficient evidence to inform a judgement on the rigour or added value of various approaches.

This is an evolving field and Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group members are actively involved in contributing to knowledge and practice in this area. We, however, feel that it is important to consider and debate the arguments for and against critical appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis.

Over one hundred tools and frameworks are available to aid the appraisal of qualitative research, mirroring those available for the appraisal of methodological quality in randomized trials and other forms of quantitative research (Vermeire 2002, Cote 2005) . However, it is important to recognize that questions about ‘quality’ are very different in the context of qualitative research. Formal appraisal processes and standards of evidence presented as rigid checklists informing an ‘in or out’ decision can be argued to be inappropriate for qualitative research (Popay 1998a, Barbour 2001, Spencer 2003) . Rather, such tools are perhaps best utilized as part of a process of exploration and interpretation. Studies rated of low methodological quality on the basis of a rigid formulaic method can generate new insights, grounded in the data, while methodologically sound studies may suffer from poor interpretation, leading to insufficient insight into the phenomenon under study. Dixon-Woods et al. compared three structured appraisal approaches and concluded that structured approaches may not produce greater consistency of judgements about whether to include qualitative papers in a systematic review (Dixon-Woods 2007) .

A further issue relates to the timing of quality assessment and when outcomes from the process should be taken into account – should critical appraisal be viewed as a hurdle for establishing a quality threshold or as a filter for mediating the differing strength of the resultant messages from included research?

If authors decide to incorporate quality appraisal as part of the systematic review process then they may use the framework that is integral to the particular method (such as the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) approach or Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach), or select any published qualitative appraisal tool, framework or checklist. Spencer et al. have undertaken a review of many of the current appraisal frameworks and checklists, which authors may find helpful in deciding which approach to apply (Spencer 2003) . Expert judgement is also an important factor when appraising the quality of studies.

Key references reflecting this debate are included in Section 20.6.6 : Further Reading.

Undergraduate
High School
Architecture
American History
Asian History
Antique Literature
American Literature
Asian Literature
Classic English Literature
World Literature
Creative Writing
Linguistics
Criminal Justice
Legal Issues
Anthropology
Archaeology
Political Science
World Affairs
African-American Studies
East European Studies
Latin-American Studies
Native-American Studies
West European Studies
Family and Consumer Science
Social Issues
Women and Gender Studies
Social Work
Natural Sciences
Pharmacology
Earth science
Agriculture
Agricultural Studies
Computer Science
IT Management
Mathematics
Investments
Engineering and Technology
Engineering
Aeronautics
Medicine and Health
Alternative Medicine
Communications and Media
Advertising
Communication Strategies
Public Relations
Educational Theories
Teacher's Career
Chicago/Turabian
Company Analysis
Education Theories
Shakespeare
Canadian Studies
Food Safety
Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
Movie Review
Admission Essay
Annotated Bibliography
Application Essay
Article Critique
Article Review
Article Writing
Book Review
Business Plan
Business Proposal
Capstone Project
Cover Letter
Creative Essay
Dissertation
Dissertation - Abstract
Dissertation - Conclusion
Dissertation - Discussion
Dissertation - Hypothesis
Dissertation - Introduction
Dissertation - Literature
Dissertation - Methodology
Dissertation - Results
GCSE Coursework
Grant Proposal
Marketing Plan
Multiple Choice Quiz
Personal Statement
Power Point Presentation
Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
Questionnaire
Reaction Paper

Research Paper

Research Proposal
SWOT analysis
Thesis Paper
Online Quiz
Literature Review
Movie Analysis
Statistics problem
Math Problem
All papers examples
How It Works
Money Back Policy
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
We Are Hiring

Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research, Coursework Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2242

Hire a Writer for Custom Coursework

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Article (Reference): Jackson, K., Ternestedt, B-M., & Schollin, J. (2003). From alienation to familiarity: Experiences of mothers and fathers of preterm infants. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43 (2): 120-129.

Research Question addressed by this study using PS :

Value: / 1 P. Mothers and fathers of preterm infants.

Describe their experiences of parenthood during the first 18 months

Research Question addressed by this study:

Value: / 1 what are the experiences of parenthood over time of seven sets of mothers and fathers of preterm infants?

Total: /50 = ______ %

Stuck with your Coursework?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Gospels, Research Paper Example

Goals and Objectives for Proposal, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Coursework Samples & Examples

Residential sanitation automation, coursework example.

Pages: 1

Words: 404

Relevant Law and Process, Coursework Example

Pages: 2

Words: 637

Venture Capital, Coursework Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1292

Veil Piercing in the Supreme Court, Coursework Example

Pages: 12

Words: 3238

Consumer Law, Coursework Example

Pages: 14

Words: 3725

Banking Law – Critically Discuss Statement, Coursework Example

Pages: 13

Words: 3530

Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research -Workplace Violence against Nurses Essay

February 22, 2022
Sample Study Papers

Here's What You'll Learn

This essay was a solution to the question

Instructions for the Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles

Use the practice problem and two qualitative, peer-reviewed research articles you identified in the Topic 1 assignment to complete this assignment.

Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles

Background of the study.

Support to the Issue of Workplace Violence

Method of Study per Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

The qualitative phenomenological method is effective in collecting unique perspectives on an issue and how it affects people. This advantage makes the approach ideal in investigating workplace violence. However, the researcher has to be keen to avoid research-induced bias which could influence the study. Snowball sampling helps get participants especially where few are willing to participate. On the other hand, it is impossible to determine the sampling error in studies using snowball sampling. Purposive sampling leads to the selection of a sample based on their knowledge about the subject being studied. The sampling approach makes it easier to generalize findings even though a selection bias or error may occur in such a study.

Results of studies of the Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

Ethical Considerations in the Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

Looking for a Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles, chat with us and we will write one for you

Learn more on the strategies that may be implemented to manage the impact of violence

Does this Look Like Your Assignment? We Can do an Original Paper for you!

Have no time to write let a subject expert write your paper for you, get writing assistance, worried about your paper we can help, have a subject expert write for you, find essays, papers….

Essay Topics and Ideas (97) Sample Study Papers (1360) Study Guides (246) Writing Guides (10)

Academic Success and Professional Development Plan (4) argumentative essay topics (2) Arizona State University (10) Capella University (51) Chamberlain University (40) DNP Assignments (67) Essay Topics (13) Grand Canyon University (77) Herzing University (38) Ideas (14) Management Assignments (7) Management Assignments Help (6) Management Guides (6) MSN Assignments (57) nursing care plans (20) Nursing Care Plans Examples (20) Solved essays (237) Student's Essays (11) thestudycorp.com (32) Topics (14) Topics, Ideas (37) Walden University (76)

Company Overview
Our Guarantees
Client Reviews
Discount Codes
Privacy Policy
Contact Us
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Frequently Asked Questions
Fair Use Policy
Revisions and Refund Policy

Knowledge Base

All Writing Guides
Nursing Essay Writing Guides
Topics Ideas
Nursing Guides
Business Analysis Guides
Literature Guides
Write My Essay
Do My Essay
Pay For Essay
Buy Research Paper
Buy Essays
Get Nursing Papers
Online Nursing Papers

Writing Tools

Citation Generator
Topic Generator
Thesis Generator
Sentence Rewriter
Title Page Generator
Research Paper Title Generator

Use our resources and guides to write perfect papers. You can use our writing service and order customized sample papers without plagiarism!

Thestudycorp.com helps students cope with college assignments and write papers on various topics. We deal with academic writing, creative writing, and non-word assignments.

All the materials from our website should be used with proper references. All the work should be used per the appropriate policies and applicable laws.

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty.

critical appraisal of qualitative research example essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.3 Critically Appraising the Literature

Now that you know the parts of a paper, we will discuss how to critically appraise a paper. Critical appraisal refers to the process of carefully and methodically reviewing research to determine its credibility, usefulness, and applicability in a certain context. 6 It is an essential element of evidence-based practice. As stated earlier, you want to ensure that what you read in the literature is trustworthy before considering applying the findings in practice. The key things to consider include the study’s results, if the results match the conclusion (validity) and if the findings will help you in practice (applicability). A stepwise approach to reading and analysing the paper is a good way to highlight important points in the paper. While there are numerous checklists for critical appraisal, we have provided a simple guide for critical appraisal of quantitative and qualitative studies. The guides were adapted from Epidemiology by Petra Buttner (2015) and How to Read a Paper [ the basics of evidence-based medicine and healthcare (2019); papers that go beyond numbers- qualitative research (1997)] by Trisha Greenhalgh to aid your review of the papers. 5,7,8

A guide to reading scientific articles – Quantitative studies

What is the title of the study?

Does the title clearly describe the study focus?
Does it contain details about the population and the study design?

What was the purpose of the study (why was it performed)?

Identify the research question
Identify the exposure and outcome

What was the study design?

Was the design appropriate for the study?

Describe the study population (sample).

What was the sample size?
How were participants recruited?
Where did the research take place?
Who was included, and who was excluded?
Are there any potential sources of bias related to the choice of the sample?

What were data collection methods used?

How were the exposure and outcome variables were measured
How was data collected- instruments or equipment? Were the tools appropriate?
Is there evidence of random selection as opposed to systematic or self-selection?
How was bias minimised or avoided?

For experimental studies

How were subjects assigned to treatment or intervention: randomly or by some other method?
What control groups were included (placebo, untreated controls, both or neither)
How were the treatments compared?
Were there dropouts or loss to follow-up?
Were the outcomes or effects measured objectively?

For observational studies

Was the data collection process adequate (including questionnaire design and pre-testing)?
What techniques were used to handle non-response and/or incomplete data?
If a cohort study, was the follow-up rate sufficiently high?
If a case-control study, are the controls appropriate and adequately matched?

How was the data analysed?

Is the statistical analysis appropriate, and is it presented in sufficient detail?

What are the findings?

What are the main findings of the study? Pay specific attention to the presented text and tables in relation to the study’s main findings .
Are the numbers consistent? Is the entire sample accounted for?

Experimental study

Do the authors find a difference between the treatment and control groups?
Are the results statistically significant? If there is a statistically significant difference, is it enough of a difference to be clinically significant?

Observational study

Did the authors find a difference between exposed and control groups or cases and controls?
Is there a statistically significant difference between groups?
Could the results be of public health significance, even though the difference is not statistically significant? (This may highlight the need for a larger study).
Are the results likely to be affected by confounding? Why or why not?
What (if any) variables are identified as potential confounders in the study?
How is confounding dealt with in this study?
Are there any potential confounders that the authors have not taken into account? What might the likely impact be on the results?

Summing it up

Activity 7.2a

Read the following article:

Chen X, Jiang X, Huang X, He H, Zheng J: Association between probiotic yogurt intake and gestational diabetes mellitus: a case-control study. Iran J Public Health. 2019, 48:1248-1256.

Let’s conduct a critical appraisal of this article.

A guide to reading scientific articles – Qualitative studies

What is the research question?

Was a qualitative approach appropriate?

Identify the study design and if it was appropriate for the research question.

How were the setting and the subjects selected?

What sampling strategy was used?
Where was the study conducted?

Was the sampling strategy appropriate for the approach?

Consider the qualitative approach used and decide if the sampling strategy or technique is appropriate

What was the researcher’s position, and has this been taken into account?

Consider the researcher’s background, gender, knowledge, personal experience and relationship with participants

What were the data collection methods?

How was data collected? What technique was used?

How were data analysed, and how were these checked?

How did the authors analyse the data? Was this stated?
Did two or more researchers conduct the analysis independently, and were the outcomes compared (double coding)?
Did the researchers come to a consensus, and how were disagreements handled?

Are the results credible?

Does the result answer the research question?
Are themes presented with quotes and do they relate to the research question or aim?

Are the conclusions justified by the results?

Have the findings been discussed in relation to existing theory and previous research?
How well does the interpretation of the findings fit well with what is already known?

Are the findings transferable to other settings?

Can the findings be applied to other settings? Consider the sample.

Activity 7.2b

Wallisch A, Little L, Pope E, Dunn W. Parent Perspectives of an Occupational Therapy Telehealth Intervention. Int J Telerehabil. 2019 Jun 12;11(1):15-22. doi: 10.5195/ijt.2019.6274. PMID: 31341543; PMCID: PMC6597151.

Let’s conduct a critical appraisal of this article

Now that you know how to critically appraise both quantitative and qualitative papers, it is also important to note that numerous critical appraisal tools exist. Some have different sub-tools for different study designs, while others are designed to be used for multiple study designs. These tools aid the critical appraisal process as they contain different questions to prompt the reader while assessing the study’s quality. 9 Examples of tools commonly used in health professions are listed below in Table 7.2. Please note that this list is not exhaustive, as numerous appraisal tools exist. You can use any of these tools to appraise the quality of an article before choosing to use their findings to inform your own research or to change practice.

Table 7.2 Critical appraisal tools

An Introduction to Research Methods for Undergraduate Health Profession Students Copyright © 2023 by Faith Alele and Bunmi Malau-Aduli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Evaluating Sources: Critical Appraisal

Introduction
Test Yourself
Critical Appraisal
Other useful resources

The second stage to the evaluative process is critical appraisal. This involves a careful examination of the author's arguments and the evidence they provide to support their claims. Even if you are reading an article published in a top academic journal or a book by a leading authority in your field of study, you should start from a position of neutrality and take the approach that the author (whoever they are) must make a case to persuade you of the validity of their arguments.

Ask questions...

Do I find the author’s arguments persuasive?
Are the aims of the study clear?
How strong is the evidence supporting the claims?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
What are the limitations of study design? Have these been acknowledged?
What has research by other authors shown?
Do any factors cause me to doubt the validity or reliability of the research?

In addition to the facts and analysis offered by the authors, think about the context of their research, the appropriateness and limitations of study design, and any external factors that may impact the relevance or the importance of their approach.

Look at the bigger picture

When consulting the literature, seek out the different points of view, set them against each other, test them by questioning them, and see how well they stand up when you raise objections and expose them to opposing views by other authors.

Critical appraisal checklists

There are a number of critical appraisal checklists which can help you evaluate particular kinds of studies. Though primarily intended for healthcare clinicians, these checklists are excellent tools for researchers in any discipline Here are a few examples:

CASP

CONSORT

TREND

Keep in mind that most studies have imitations and will rarely tick every box. When a study fails to satisfy one or more criteria on a checklist, consider the extent to which this impacts the evidence (if at all).These considerations can inform the critical discussion in your essay.

Video: Using the CASP checklist for appraisal of qualitative research

Introduction to critical appraisal.

Critical thinking

Critical thinking is the foundation for good academic writing. It should inform every stage of the journey from planning your essay to embarking on your research project to writing the final draft of your paper. Evaluating and critically appraising sources is a key stage in this process,

Critical engagement with the idea or topic
Critical appraisal of each piece of evidence we encounter
Comparing competing sources of evidence
Developing an argument on the idea or topic informed by our research

Diagram: Monash University (2022) What is critical thinking? Available at: https://www.monash.edu/learnhq/enhance- your-thinking/critical-thinking/what-is-critical-thinking (Accessed: 16 June 2023)

<< Previous: Test Yourself
Next: Other useful resources >>
Last Updated: Aug 8, 2023 2:32 PM
URL: https://uws-uk.libguides.com/evaluating_sources

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
J Clin Diagn Res
v.11(5); 2017 May

Critical Appraisal of Clinical Research

Azzam al-jundi.

1 Professor, Department of Orthodontics, King Saud bin Abdul Aziz University for Health Sciences-College of Dentistry, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Salah Sakka

2 Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Al Farabi Dental College, Riyadh, KSA.

Evidence-based practice is the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research and patient’s values and expectations into the decision making process for patient care. It is a fundamental skill to be able to identify and appraise the best available evidence in order to integrate it with your own clinical experience and patients values. The aim of this article is to provide a robust and simple process for assessing the credibility of articles and their value to your clinical practice.

Introduction

Decisions related to patient value and care is carefully made following an essential process of integration of the best existing evidence, clinical experience and patient preference. Critical appraisal is the course of action for watchfully and systematically examining research to assess its reliability, value and relevance in order to direct professionals in their vital clinical decision making [ 1 ].

Critical appraisal is essential to:

Combat information overload;
Identify papers that are clinically relevant;
Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

Carrying out Critical Appraisal:

Assessing the research methods used in the study is a prime step in its critical appraisal. This is done using checklists which are specific to the study design.

Standard Common Questions:

What is the research question?
What is the study type (design)?
Selection issues.
What are the outcome factors and how are they measured?
What are the study factors and how are they measured?
What important potential confounders are considered?
What is the statistical method used in the study?
Statistical results.
What conclusions did the authors reach about the research question?
Are ethical issues considered?

The Critical Appraisal starts by double checking the following main sections:

I. Overview of the paper:

The publishing journal and the year
The article title: Does it state key trial objectives?
The author (s) and their institution (s)

The presence of a peer review process in journal acceptance protocols also adds robustness to the assessment criteria for research papers and hence would indicate a reduced likelihood of publication of poor quality research. Other areas to consider may include authors’ declarations of interest and potential market bias. Attention should be paid to any declared funding or the issue of a research grant, in order to check for a conflict of interest [ 2 ].

II. ABSTRACT: Reading the abstract is a quick way of getting to know the article and its purpose, major procedures and methods, main findings, and conclusions.

Aim of the study: It should be well and clearly written.
Materials and Methods: The study design and type of groups, type of randomization process, sample size, gender, age, and procedure rendered to each group and measuring tool(s) should be evidently mentioned.
Results: The measured variables with their statistical analysis and significance.
Conclusion: It must clearly answer the question of interest.

III. Introduction/Background section:

An excellent introduction will thoroughly include references to earlier work related to the area under discussion and express the importance and limitations of what is previously acknowledged [ 2 ].

-Why this study is considered necessary? What is the purpose of this study? Was the purpose identified before the study or a chance result revealed as part of ‘data searching?’

-What has been already achieved and how does this study be at variance?

-Does the scientific approach outline the advantages along with possible drawbacks associated with the intervention or observations?

IV. Methods and Materials section : Full details on how the study was actually carried out should be mentioned. Precise information is given on the study design, the population, the sample size and the interventions presented. All measurements approaches should be clearly stated [ 3 ].

V. Results section : This section should clearly reveal what actually occur to the subjects. The results might contain raw data and explain the statistical analysis. These can be shown in related tables, diagrams and graphs.

VI. Discussion section : This section should include an absolute comparison of what is already identified in the topic of interest and the clinical relevance of what has been newly established. A discussion on a possible related limitations and necessitation for further studies should also be indicated.

Does it summarize the main findings of the study and relate them to any deficiencies in the study design or problems in the conduct of the study? (This is called intention to treat analysis).

Does it address any source of potential bias?
Are interpretations consistent with the results?
How are null findings interpreted?
Does it mention how do the findings of this study relate to previous work in the area?
Can they be generalized (external validity)?
Does it mention their clinical implications/applicability?
What are the results/outcomes/findings applicable to and will they affect a clinical practice?
Does the conclusion answer the study question?
-Is the conclusion convincing?
-Does the paper indicate ethics approval?
-Can you identify potential ethical issues?
-Do the results apply to the population in which you are interested?
-Will you use the results of the study?

Once you have answered the preliminary and key questions and identified the research method used, you can incorporate specific questions related to each method into your appraisal process or checklist.

1-What is the research question?

For a study to gain value, it should address a significant problem within the healthcare and provide new or meaningful results. Useful structure for assessing the problem addressed in the article is the Problem Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) method [ 3 ].

P = Patient or problem: Patient/Problem/Population:

It involves identifying if the research has a focused question. What is the chief complaint?

E.g.,: Disease status, previous ailments, current medications etc.,

I = Intervention: Appropriately and clearly stated management strategy e.g.,: new diagnostic test, treatment, adjunctive therapy etc.,

C= Comparison: A suitable control or alternative

E.g.,: specific and limited to one alternative choice.

O= Outcomes: The desired results or patient related consequences have to be identified. e.g.,: eliminating symptoms, improving function, esthetics etc.,

The clinical question determines which study designs are appropriate. There are five broad categories of clinical questions, as shown in [ Table/Fig-1 ].

[Table/Fig-1]:

Categories of clinical questions and the related study designs.

2- What is the study type (design)?

The study design of the research is fundamental to the usefulness of the study.

In a clinical paper the methodology employed to generate the results is fully explained. In general, all questions about the related clinical query, the study design, the subjects and the correlated measures to reduce bias and confounding should be adequately and thoroughly explored and answered.

Participants/Sample Population:

Researchers identify the target population they are interested in. A sample population is therefore taken and results from this sample are then generalized to the target population.

The sample should be representative of the target population from which it came. Knowing the baseline characteristics of the sample population is important because this allows researchers to see how closely the subjects match their own patients [ 4 ].

Sample size calculation (Power calculation): A trial should be large enough to have a high chance of detecting a worthwhile effect if it exists. Statisticians can work out before the trial begins how large the sample size should be in order to have a good chance of detecting a true difference between the intervention and control groups [ 5 ].

Is the sample defined? Human, Animals (type); what population does it represent?
Does it mention eligibility criteria with reasons?
Does it mention where and how the sample were recruited, selected and assessed?
Does it mention where was the study carried out?
Is the sample size justified? Rightly calculated? Is it adequate to detect statistical and clinical significant results?
Does it mention a suitable study design/type?
Is the study type appropriate to the research question?
Is the study adequately controlled? Does it mention type of randomization process? Does it mention the presence of control group or explain lack of it?
Are the samples similar at baseline? Is sample attrition mentioned?
All studies report the number of participants/specimens at the start of a study, together with details of how many of them completed the study and reasons for incomplete follow up if there is any.
Does it mention who was blinded? Are the assessors and participants blind to the interventions received?
Is it mentioned how was the data analysed?
Are any measurements taken likely to be valid?

Researchers use measuring techniques and instruments that have been shown to be valid and reliable.

Validity refers to the extent to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure.

(the extent to which the value obtained represents the object of interest.)

-Soundness, effectiveness of the measuring instrument;
-What does the test measure?
-Does it measure, what it is supposed to be measured?
-How well, how accurately does it measure?

Reliability: In research, the term reliability means “repeatability” or “consistency”

Reliability refers to how consistent a test is on repeated measurements. It is important especially if assessments are made on different occasions and or by different examiners. Studies should state the method for assessing the reliability of any measurements taken and what the intra –examiner reliability was [ 6 ].

3-Selection issues:

The following questions should be raised:

- How were subjects chosen or recruited? If not random, are they representative of the population?
- Types of Blinding (Masking) Single, Double, Triple?
- Is there a control group? How was it chosen?
- How are patients followed up? Who are the dropouts? Why and how many are there?
- Are the independent (predictor) and dependent (outcome) variables in the study clearly identified, defined, and measured?
- Is there a statement about sample size issues or statistical power (especially important in negative studies)?
- If a multicenter study, what quality assurance measures were employed to obtain consistency across sites?
- Are there selection biases?
• In a case-control study, if exercise habits to be compared:
- Are the controls appropriate?
- Were records of cases and controls reviewed blindly?
- How were possible selection biases controlled (Prevalence bias, Admission Rate bias, Volunteer bias, Recall bias, Lead Time bias, Detection bias, etc.,)?
• Cross Sectional Studies:
- Was the sample selected in an appropriate manner (random, convenience, etc.,)?
- Were efforts made to ensure a good response rate or to minimize the occurrence of missing data?
- Were reliability (reproducibility) and validity reported?
• In an intervention study, how were subjects recruited and assigned to groups?
• In a cohort study, how many reached final follow-up?
- Are the subject’s representatives of the population to which the findings are applied?
- Is there evidence of volunteer bias? Was there adequate follow-up time?
- What was the drop-out rate?
- Any shortcoming in the methodology can lead to results that do not reflect the truth. If clinical practice is changed on the basis of these results, patients could be harmed.

Researchers employ a variety of techniques to make the methodology more robust, such as matching, restriction, randomization, and blinding [ 7 ].

Bias is the term used to describe an error at any stage of the study that was not due to chance. Bias leads to results in which there are a systematic deviation from the truth. As bias cannot be measured, researchers need to rely on good research design to minimize bias [ 8 ]. To minimize any bias within a study the sample population should be representative of the population. It is also imperative to consider the sample size in the study and identify if the study is adequately powered to produce statistically significant results, i.e., p-values quoted are <0.05 [ 9 ].

4-What are the outcome factors and how are they measured?

-Are all relevant outcomes assessed?
-Is measurement error an important source of bias?

5-What are the study factors and how are they measured?

-Are all the relevant study factors included in the study?
-Have the factors been measured using appropriate tools?

Data Analysis and Results:

- Were the tests appropriate for the data?

- Are confidence intervals or p-values given?

How strong is the association between intervention and outcome?
How precise is the estimate of the risk?
Does it clearly mention the main finding(s) and does the data support them?
Does it mention the clinical significance of the result?
Is adverse event or lack of it mentioned?
Are all relevant outcomes assessed?
Was the sample size adequate to detect a clinically/socially significant result?
Are the results presented in a way to help in health policy decisions?
Is there measurement error?
Is measurement error an important source of bias?

Confounding Factors:

A confounder has a triangular relationship with both the exposure and the outcome. However, it is not on the causal pathway. It makes it appear as if there is a direct relationship between the exposure and the outcome or it might even mask an association that would otherwise have been present [ 9 ].

6- What important potential confounders are considered?

-Are potential confounders examined and controlled for?
-Is confounding an important source of bias?

7- What is the statistical method in the study?

-Are the statistical methods described appropriate to compare participants for primary and secondary outcomes?
-Are statistical methods specified insufficient detail (If I had access to the raw data, could I reproduce the analysis)?
-Were the tests appropriate for the data?
-Are confidence intervals or p-values given?
-Are results presented as absolute risk reduction as well as relative risk reduction?

Interpretation of p-value:

The p-value refers to the probability that any particular outcome would have arisen by chance. A p-value of less than 1 in 20 (p<0.05) is statistically significant.

When p-value is less than significance level, which is usually 0.05, we often reject the null hypothesis and the result is considered to be statistically significant. Conversely, when p-value is greater than 0.05, we conclude that the result is not statistically significant and the null hypothesis is accepted.

Confidence interval:

Multiple repetition of the same trial would not yield the exact same results every time. However, on average the results would be within a certain range. A 95% confidence interval means that there is a 95% chance that the true size of effect will lie within this range.

8- Statistical results:

-Do statistical tests answer the research question?

Are statistical tests performed and comparisons made (data searching)?

Correct statistical analysis of results is crucial to the reliability of the conclusions drawn from the research paper. Depending on the study design and sample selection method employed, observational or inferential statistical analysis may be carried out on the results of the study.

It is important to identify if this is appropriate for the study [ 9 ].

-Was the sample size adequate to detect a clinically/socially significant result?
-Are the results presented in a way to help in health policy decisions?

Clinical significance:

Statistical significance as shown by p-value is not the same as clinical significance. Statistical significance judges whether treatment effects are explicable as chance findings, whereas clinical significance assesses whether treatment effects are worthwhile in real life. Small improvements that are statistically significant might not result in any meaningful improvement clinically. The following questions should always be on mind:

-If the results are statistically significant, do they also have clinical significance?
-If the results are not statistically significant, was the sample size sufficiently large to detect a meaningful difference or effect?

9- What conclusions did the authors reach about the study question?

Conclusions should ensure that recommendations stated are suitable for the results attained within the capacity of the study. The authors should also concentrate on the limitations in the study and their effects on the outcomes and the proposed suggestions for future studies [ 10 ].

-Are the questions posed in the study adequately addressed?
-Are the conclusions justified by the data?
-Do the authors extrapolate beyond the data?
-Are shortcomings of the study addressed and constructive suggestions given for future research?
-Bibliography/References:

Do the citations follow one of the Council of Biological Editors’ (CBE) standard formats?

10- Are ethical issues considered?

If a study involves human subjects, human tissues, or animals, was approval from appropriate institutional or governmental entities obtained? [ 10 , 11 ].

Critical appraisal of RCTs: Factors to look for:

Allocation (randomization, stratification, confounders).
Follow up of participants (intention to treat).
Data collection (bias).
Sample size (power calculation).
Presentation of results (clear, precise).
Applicability to local population.

[ Table/Fig-2 ] summarizes the guidelines for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials CONSORT [ 12 ].

[Table/Fig-2]:

Summary of the CONSORT guidelines.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews: provide an overview of all primary studies on a topic and try to obtain an overall picture of the results.

In a systematic review, all the primary studies identified are critically appraised and only the best ones are selected. A meta-analysis (i.e., a statistical analysis) of the results from selected studies may be included. Factors to look for:

Literature search (did it include published and unpublished materials as well as non-English language studies? Was personal contact with experts sought?).
Quality-control of studies included (type of study; scoring system used to rate studies; analysis performed by at least two experts).
Homogeneity of studies.

[ Table/Fig-3 ] summarizes the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA [ 13 ].

[Table/Fig-3]:

Summary of PRISMA guidelines.

Critical appraisal is a fundamental skill in modern practice for assessing the value of clinical researches and providing an indication of their relevance to the profession. It is a skills-set developed throughout a professional career that facilitates this and, through integration with clinical experience and patient preference, permits the practice of evidence based medicine and dentistry. By following a systematic approach, such evidence can be considered and applied to clinical practice.

Financial or other Competing Interests

IMAGES

Example Of A Critical Analysis Of A Qualitative Study
Summary Qualitative Research Practice
Qualitative Research Report Summary & Critical Appraisal Essay
10 Ultimate Steps: How to Critically Appraise an Article
(PDF) A critical Review of a Qualitative Research publication by Simeon
(PDF) Critical Appraisal Process: Step-by-Step

VIDEO

Research basics
HS2405 AssessmentTask1 Group4 Maru
Incorporating Research Based Strategies for ELLs
RESEARCH CRITIQUE Qualitative Research
Critical Appraisal of Research NOV 23
Critical Appraisal of a Quantitative Research

COMMENTS

Critical Appraisal of a Qualitative Journal Article
This essay critically appraises a research article, Using CASP (critical appraisal skills programme, 2006) and individual sections of Bellini & Rumrill: guidelines for critiquing research articles (Bellini &Rumrill, 1999). The title of this article is; 'Clinical handover in the trauma setting: A qualitative study of paramedics and trauma team ...
Critical Appraisal of a qualitative paper
Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper. This guide aimed at health students, provides basic level support for appraising qualitative research papers. It's designed for students who have already attended lectures on critical appraisal. ... is provided and there is an opportunity to practise the technique on a sample article. Support Materials.
Critical appraisal of qualitative research
Qualitative evidence allows researchers to analyse human experience and provides useful exploratory insights into experiential matters and meaning, often explaining the 'how' and 'why'. As we have argued previously1, qualitative research has an important place within evidence-based healthcare, contributing to among other things policy on patient safety,2 prescribing,3 4 and ...
Full article: Critical appraisal
What is critical appraisal? Critical appraisal involves a careful and systematic assessment of a study's trustworthiness or rigour (Booth et al., Citation 2016).A well-conducted critical appraisal: (a) is an explicit systematic, rather than an implicit haphazard, process; (b) involves judging a study on its methodological, ethical, and theoretical quality, and (c) is enhanced by a reviewer ...
PDF CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES ... position in relation to the research question. For example - their background, gender, and existing ... Papers That Go beyond Numbers (Qualitative Research). BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 315, No. 7110 (Sep. 20, 1997), pp. 740-743 CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES.
Critically appraising qualitative research
One of the critical decisions in a qualitative study is whom or what to include in the sample—whom to interview, whom to observe, what texts to analyse. An understanding that qualitative research is based in experience and in the construction of meaning, combined with the specific research question, should guide the sampling process.
Critical Appraisal Of Qualitative Research Essay Example
Results of studies of the Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research. In approaching workplace violence, Henderson et al. (2018) emphasize that understanding the occurrence of workplace violence can help reduce the risk it poses to nurses. The results are analyzed in four themes. The themes include violence, long-term consequences of violence ...
PDF Critically appraising qualitative research
Appraising qualitative research is different from appraising quantitative research Qualitative research papers should show appropriate sampling, data collection, and data analysis ... Box 1 Key questions to ask when reading qualitative research studies Was the sample used in the study appropriate to its research question? ... Critical case ...
PDF How to appraise qualitative research
In crit-ically appraising qualitative research, steps need to be taken to ensure its rigour, credibility and trustworthiness. (table 1). Some of the qualitative approaches used in nursing research include grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, case study (can lend itself to mixed methods) and narrative analysis.
PDF Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and
collection and analysis in qualitative research papers. One of the most widely used appraisal tools is the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)26 and along with the JBI QARI (Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Assessment Instrument)27 presents examples which tend to mimic the quantitative approach to appraisal.
How to appraise qualitative research
In order to make a decision about implementing evidence into practice, nurses need to be able to critically appraise research. Nurses also have a professional responsibility to maintain up-to-date practice.1 This paper provides a guide on how to critically appraise a qualitative research paper. Qualitative research concentrates on understanding phenomena and may focus on meanings, perceptions ...
Critical Appraisal of Research Articles: Qualitative Studies
Qualitative research is indexed in PubMed as "Qualitative Research" or "Nursing Methodology Research", while in CINAHL, the subject heading "Qualitative Studies" is complemented by more detailed terms, including "Phenomenological Research" and "Grounded Theory". 2. Use text words.
Critical Appraisal: Assessing the Quality of Studies
Critical appraisal of papers is important, as it allows readers to understand the strengths and limitations of the literature. ... Saying Niall is a reliable co-author is using the term reliable is a different way to the one used in research, for example. ... (2011) Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A ...
Critical appraisal of a qualitative study
Includes what critical appraisal means, and the tools available to help carry out critical appraisal. Appraisal of qualitative research using a CASP checklist The following video (3 min. 5 sec.) summarizes what to look for in a piece of qualitative research, and an introduction to the CASP checklist for qualitative research.
20.3.2.2 Critical appraisal
20.3.2.2. Critical appraisal. Assessment of study quality (critical appraisal) is a particularly contested issue in relation to qualitative evidence synthesis. At present, opinion on the value of formal quality assessment is divided and there is insufficient evidence to inform a judgement on the rigour or added value of various approaches.
DOC Home
ÐÏ à¡± á> þÿ z | þÿÿÿw x y ...
Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research, Coursework Example
The research approach of this study is a qualitative methodology. Yes, it is appropriate as it addresses the research question. The aim of the study is to describe experiences, and not find out their prevalence. It seeks to examine how parents respond to preterm births, rather than how many preterm births occur.
Critical Appraisal Of Qualitative Research Essay Example
Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research -Workplace Violence against Nurses Essay. MN Sage. February 22, 2022. Sample Study Papers. This is a Critical Appraisal of two qualitative research articles that focuses on Workplace Violence against Nurses. It is also a critical appraisal example essay and critical appraisal assignment example ...
7.3 Critically Appraising the Literature
7.3 Critically Appraising the Literature Now that you know the parts of a paper, we will discuss how to critically appraise a paper. Critical appraisal refers to the process of carefully and methodically reviewing research to determine its credibility, usefulness, and applicability in a certain context. 6 It is an essential element of evidence-based practice.
Study Guide 3: How to Critically Appraise a Paper
7 Check lists for critical appraisal of different study designs 13 8 Bias 13 9 General considerations: qualitative studies 15 10 General considerations: quantitative studies 16 11 Sample paper: quantitative study 18 12 Further reading 21 Appendix A: sources of bias 22 Appendix B: critical appraisal exercise 24 Glossary 30
(PDF) Critical appraisal of qualitative Research Article
Abstract. Research is a systematic collection of data and information analysis. Generally, qualitative research is conducted in a natural setting. The data are mostly text rather than numeric data ...
Library Guides: Evaluating Sources: Critical Appraisal
Critical thinking is the foundation for good academic writing. It should inform every stage of the journey from planning your essay to embarking on your research project to writing the final draft of your paper. Evaluating and critically appraising sources is a key stage in this process, Critical engagement with the idea or topic.
Critical Appraisal of Clinical Research
Critical appraisal is the course of action for watchfully and systematically examining research to assess its reliability, value and relevance in order to direct professionals in their vital clinical decision making [ 1 ]. Critical appraisal is essential to: Combat information overload; Identify papers that are clinically relevant;

Critical Appraisal for Health Students

Appraisal of a Qualitative paper : Top tips

Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper

Support Materials

Schellekens, M.P.J. et al (2016) 'A qualitative study on mindfulness-based stress reduction for breast cancer patients: how women experience participating with fellow patients', Support Care Cancer , 24(4), pp. 1813-1820.

Using the framework, you can have a go at appraising a qualitative paper - we are going to look at the following article:

Search form

Critically appraising qualitative research

Summary points

Box 1 Key questions to ask when reading qualitative research studies

Box 2 Qualitative sampling methods for interviews and focus groups 9

In conclusion: is what the researchers did clear?

Further reading

Journal articles

Internet resources

📕 Studying HQ

Instructions for the Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles

Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles

Support to the Issue of Workplace Violence

Method of Study per Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

Results of studies of the Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

Ethical Considerations in the Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Related Posts

Study Hub:

Writing Tools

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Introduction

What is qualitative research?

Authenticity

Purpose and question

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks

Methodology

Data collection

Validity and rigour

Themes and interpretations and implications for practice

Discussions, recommendations and conclusions

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Critical Appraisal of Research Articles: Qualitative Studies

What is a Qualitative Study?

Examples of Qualitative Research Methods

Questions to Ask

How to Find Qualitative Studies

Appraisal Checklists for Qualitative Studies

Critical Appraisal: Assessing the Quality of Studies

Buying options

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

UCL LIBRARY SERVICES

LibrarySkills@UCL for NHS staff

Appraisal of qualitative research using a CASP checklist

Critical appraisal of qualitative research (webinar)

'Focus on' videos (qualitative research)

20.3.2.2 Critical appraisal

Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research, Coursework Example

Related Coursework Samples & Examples

Relevant Law and Process, Coursework Example

Venture Capital, Coursework Example

Veil Piercing in the Supreme Court, Coursework Example

Consumer Law, Coursework Example

Banking Law – Critically Discuss Statement, Coursework Example

Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research -Workplace Violence against Nurses Essay

Instructions for the Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles

Critical Appraisal of two qualitative Research articles

Support to the Issue of Workplace Violence

Method of Study per Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

Results of studies of the Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

Ethical Considerations in the Critical Appraisal of qualitative Research

Does this Look Like Your Assignment? We Can do an Original Paper for you!

Knowledge Base

Writing Tools

Use our resources and guides to write perfect papers. You can use our writing service and order customized sample papers without plagiarism!

7.3 Critically Appraising the Literature

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You