Select Page

Quantitative Research Designs—Part 2Reflect on the following scenarios:Wanda has been involved in a research study of the causes of tooth decay in elementary school children. Twenty-five percent of the students in the free breakfast program at a local school have been screened by a local dental hygienist. The dental hygienist finds an average of 3.5 cavities per student. The same dental hygienist recently screened 25% of the students in a school with no free breakfast program, and found an average of only 1.5 cavities per student. Wanda concludes that the breakfast served to students is the cause of higher tooth decay. Do you agree with Wanda? Can you think of other causes for the higher number of cavities among the students from the school with free breakfast?Jerry is conducting a phone survey to determine public opinions on Medicaid reform. In order to get a random sample, Jerry decides to call the tenth number on the second column of every fifth page of the phone book. He also decides to stop sampling when he has completed 50 surveys. After reaching the target number, Jerry begins to analyze the data he has gathered and is surprised to find that opposition to reform is running about 18% higher than the national average. He is at a quandary to explain this significant difference in numbers. What are some reasons you can think of for the higher rate of opposition?As you consider these scenarios, you may note issues or problems related to the validity of the research and conclusions. This week, you assess validity in quantitative research. You are introduced to the different types of validity and why they are important to consider when evaluating evidence and research studies. You also examine common threats to validity and consider how to minimize those threats.Learning ObjectivesStudents will:Evaluate the internal validity of quantitative research studiesAssess the consequences of failing to analyze validity in quantitative research studiesPhoto Credit: [Graphs and charts]/[E+]/Getty ImagesLearning ResourcesNote: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.Required ReadingsPolit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.Chapter 10, “Rigor and Validity in Quantitative Research”This chapter introduces the concept of validity in research and describes the different types of validity that must be addressed. Key threats to validity are also explored.Chapter 11, “Specific Types of Quantitative Research”This chapter focuses on the specific types of quantitative research that can be selected. The focus is on the purpose of the research rather than the research design. These include such approaches as clinical trials, evaluation research, health services and outcomes research, needs assessments, or replication studies.
critiquetemplatequalitative.doc

critiquetemplatemixedmethods.doc

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Critique Template Quantitative Research Design
Just from \$10/Page

critiquetemplatequantitative.doc

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Critique Template for a Qualitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed
Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date:
Article reference (in APA style):
URL:
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some
purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice,
to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to
questions such as these:

Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before
incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of
practice?
utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or
mixed-methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University
Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your
Instructor.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study? What is its purpose?
(Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the question must be inferred from the
introductory discussion of the purpose.)
1
2. Researcher Pre-understandings
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-understandings? What does the
article disclose about the researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the
research problem?
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current, relevant? Is
there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique?
Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research
problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any
synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into
the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing
framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified
theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a
“borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
5. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the
setting appropriate for the research question? What type of sampling strategy was used?
Was it appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher stipulate that
information redundancy was achieved?
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
2
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or
8. Data Collection/Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation? Was triangulation used?
9. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
10. Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was provided that the
researcher’s analysis was accurate and replicable?
11. Findings
What were the findings?
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings?
Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings
described?
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of
internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other
3
unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings
CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way;
not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings?
(Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as
they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description
of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes
researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following
obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the
design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete
description is necessary.)
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your
practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if
any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How
might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
4
Critique Template for a Mixed-Methods Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed
Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date:
Article reference (in APA style):
URL:
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some
purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice,
to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to
questions such as these:

Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before
incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of
practice?
utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or
mixed-methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University
Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your
Instructor.
MIXED-METHODS RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study? What is its purpose?
(Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the question must be inferred from the
introductory discussion of the purpose.)
1
1. Researcher Pre-understandings and / or Hypotheses and Research Questions
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-understandings? What does the
article disclose about the researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the
research problem? What are the hypotheses (or research questions/objectives) of the
study? (Sometimes the hypotheses or study questions are listed in the Results section,
rather than preceding the report of the methodology used. Occasionally, there will be no
mention of hypotheses, but anytime there are inferential statistics used, the reader can
recognize what the hypotheses are from looking at the results of statistical analysis.)
2. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current, relevant? Is
there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique?
Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research
problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any
synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into
the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
3. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing
framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified
theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a
“borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
4. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the
setting appropriate for the research question? What type of sampling strategy was used?
Was it appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher stipulate that
information redundancy was achieved?
5. Protection of Human Research Participants
2
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
6. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or
7. Instruments, Data Collection, Data Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation? What instruments and/or other
measurement strategies were used in data collection? Was information provided regarding
the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments? If so, describe it. Was
triangulation used?
8. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
9.
Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was provided that the
researcher’s analysis was accurate and replicable?
10. Findings
What were the findings?
11. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings?
Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings
described?
3
12. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of
internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other
unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings
CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way;
not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
13. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings?
(Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as
they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
14. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description
of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes
researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following
obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the
design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete
description is necessary.)
15. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your
practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if
any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How
might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
4
Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed
Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date:
Article reference (in APA style):
URL:
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some
purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice,
to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to
questions such as these:

Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before
incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of
practice?
utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or
mixed methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University
Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your
Instructor.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Problem and Purpose
What are the problem and purpose of the referenced study? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose
is stated clearly and the problem must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the
purpose.)
1
2. Hypotheses and Research Questions
What are the hypotheses (or research questions/objectives) of the study? (Sometimes the
hypotheses or study questions are listed in the Results section, rather than preceding the
report of the methodology used. Occasionally, there will be no mention of hypotheses, but
anytime there are inferential statistics used, the reader can recognize what the hypotheses
are from looking at the results of statistical analysis.)
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current? Relevant? Is
there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique?
Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research
problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any
synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into
the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing
framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified
theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a
“borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
5. Population
What population was sampled? How was the population sampled? Describe the method and
criteria. How many subjects were in the sample?
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
2
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or
8. Instruments and Strategies for Measurement
What instruments and/or other measurement strategies were used in data collection? Was
information provided regarding the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments?
If so, describe it.
9.
Data Collection
What procedures were used for data collection?
10. Data Analysis
What methods of data analysis were used? Were they appropriate to the design and
hypotheses?
11. Interpretation of Results
What results were obtained from data analysis? Is sufficient information given to interpret
the results of data analysis?
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings?
Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings
described?
13. Limitations
3
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of
internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other
unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings
CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way;
not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings?
(Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their hypotheses as
they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of
the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes
researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following
obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the
design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete
description is necessary.)
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your
practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if
any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How
might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?