Critiquing Quantitative Research Reports: Key Points for the Beginner

International Journal of Faith Community

Nursing

Volume 2

Issue 3 Special Research Issue

Article 1

December 2016

Critiquing Quantitative Research Reports: Key

Points for the Beginner

Cathy H. Abell

Dawn M. Garre$ Wright

Western Kentucky University

Follow this and additional works at: h?p://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijfcn

Part of the Other Nursing Commons

>is Article is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Faith

Community Nursing by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact topscholar@wku.edu.

Recommended Citation

Abell, Cathy H. and Garre? Wright, Dawn M. (2016) "Critiquing Quantitative Research Reports: Key Points for the Beginner,"

International Journal of Faith Community Nursing: Vol. 2: Iss. 3, Article 1.

Available at: h?p://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijfcn/vol2/iss3/1

Critiquing Quantitative Research Reports: Key Points for the Beginner

Nursing research has a long history, beginning with the first nursing researcher—Florence

Nightingale. As research is conducted, the dissemination of findings is imperative to enhance

knowledge and provide quality of care. The first nursing journal, the American Journal of

Nursing, was initiated in 1900 and the first nursing research journal, Nursing Research was

published in 1952 (Groves, Gray, & Burns, 2015). Today, many peer-reviewed nursing journals

are available which serve as venues for communicating current nursing research which is vital in

the implementation of evidence-based practice.

Nurses must have an understanding of how to critically read and appraise research

articles in order to assess the value of the findings. An “intellectual critical appraisal of a study

involves a careful and complete examination of a study to judge its strengths, weaknesses,

credibility, meaning, and significance for practice” (Groves et al., 2015, p. 365). Bassett and

Bassett (2003) noted a critique to be “…about decoding what the researchers did and deciding

whether or not their methods and recommendations are of use” (p. 163). A skillful critique of an

article can reveal both the merits of the research for use in evidence based practice as well as

areas of concern (Ingham-Broomfield, 2008). Reading and critiquing research is a necessary skill

for nurses to be able to practice in an evidence based manner, but it takes time for nurses to

develop the tools to complete a thoughtful and accurate review. Following, some key points are

presented for those beginning to critically appraise quantitative research presented in peer

reviewed journals.

General Overview

The first step in the critique process is for the reader to browse the abstract and article for an

overview. During this initial review a great deal of information can be obtained. The abstract

should provide a clear, concise overview of the study. During this review it should be noted if

the title, problem statement, and research question (or hypotheses) are congruent. At this time,

the reader could also note the author’s name, title, and affiliation. This provides insight into their

expertise in the content area or methodology utilized as well as indicating possible bias. For

example, if the author is affiliated with an organization or company that might benefit from

specific findings this affiliation could influence how results are reported. Another important item

that the reader must look for is a statement that the research study has obtained approval from an

institutional review board to assure human subjects’ rights are protected (Grove, Burns, & Gray,

2013).

Introduction or Literature Review

The introduction should introduce the topic or problem to be addressed and provide background

information regarding what is known and not known about the problem. In addition, the

significance of the problem to nursing should be discussed. The literature review may be

included in the introduction or could be a separate section. The reader should note if the

references cited in the literature review are from peer reviewed professional journals and if they

are primary or secondary sources. Primary sources are those that are written by the person who

conducted the research or posed the theory or other concept originally. Use of secondary sources,

those that present information from primary sources, should be limited (Grove et al., 2015). It is

also important to note the currency of referenced sources. Generally, speaking current sources

are those published within 5 to 10 years (Grove et al., 2015). It is also important to understand

Abell and Garrett Wright: Critiquing Quantitative Research

Published by TopSCHOLAR®, 2016

that some sources may be seminal works, early reports or studies, and they may have a much

earlier date. The use of such references is appropriate and necessary in many cases.

Purpose

Usually, the purpose of the specific research study follows the literature review. When

reviewing the purpose, it should be noted if the purpose flows from the statement of the problem.

In critiquing the purpose statement, examine if it is clear, concise, and written in an objective

manner. It should also be clear that the purpose identifies the goal of the specific research study

(Grove et al., 2013). The purpose may be in the form of research statements, research questions,

and/or hypotheses.

Methodology

The methodology section may include the design, sample, data collection, and data analysis. The

type of research design should be clearly indicated and should address the purpose of the study

(Grove et al., 2015). The sampling method and sample size both are important to critique. It

should be note if the sampling method was probability (random) or nonprobability (nonrandom).

Probability sampling promotes better representation of the population while nonprobability

sampling has less control for biases (Grove et al., 2015).

The data collection process should be described in detail. This would include specific

information about selection of subjects, such as the setting, number agreeing or refusing to

participate, and attrition. If more than one group was included, it is important to examine if any

statistically significant difference was noted between the groups. It is also important to be able to

understand the step-by-step manner in which data was collected. This should also include

training of individuals collecting data (Grove et al., 2015). A detailed description of all

instruments should be included with reliability measures provided. Generally speaking a

Crohbach’s alpa of ≥ 0.80 is considered acceptable for a well-established instrument and 0.70 to

0.79 for instruments developed in the last five years (Grove & Cipher, 2017).

Statistically analysis is a key component of the research process. When disseminating

findings through publication, researchers must include the specific statistical procedures used,

the results, and an analysis of the results. When critiquing this component of a research study,

one should be able to determine if appropriate statistical procedures were used and results

interpreted accurately (Burns et al., 2015).

Discussion/Recommendations

The researcher should provide reader with findings that address the purpose of the research study

and each research question and/or hypothesis. It is important to be able to determine the

importance of the findings in regards to practice. The author(s) may discuss both the statistically

significant findings as well as those that may have clinical significance. Limitations, which may

limit the generalizability of the findings, should be acknowledged by the researcher. The

researcher should also note recommendations for nursing research, practice, education, and

leadership.

International Journal of Faith Community Nursing, Vol. 2, Iss. 3 [2016], Art. 1

http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijfcn/vol2/iss3/1

Summary

Nurses should develop a systematic process to evaluate research articles to aide in the

thoroughness of their critique (Bessett & Bessett, 2003). Key areas for review include the

general overview, the introduction and literature review, the purpose, the methodology, and the

discussion and conclusion. As a nurse has more practice in the critique process, their comfort

level and expertise will increase. Research is a key component of evidence-based nursing

practice (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015); therefore, it is important to set aside time to

critically read current research in and reflect on how the research applies to practice (Ingham-

Broomfield, 2008).

Abell and Garrett Wright: Critiquing Quantitative Research

Published by TopSCHOLAR®, 2016

References

Bessett, C., & Bessett, J. (2003). Reading and critiquing research. British Journal of

Perioperative Nursing, 13(4), 162-164.

Grove, S. K., Burns, N., & Gray, J. (2013). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal,

synthesis, and generation of evidence (7th ed). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders.

Grove, S. K., & Cipher, D. J. (2017). Statistics for nursing research: A workbook for evidence-

based practice. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders.

Grove, S. K., Gray, J. R., & Burns, N. (2015). Understanding nursing research: Building an

evidence-based practice. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders.

Ingham-Broomfield, R. (2008). A nurses’ guide to the critical reading of research. Australian

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(1), 102-109.

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare

(3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.

International Journal of Faith Community Nursing, Vol. 2, Iss. 3 [2016], Art. 1

http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijfcn/vol2/iss3/1