Step'by-step guide to critiquing
research. Part 1: quantitative research
Michaei Coughian, Patricia Cronin, Frances Ryan
Abstract
When caring for patients it is essential that nurses are using the
current best practice. To determine what this is, nurses must be able
to read research critically. But for many qualified and student nurses
the terminology used in research can be difficult to understand
thus making critical reading even more daunting. It is imperative
in nursing that care has its foundations in sound research and it is
essential that all nurses have the ability to critically appraise research
to identify what is best practice. This article is a step-by step-approach
to critiquing quantitative research to help nurses demystify the
process and decode the terminology.
Key words: Quantitative research
methodologies
Review process • Research
]or many qualified nurses and nursing students
research is research, and it is often quite difficult
to grasp what others are referring to when they
discuss the limitations and or strengths within
a research study. Research texts and journals refer to
critiquing the literature, critical analysis, reviewing the
literature, evaluation and appraisal of the literature which
are in essence the same thing (Bassett and Bassett, 2003).
Terminology in research can be confusing for the novice
research reader where a term like 'random' refers to an
organized manner of selecting items or participants, and the
word 'significance' is applied to a degree of chance. Thus
the aim of this article is to take a step-by-step approach to
critiquing research in an attempt to help nurses demystify
the process and decode the terminology.
When caring for patients it is essential that nurses are
using the current best practice. To determine what this is
nurses must be able to read research. The adage 'All that
glitters is not gold' is also true in research. Not all research
is of the same quality or of a high standard and therefore
nurses should not simply take research at face value simply
because it has been published (Cullum and Droogan, 1999;
Rolit and Beck, 2006). Critiquing is a systematic method of
Michael Coughlan, Patricia Cronin and Frances Ryan are Lecturers,
School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dubhn, Trinity
College, Dublin
Accepted for
publication:
March 2007
appraising the strengths and limitations of a piece of research
in order to determine its credibility and/or its applicability
to practice (Valente, 2003). Seeking only limitations in a
study is criticism and critiquing and criticism are not the
same (Burns and Grove, 1997). A critique is an impersonal
evaluation of the strengths and limitations of the research
being reviewed and should not be seen as a disparagement
of the researchers ability. Neither should it be regarded as
a jousting match between the researcher and the reviewer.
Burns and Grove (1999) call this an 'intellectual critique'
in that it is not the creator but the creation that is being
evaluated. The reviewer maintains objectivity throughout
the critique. No personal views are expressed by the
reviewer and the strengths and/or limitations of the study
and the imphcations of these are highlighted with reference
to research texts or journals. It is also important to remember
that research works within the realms of probability where
nothing is absolutely certain. It is therefore important to
refer to the apparent strengths, limitations and findings
of a piece of research (Burns and Grove, 1997). The use
of personal pronouns is also avoided in order that an
appearance of objectivity can be maintained.
Credibility and integrity
There are numerous tools available to help both novice and
advanced reviewers to critique research studies (Tanner,
2003).
These tools generally ask questions that can help the
reviewer to determine the degree to which the steps in the
research process were followed. However, some steps are
more important than others and very few tools acknowledge
this.
Ryan-Wenger (1992) suggests that questions in a
critiquing tool can be subdivided in those that are useful
for getting a feel for the study being presented which she
calls 'credibility variables' and those that are essential for
evaluating the research process called 'integrity variables'.
Credibility variables concentrate on how believable the
work appears and focus on the researcher's qualifications and
ability to undertake and accurately present the study. The
answers to these questions are important when critiquing
a piece of research as they can offer the reader an insight
into \vhat to expect in the remainder of the study.
However, the reader should be aware that identified strengths
and limitations within this section will not necessarily
correspond with what will be found in the rest of the work.
Integrity questions, on the other hand, are interested in the
robustness of the research method, seeking to identify how
appropriately and accurately the researcher followed the
steps in the research
process.
The answers to these questions
658
British Journal of Nursing.
2007.
Vol 16, No II
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
Table
1.
Research questions
-
guidelines
for
critiquing
a
quantitative research study
Elements influencing
the
beiievabiiity
of the
research
Elements
Writing styie
Author
Report titie
Abstract
Questions
Is
the
report well written
-
concise, grammatically correct, avoid
the use of
jargon?
Is it
weil iaid
out and
organized?
Do
the
researcher(s') quaiifications/position indicate
a
degree
of
knowledge
in
this particuiar field?
Is
the
title clear, accurate
and
unambiguous?
Does
the
abstract offer
a
clear overview
of
the study including
the
research problem, sample,
methodology, finding
and
recommendations?
Elements influencing
the
robustness
of the
research
Elements
Purpose/research
Problem
Logical consistency
Literature review
Theoreticai framework
Aims/objectives/
research question/
hypotheses
Sampie
Ethicai considerations
Operational definitions
Methodology
Data Anaiysis
/
results
Discussion
References
Questions
Is
the
purpose
of
the study/research problem clearly identified?
Does
the
research report foilow
the
steps
of
the research process
in a
iogical manner? Do these steps
naturally fiow
and are the
iinks ciear?
is
the
review Iogicaily organized? Does
it
offer
a
balanced critical anaiysis
of
the iiterature?
is the
majority
of the literature
of
recent origin?
is it
mainly from primary sources
and of
an empirical nature?
Has
a
conceptual
or
theoretical framework been identified?
Is the
framework adequately described?
is
the
framework appropriate?
Have alms
and
objectives,
a
research question
or
hypothesis been identified? If so
are
they clearly
stated? Do they reflect
the
information presented
in the
iiterature review?
Has
the
target popuiation been cieariy identified? How were
the
sample selected? Was
it a
probability
or non-probabiiity sampie?
is it of
adequate size? Are
the
indusion/exciusion criteria dearly identified?
Were
the
participants fuiiy informed about
the
nature
of
the research? Was
the
autonomy/
confidentiaiity
of
the participants guaranteed? Were
the
participants protected from harm? Was ethicai
permission granted
for the
study?
Are aii
the
terms, theories
and
concepts mentioned
in the
study dearly defined?
is
the
research design cieariy identified? Has
the
data gathering instrument been described?
is the
instrument appropriate? How was
it
deveioped? Were reliabiiity and validity testing undertaken
and the
resuits discussed? Was
a
piiot study undertaken?
What type
of
data
and
statisticai analysis
was
undertaken? Was
it
appropriate? How many
of
the sampie
participated? Significance
of
the findings?
Are
the
findings iinked back
to the
iiterature review?
if a
hypothesis was identified
was it
supported?
Were
the
strengths
and
limitations
of
the study including generalizability discussed? Was
a
recommendation
for
further research made?
Were ali
the
books, journais
and
other media aliuded
to in the
study accurateiy referenced?
will help to identify the trustworthiness of the study and its
applicability to nursing practice.
Critiquing the research steps
In critiquing the steps in the research process a number
of questions need to be asked. However, these questions
are seeking more than a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. The
questions are posed to stimulate the reviewer to consider
the implications of what the researcher has done. Does the
way a step has been applied appear to add to the strength
of the study or does it appear as a possible limitation to
implementation of the study's findings?
{Table
1).
Eiements influencing beiievabiiity
of
the study
Writing style
Research reports should be well written, grammatically
correct, concise and well organized.The use of jargon should
be avoided where possible. The style should be such that it
attracts the reader to read on (Polit and Beck, 2006).
Author(s)
The author(s') qualifications and job title can be a useful
indicator into the researcher(s') knowledge of the area
under investigation and ability to ask the appropriate
questions (Conkin Dale, 2005). Conversely a research
study should be evaluated on its own merits and not
assumed to be valid and reliable simply based on the
author(s') qualifications.
Report title
The title should be between 10 and 15 words long and
should clearly identify for the reader the purpose of the
study (Connell Meehan, 1999). Titles that are too long or
too short can be confusing or misleading (Parahoo, 2006).
Abstract
The abstract should provide a succinct overview of the
research and should include information regarding the
purpose of the study, method, sample size and selection.
Hritislijourn.il
of
Nursing.
2007.
Vol 16.
No 11
659
the main findings
and
conclusions
and
recommendations
(Conkin Dale, 2005). From
the
abstract
the
reader should
be able
to
determine
if
the study
is
of interest and whether
or
not to
continue reading (Parahoo, 2006).
Eiements influencing robustness
Purpose
of
the study/research problem
A research problem
is
often first presented
to the
reader
in
the introduction
to the
study (Bassett
and
Bassett, 2003).
Depending
on
what is
to be
investigated some authors will
refer
to it as the
purpose
of
the study.
In
either case
the
statement should at least broadly indicate
to
the reader what
is
to be
studied (Polit and Beck, 2006). Broad problems are
often multi-faceted and will need
to
become narrower and
more focused before they
can be
researched.
In
this
the
literature review can play
a
major role (Parahoo, 2006).
Logical consistency
A research study needs
to
follow the steps
in
the process
in
a
logical manner.There should also be a clear link between the
steps beginning with the purpose of the study and following
through the literature review, the theoretical framework, the
research question, the methodology section, the data analysis,
and
the
findings (Ryan-Wenger, 1992).
Literature review
The primary purpose
of
the literature review
is to
define
or develop
the
research question while also identifying
an appropriate method
of
data collection (Burns
and
Grove, 1997).
It
should also help
to
identify
any
gaps
in
the literature relating
to the
problem
and to
suggest
how
those gaps might
be
filled.
The
literature review should
demonstrate
an
appropriate depth
and
breadth
of
reading
around
the
topic
in
question.
The
majority
of
studies
included should
be of
recent origin
and
ideally less than
five years old. However, there
may be
exceptions
to
this,
for example,
in
areas where there
is a
lack
of
research,
or a
seminal or all-important piece of work that is still relevant to
current practice.
It is
important also that
the
review should
include some historical
as
well
as
contemporary material
in order
to put the
subject being studied into context. The
depth
of
coverage will depend
on the
nature
of
the subject,
for example, for
a
subject with a vast range of literature then
the review will need
to
concentrate
on a
very specific area
(Carnwell, 1997). Another important consideration
is the
type
and
source
of
hterature presented. Primary empirical
data from
the
original source
is
more favourable than
a
secondary source
or
anecdotal information where
the
author relies
on
personal evidence
or
opinion that
is not
founded
on
research.
A good review usually begins with an introduction which
identifies
the key
words used
to
conduct
the
search
and
information about which databases were used. The themes
that emerged from
the
literature should then
be
presented
and discussed (Carnwell, 1997).
In
presenting previous
work
it is
important that
the
data
is
reviewed critically,
highlighting both
the
strengths and limitations
of
the study.
It should also
be
compared and contrasted with
the
findings
of other studies (Burns and Grove, 1997).
Theoretical framework
Following
the
identification
of the
research problem
and
the
review
of the
literature
the
researcher should
present
the
theoretical framework (Bassett
and
Bassett,
2003).
Theoretical frameworks
are a
concept that novice
and experienced researchers find confusing.
It is
initially
important
to
note that not all research studies use
a
defined
theoretical framework (Robson, 2002).
A
theoretical
framework
can be a
conceptual model that
is
used
as a
guide
for the
study (Conkin Dale, 2005)
or
themes from
the literature that are conceptually mapped and used
to set
boundaries
for the
research (Miles
and
Huberman, 1994).
A sound framework also identifies
the
various concepts
being studied
and the
relationship between those concepts
(Burns
and
Grove, 1997). Such relationships should have
been identified
in the
literature. The research study should
then build
on
this theory through empirical observation.
Some theoretical frameworks
may
include
a
hypothesis.
Theoretical frameworks tend
to be
better developed
in
experimental
and
quasi-experimental studies
and
often
poorly developed
or
non-existent
in
descriptive studies
(Burns and Grove, 1999).The theoretical framework should
be clearly identified and explained
to the
reader.
Aims and objectives/research question/
research hypothesis
The purpose of the aims and objectives of a study, the research
question and the research hypothesis is to form a link between
the initially stated purpose
of
the study
or
research problem
and
how the
study will
be
undertaken (Burns
and
Grove,
1999).
They should
be
clearly stated
and be
congruent with
the data presented
in the
literature review. The
use of
these
items
is
dependent
on the
type
of
research being performed.
Some descriptive studies may
not
identify any
of
these items
but simply refer
to the
purpose
of
the study
or the
research
problem, others will include either aims
and
objectives
or
research questions (Burns
and
Grove, 1999). Correlational
designs, study
the
relationships that exist between
two or
more variables and accordingly use either a research question
or hypothesis. Experimental
and
quasi-experimental studies
should clearly state
a
hypothesis identifying
the
variables
to
be manipulated, the population that
is
being studied
and the
predicted outcome (Burns and Grove, 1999).
Sample
and
sample size
The degree
to
which
a
sample reflects
the
population
it
was drawn from
is
known
as
representativeness
and in
quantitative research this
is a
decisive factor
in
determining
the adequacy
of
a study (Polit
and
Beck, 2006).
In
order
to select
a
sample that
is
likely
to be
representative
and
thus identify findings that
are
probably generalizable
to
the target population
a
probability sample should
be
used
(Parahoo,
2006).
The size
of
the sample
is
also important
in
quantitative research
as
small samples
are at
risk
of
being
overly representative
of
small subgroups within
the
target
population. For example,
if, in a
sample of general nurses,
it
was noticed that 40%
of
the respondents were males, then
males would appear
to be
over represented
in the
sample,
thereby creating
a
sampling error.
The
risk
of
sampling
660
Britishjournal
of
Nursing.
2007.
Vol 16. No
II
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
errors decrease
as
larger sample sizes
are
used (Burns
and
Grove, 1997).
In
selecting
the
sample
the
researcher should
clearly identify
who the
target population
are and
what
criteria were used
to
include
or
exclude participants.
It
should also
be
evident
how the
sample
was
selected
and
how many were invited
to
participate (Russell, 2005).
Ethical considerations
Beauchamp
and
Childress (2001) identify four fundamental
moral principles: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence
and
justice.
Autonomy infers that
an
individual
has
the
right
to freely decide
to
participate
in a
research study without
fear
of
coercion
and
with
a
full knowledge
of
what
is
being
investigated. Non-maleficence imphes
an
intention
of not
harming
and
preventing harm occurring
to
participants
both
of a
physical
and
psychological nature (Parahoo,
2006).
Beneficence
is
interpreted
as the
research benefiting
the participant
and
society
as a
whole (Beauchamp
and
Childress, 2001). Justice
is
concerned with
all
participants
being treated
as
equals
and no one
group
of
individuals
receiving preferential treatment because,
for
example,
of
their position
in
society (Parahoo, 2006). Beauchamp
and
Childress (2001) also identify four moral rules that
are
both
closely connected
to
each other
and
with
the
principle
of
autonomy. They
are
veracity (truthfulness), fidelity (loyalty
and trust), confidentiality and privacy.The latter pair are often
linked
and
imply that
the
researcher has
a
duty
to
respect
the
confidentiality and/or
the
anonymity
of
participants
and
non-participating subjects.
Ethical committees
or
institutional review boards have
to
give approval before research
can be
undertaken. Their role
is
to
determine that ethical principles
are
being applied
and
that
the
rights
of
the individual
are
being adhered
to
(Burns
and Grove, 1999).
Operational definitions
In
a
research study
the
researcher needs
to
ensure that
the reader understands what
is
meant
by the
terms
and
concepts that
are
used
in the
research. To ensure this
any
concepts
or
terms referred
to
should
be
clearly defined
(Parahoo, 2006).
Methodology: research design
Methodology refers
to the
nuts
and
bolts
of how a
research study
is
undertaken. There
are a
number
of
important elements that need
to be
referred
to
here
and
the first
of
these
is the
research design. There
are
several
types
of
quantitative studies that
can be
structured under
the headings
of
true experimental, quasi-experimental
and non-experimental designs (Robson, 2002)
{Table
2).
Although
it is
outside
the
remit
of
this article, within each
of these categories there
are a
range
of
designs that will
impact
on
how
the
data collection
and
data analysis phases
of
the
study
are
undertaken. However, Robson (2002)
states these designs
are
similar
in
many respects
as
most
are concerned with patterns
of
group behaviour, averages,
tendencies
and
properties.
Methodology: data collection
The next element
to
consider after
the
research design
is
the
data collection method.
In a
quantitative study
any
number
of
strategies
can be
adopted when collecting data
and these
can
include interviews, questionnaires, attitude
scales
or
observational tools. Questionnaires
are the
most
commonly used data gathering instruments
and
consist
mainly
of
closed questions with
a
choice
of
fixed answers.
Postal questionnaires
are
administered
via
the
mail
and
have
the value of perceived anonymity. Questionnaires
can
also
be
administered
in
face-to-face interviews
or in
some instances
over
the
telephone (Polit
and
Beck, 2006).
Methodology: instrument design
After identifying
the
appropriate data gathering method
the next step that needs
to be
considered
is the
design
of
the
instrument. Researchers have
the
choice
of
using
a previously designed instrument
or
developing
one for
the study
and
this choice should
be
clearly declared
for
the reader. Designing
an
instrument
is a
protracted
and
sometimes difficult process (Burns
and
Grove, 1997)
but the
overall
aim is
that
the
final questions will
be
clearly linked
to
the
research questions
and
will elicit accurate information
and will help achieve
the
goals
of
the
research.This, however,
needs
to be
demonstrated
by
the
researcher.
Table
2.
Research designs
Design
Experimental
Qucisl-experimental
Non-experimental,
e.g.
descriptive
and
Includes: cross-sectional.
correlationai.
comparative.
iongitudinal studies
Sample
2
or
more groups
One
or
more groups
One
or
more groups
Sample
allocation
Random
Random
Not applicable
Features
• Groups
get
different treatments
•
One
variable
has
not
been manipuiated
or
controlled (usually
because
it
cannot
be)
• Discover
new
meaning
• Describe what already
exists
• Measure
the
relationship
between
two
or
more
variables
Outcome
• Cause and effiect relationship
• Cause and effect relationship
but iess powerful than
experimental
• Possible hypothesis
for
future research
• Tentative explanations
Britishjournal
of
Nursing.
2007.
Vol 16.
No
11
661
If
a
previously designed instrument
is
selected the researcher
should clearly establish that chosen instrument
is the
most
appropriate.This is achieved by outlining how the instrument
has measured
the
concepts under study. Previously designed
instruments
are
often
in the
form
of
standardized tests
or scales that have been developed
for the
purpose
of
measuring
a
range
of
views, perceptions, attitudes, opinions
or even abilities. There
are a
multitude
of
tests
and
scales
available, therefore
the
researcher
is
expected
to
provide
the
appropriate evidence
in
relation
to
the
validity and reliability
of the instrument (Polit and Beck, 2006).
Methodology: validity
and
reliability
One
of
the
most important features
of
any instrument
is
that
it
measures the concept being studied
in an
unwavering
and consistent way. These
are
addressed under
the
broad
headings
of
validity
and
reliability respectively.
In
general,
validity
is
described
as the
ability
of the
instrument
to
measure what
it is
supposed
to
measure
and
reliability
the
instrument's ability
to
consistently
and
accurately measure
the concept under study (Wood
et
al,
2006).
For the
most
part,
if
a
well established
'off
the shelf instrument has been
used
and not
adapted
in
any way, the validity
and
reliability
will have been determined already
and the
researcher
should outline what this
is.
However,
if the
instrument
has been adapted
in any
way
or is
being used
for a new
population then previous validity
and
reliability will
not
apply.
In
these circumstances
the
researcher should indicate
how
the
reliability
and
validity
of
the adapted instrument
was established (Polit
and
Beck, 2006).
To establish
if the
chosen instrument
is
clear
and
unambiguous
and to
ensure that
the
proposed study
has
been conceptually well planned
a
mini-version
of
the main
study, referred to as a pilot study, should be undertaken before
the main study. Samples used
in
the
pilot study are generally
omitted from
the
main study. Following
the
pilot study
the
researcher may adjust definitions, alter
the
research question,
address changes
to the
measuring instrument
or
even alter
the sampling strategy.
Having described the research design, the researcher should
outline
in
clear, logical steps
the
process
by
which
the
data
was collected. All steps should
be
fully described
and
easy
to
follow (Russell, 2005).
Analysis
and
results
Data analysis
in
quantitative research studies
is
often seen
as
a
daunting process. Much
of
this
is
associated with
apparently complex language
and the
notion
of
statistical
tests.
The researcher should clearly identify what statistical
tests were undertaken,
why
these tests were used
and
what •were
the
results. A rule
of
thumb
is
that studies that
are descriptive
in
design only
use
descriptive statistics,
correlational studies, quasi-experimental
and
experimental
studies
use
inferential statistics.
The
latter
is
subdivided
into tests
to
measure relationships
and
differences between
variables (Clegg, 1990).
Inferential statistical tests
are
used
to
identify
if a
relationship
or
difference between variables
is
statistically
significant. Statistical significance helps
the
researcher
to
rule
out
one important threat
to
validity
and
that
is
that
the
result could
be
due
to
chance rather than
to
real differences
in
the
population. Quantitative studies usually identify
the
lowest level
of
significance
as
PsO.O5
(P =
probability)
(Clegg, 1990).
To enhance readability researchers frequently present
their findings
and
data analysis section under
the
headings
of the research questions (Russell,
2005).
This
can
help
the
reviewer determine
if
the results that
are
presented clearly
answer
the
research
questions.
Tables,
charts
and
graphs may
be used
to
summarize
the
results
and
should
be
accurate,
clearly identified
and
enhance
the
presentation
of
results
(Russell, 2005).
The percentage
of the
sample
who
participated
in
the study
is an
important element
in
considering
the
generalizability
of
the
results.
At
least fifty percent
of
the
sample
is
needed
to
participate
if
a response bias
is to be
avoided (Polit
and
Beck, 2006).
Discussion/conclusion/recommendations
The discussion
of
the findings should Oow logically from
the
data
and
should
be
related back
to
the
literature review thus
placing the study
in
context (Russell, 2002). If
the
hypothesis
was deemed
to
have been supported
by the
findings,
the researcher should develop this
in the
discussion.
If a
theoretical
or
conceptual framework
was
used
in the
study
then
the
relationship with
the
findings should
be
explored.
Any interpretations
or
inferences drawn should
be
clearly
identified as such
and
consistent with
the
results.
The significance
of the
findings should
be
stated
but
these should
be
considered within
the
overall strengths
and limitations
of
the study (Polit
and
Beck, 2006).
In
this
section some consideration should
be
given
to
whether
or
not the
findings
of
the
study were generalizable, also
referred
to
as
external validity.
Not all
studies make
a
claim
to generalizability but the researcher should have undertaken
an assessment
of
the key factors
in
the
design, sampling
and
analysis
of
the study
to
support any such claim.
Finally
the
researcher should have explored
the
clinical
significance
and
relevance
of
the
study. Applying findings
in practice should
be
suggested with caution
and
will
obviously depend
on the
nature
and
purpose
of
the study.
In addition,
the
researcher should make relevant
and
meaningful suggestions
for
future research
in the
area
(Connell Meehan, 1999).
References
The research study should conclude with
an
accurate list
of
all
the
books; journal articles, reports
and
other media
that were referred
to in the
work (Polit
and
Beck, 2006).
The referenced material
is
also
a
useful source
of
further
information
on
the
subject being studied.
Conciusions
The process
of
critiquing involves
an
in-depth examination
of each stage
of
the research process.
It
is not a
criticism
but
rather
an
impersonal scrutiny
of a
piece
of
work using
a
balanced
and
objective approach, the purpose
of
which
is to
highlight both strengths
and
weaknesses,
in
order
to
identify
662
Uritish Journal
of
Nursinii.
2007.
Vol
16.
No
II
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
whether a piece of research is trustworthy and unbiased. As
nursing practice is becoming increasingly more evidenced
based, it is important that care has its foundations in sound
research. It is therefore important that all nurses have the
ability to critically appraise research in order to identify what
is best practice. HH
Russell
C
(2005) Evaluating quantitative researcli reports.
Nephrol Nurs
J
32(1):
61-4
Ryan-Wenger
N
(1992) Guidelines
for
critique
of
a
research report.
Heart
Lung
21(4): 394-401
Tanner
J
(2003) Reading
and
critiquing research.
BrJ
Perioper
Nurs 13(4):
162-4
Valente
S
(2003) Research dissemination
and
utilization: Improving care
at
the bedside.J Nurs
Care Quality
18(2): 114-21
Wood
MJ,
Ross-Kerr JC, Brink
PJ
(2006)
Basic
Steps
in
Planning Nursing
Research:
From Question
to
Proposal
6th
edn.
Jones
and
Bartlett, Sudbury
Bassett
C,
B.issett
J
(2003) Reading
and
critiquing research.
BrJ
Perioper
NriK 13(4): 162-4
Beauchamp
T,
Childress
J
(2001)
Principles
of
Biomedical
Ethics.
5th edn.
O.xford University Press, Oxford
Burns
N,
Grove
S
(1997)
The
Practice
of
Nursing
Research:
Conduct,
Critique
and
Utilization.
3rd
edn.WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia
Burns
N,
Grove
S
(1999)
Understanding
Nursing
Research.
2nd
edn.
WB
Saunders Company. Philadelphia
Carnell
R
(1997) Critiquing research. Nurs
Pract
8(12): 16-21
Clegg F (1990)
Simple
Statistics: A
Course
Book for
the
Social
Sciences.
2nd
edn.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
Conkin DaleJ (2005) Critiquing research
for
use
in
practice.J
Pediatr Health
Care
19:
183-6
Connell Meehan
T
(1999) The research critique. In:Treacy P, Hyde A, eds.
Nursing Research
and
Design.
UCD
Press, Dublin: 57-74
Cullum
N.
Droogan
J
(1999) Using research
and the
role
of
systematic
reviews
of
the literature.
In:
Mulhall A.
Le
May A. eds.
Nursing
Research:
Dissemination
and
Implementation.
Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh:
109-23-
Miles
M,
Huberman
A
(1994)
Qualitative
Data
Analysis.
2nd
edn.
Sage,
Thousand Oaks. Ca
Parahoo
K
(2006) Nursing Research: Principles, Process
and
Issties.
2nd edn.
Palgrave Macmillan. Houndmills Basingstoke
Polit
D.
Beck
C
(2006)
Essentials
of
Nursing
Care:
Methods,
Appraisal
and
Utilization.
6th
edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia
Robson
C
(2002) Reat World
Research.
2nd
edn.
Blackwell Publishing,
O.xford
KEY POINTS
I Many qualified and student nurses have difficulty
understanding the concepts and terminology associated
with research and research critique.
IThe ability to critically read research is essential if the
profession is to achieve and maintain its goal to be
evidenced based.
IA critique of a piece of research is not a criticism of
the wori<, but an impersonai review to highlight the
strengths and iimitations of the study.
I It is important that all nurses have the ability to criticaiiy
appraise research In order to identify what is best
practice.
Critiquing Nursing Research
2nd
edition
Critiquing
Nursing Research
2nd edition
ISBN-W;
1- 85642-316-6; lSBN-13; 978-1-85642-316-8; 234
x
156 mm; p/back; 224 pages;
publicatior) November 2006; £25.99
By John
R
Cutdiffe and Martin Ward
This 2nd edition
of
Critiquing Nursing Research retains the features which made the original
a 'best seller' whilst incorporating
new
material
in
order
to
expand
the
book's applicability.
In
addition
to
reviewing and subsequently updating
the
material
of
the original text,
the
authors
have added
two
further examples
of
approaches
to
crtitique along with examples and
an
additonal chapter
on
how
to
critique research
as
part
of
the work
of
preparing
a
dissertation.
The fundamentals
of
the book however remain
the
same.
It
focuses specifically
on
critiquing
nursing research;
the
increasing requirement
for
nurses
to
become conversant with research,
understand
its
link with
the
use
of
evidence
to
underpin practice; and
the
movement towards
becoming
an
evidence-based discipline.
As nurse education around the world increasingly moves towards
an
all-graduate discipline,
it
is vital
for
nurses
to
have the ability
to
critique research
in
order
to
benefit practice. This book
is
the
perfect tool
for
those seeking
to
gain
or
develop precisely that skill
and is a
must-have
for all students nurses, teachers and academics.
John Cutclitfe holds the 'David
G.
Braithwaite' Protessor
of
Nursing
Endowed Chair at the
University
of
Texas
(Tyler);
he is
also an Adjunct Professor
of
Psychiatric
Nursing
at
Stenberg College
International
School
of
Nursing,
Vancouver,
Canada.
Matin Ward is an Independent
tvtental
Health Nurse Consultant and Director
of
tvlW Protessional
Develcpment Ltd.
To order your copy please contact us using
the
details below
or
visit our website
www.quaybooks.co.yk where you will also tind details
ot
other Quay Books otters and titles.
John Cutcliffe and Martin Ward
I
QUAY
BOOKS
AdMsioiiDftUHiolthcareM
Quay Books Division
I
MA
Healthcare Limited
Jesses Farm
I
Snow Hill
I
Dinton
I
Salisbury
I
Wiltshire
I
SP3
5HN
I
UK
Tel:
01722 716998
I
Fax: 01722 716887
I
E-mail: [email protected]k
I
Web: www.quaybooks.co.uk
A\
ilH
MAHbUTHCASIUMITED
Uritishjoiirnnl
of
Nursinji;. 2OO7.V0I 16.
No
11
663
