Critique Concerning Quantitative Research: Nursing Practice (Article Critique Sample)
write a critique of 1,000–1,250 words that analyzes and evaluates a scholarly work, focusing on the scientific method. The critique should: 1. Select a research study (complete with Method, Results, and Discussion sections). 2. Incorporate one page of summary. 3. Incorporate three to four pages of analysis/evaluation (literary contribution and methodology). 4. Include at least two to four scholarly sources.source..
Critique concerning quantitative research: Nursing practice
Nurses have the obligation of providing their clients and patients with the best standards of care. As a result, they have the mandate of incorporating evidence based practice whenever possible. Part of the process entails the provision of care depending on the best available evidence. The nurses can improve their practice besides applying evidence to improve their theoretical and clinical skills and knowledge through having the access to quality researches that are available and relevant to their practices. Koutoukidis, Lawrence & Tabbner (2008) add that evidence based practice encompasses patient needs, professional expertise, preference, and available evidence. For the nurses to identify best evidence, they have to do an evaluation and critical review and examination of research studies to determine their usefulness, as well as, sufficient quality applicable to their practice. Therefore, this essay critically examines qualitative research article that is relevant to nursing practice since it entails a chronic condition (Tangkawanich et. al, 2008).
The research article reviewed in the essay is titled â€˜Causal Model of health: health related quality of life in individuals living with HIV/AIDS in the northern region of Thailand- Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences.â€™ This title is not only concise but also describes the researchâ€™s focus (Tangkawanich et. al, 2008). Even though the purpose of the study is clear, it would be better if it would have been more inductive and clearer. Furthermore, the research evaluates the causal relationship between social support, self-care strategies, anti-retroviral treatment, age and quality of life associated with health. However, these variables not indicated in the title despite the description of the â€˜Causal Modelâ€™ indicating the researchâ€™s nature.
The literature review and introduction within the article are relatively contiguous. The introduction is employed to contextualize the problem with regards to the published research (Tangkawanich et. al, 2008). It states the reasons why health-related quality of life for individuals living with HIV/AIDS since the disease has a significant impact on the daily lives of the individuals. It also illuminates on the disease itself, the advances and changes in the options for treatment for the condition, as well as, how it impacts on these individuals.
In as much as the literature review and introduction contextualizes and introduces the study, it would have been ideal if a detailed critical analysis were given. Citing previous research as a way of establishing the studyâ€™s credential is not enough. In addition, it could have incorporated a wide range of research which could be evaluated for the purpose of the identification of quality (Groves et. al, 2009).
On hypothesis, the research presents a research question instead of hypothesis (Tangkawanich et. al, 2008). For an instant, the main research question is to examine causal relationships between ages, social support, self-care strategies, anti-retroviral treatment, symptoms experience and the individuals in Thailand. In fact, the statementâ€™s nature suggests that the study is within a quantitative research paradigm instead of an experimental one.
The section that entails the methodology neither states nor discusses the choice of the qualitative approach. It only focuses on the instruments used. Moreover, the quality of the study depends on both the choice of data collection instruments and quantitative approach. Qualitative approach provides the best standards of evidence with great rigor and ability for replication (Groves et al, 2009).
On sample selection, it is not discussed in details. Therefore, this could be the weakness of the study. Besides, despite the sample size being stated, it is not illuminated if it was determined statistically. This could also be a weakness since having a statistically sound size of the sample is vital in a qualitative research (Groves et al, 2009).
Furthermore, there is no adequate description of the data collection in the study. This has the potential of being problematic for either rigor or replication. Little is mentioned concerning the individual who administered the questionnaires (Davino & Fabbris, 2012). Besides, there was no indication whether there was a self-report in the own time that the participants had or the researcher was present during the completion time. It is an area that could also present a weakness in the study. The biasness of the researcher is vital for the completion of the tools for data collection. Even though the questionnaires may be employed to avoid this, if not administered appropriately, it is often a challenge to check if they are honest, completed or full by the intended target.
As for ethical consideration, it is illuminated that an appropriate body was used in the study for ethical approval. Informed consent was also achieved to signify the incorporation of good ethical consideration. However, it is not highlighted on the information that the participant was given, as well as, the means through which the informed consent was achieved. Moreover, confidentiality and anonymity are not addressed and instead the focus is on safety (Davino & Fabbris, 2012).