Qualitative Research Critique
Qualitative Research Critique
NUR 602: Qualitative Research Critique Guidelines
| Content | Critiquing Questions | Student’s Comments Comprehensively address the critique questions and provide examples when appropriate. Do not copy and paste from the article. |
| Title , Introduction Statement of the Problem | 1. Is the title a good one, suggesting the key phenomenon and the group or community under study? 2. Is the problem stated unambiguously and is it easy to identify? 3. Does the problem statement build a cogent and persuasive argument for the new study? 4. Does the problem have significance for nursing? | 1. 2. 3. 4. |
| Research Questions, Purpose, Clinical Questions, or Specific Aims | 1. Are research questions or purpose explicitly stated? If not, is their absence justified? | 1. |
| Literature Review | 1. Does the report adequately summarize the existing body of knowledge related to the problem or phenomenon of interest? 2. Does the literature review provide a sound basis for the new study? | 1. 2, |
| Method Protection of participants’ rights | 1. Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants? Was the study subject to external review by an IRB/ethics review board? 2. Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants? | 1. 2. |
| Research Design | 1. Is the identified research tradition (if any) congruent with the methods used to collect and analyze data? 2. Was an adequate amount of time spent in the field or with study participants? 3. Did the design unfold in the field, giving researchers opportunities to capitalize on early understandings? 4. Was there an adequate number of contacts with study participants? | 1. 2, 3. 4. |
| Sample and Setting | 1. Was the group or population of interest adequately described in sufficient detail? 2. Was the approach used to recruit participants or gain access to the site appropriate? 3. Was the best possible method of sampling used to enhance information richness and address the needs of the study? 4. Was the sample size adequate? Was saturation achieved? | 1. 2. 3. 4. |
| Data Collection | 1. Were the methods of gathering data appropriate? Were data gathered through two or more methods to achieve triangulation? 2. Did the researcher ask the right questions or make the right observations, and were they recorded in an appropriate fashion? 3. Was a sufficient amount of data gathered? Were the data of sufficient depth and richness? | 1. 2. 3. |
| Procedures | 1. Are data collection and recording procedures adequately described and do they appear appropriate? 2. Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Were the staff who collected data appropriately trained? | 1. 2. |
| Enhancement of Trustworthiness | 1. Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness/integrity of the study, and was the description of those strategies adequate? 2. Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable? 3. Is there evidence of researcher reflexivity? 4. Is there “thick description” of the context, participants, and findings, and was it at a sufficient level to support transferability? | 1. 2. 3. 4. |
| Results Data Analysis | 1. Are the data management and data analysis methods sufficiently described? 2. Was the data analysis strategy compatible with the research tradition and with the nature and type of data gathered? 3. Did the analysis yield an appropriate “product” (e.g., a theory, taxonomy, thematic pattern)? | 1. 2. 3. |
| Findings | 1. Are the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments? 2. Do the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data? Does it appear that the researcher satisfactorily conceptualized the themes or patterns in the data? 3. Does the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation? | 1. 2. 3. |
| Discussion Interpretation of the Findings | 1. Are the findings interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context? 2. Are major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies? 3. Are the interpretations consistent with the study’s limitations? | 1. 2. 3. |
| Implications/ Recommendations | 1. Do the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further inquiry—and are those implications reasonable and complete? | 1. |
| Conclusion | 1. Is the report well written, organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis? 2. Is the description of the methods, findings, and interpretations sufficiently rich and vivid? | 1. |
| Researcher Credibility | 1. Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation? | 1. |
| Summary Assessment | 1. Do the study findings appear to be trustworthy—do you have confidence in the truth value of the results? 2. Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline? |
