Article Critique: Research Design (Article Critique Sample)

Article Critique: Research Design Name Institution Article Critique: Research Design The study was intended to evaluate a three-pronged intervention to reduce risk of aspiration in a group of critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients under tube feedings to determine if the program had been effective (Metheny, Davis-Jackson, & Stewart, 2010). The study’s primary outcomes were the frequency of aspiration and the incidence of pneumonia. There was one secondary outcome, utilization of hospital resources, which had three components including length of intensive care stay, length of number of days of mechanical ventilation, and length of hospitalization (Metheny et al., 2010). Taking the primary and secondary outcomes of the study, as well as the purpose of the study, the most appropriate design was the quantitative research design. The researchers intended to measure the outcomes by way of collecting numerical data on both usual care and ARRP, which were the independent variables (Metheny et al., 2010). In addition, the researchers intended to contact statistical analyses using the data, which meant that they had to use a quantitative design. The data for the study was collected using validated data collection tools. The tools were developed on basis of theories (Metheny et al., 2010), which meant that a quantitative design was the most appropriate (Fitzpatrick & Kazer, 2011; Grove, Burns, & Gray, 2013). Theories help in guiding the research process (Weld, Padden, Ramsey, & Bibb, 2008). A qualitative research design would not be appropriate for the study because it does not involve use of a theory (Holloway & Wheeler, 2013). Moreover, qualitative approach relies on narratives, words, and documents, which was not the case in this study. In addition, the study was conducted using a quasi-experimental design (Metheny et al., 2010). Quasi-experimental design was the most appropriate for the study because there was no random assignment of patients to usual care and ARRP (Grove et al., 2013). In conclusion, the researchers chose the most appropriate research approach. Quantitative design was the most appropriate in collecting numerical data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventional program. The study used a quasi-experimental design rather than a true experimental design, which was an appropriate experimental design because the participants could not be random...