Transcript Critique and Utilization of Research

Critique and Utilization of
Research
Presentation and Discussion of
Study Findings





Findings
Discussion of findings
Conclusions
Implications
Recommendations
Findings




Facts or empirical data objectively
reported (results of the data analysis)
No opinions or reactions
Descriptive statistics
Inferential statistics for hypothesis
testing
Presentation of findings



Narrative and in tables
Tables should be explained in text (not
in great detail or table)
Equal attention to findings which do not
support hypothesis
– test used
– degrees of freedom
– probability value
Discussion of findings





More subjective
Researcher gives her interpretation
Interpretation must be within context of
ROL (no new literature presented here)
Discuss findings which agree and which
do not agree with Hypothesis and
previous findings
limitations and problems discussed
Statistical vs. Clinical
Significance
Statistical significance means that the
Null Hypothesis is rejected
 Clinical Significance means the findings
may be useful with patients
Remember with larger samples a smaller
difference between groups may be
statistically significant but not clinically
significant

Conclusions

The researcher’s attempt to show what
knowledge has been gained by the
study and its generalizability
– conservatism is the best approach
– somewhat abstract and more general (go
beyond the findings)
Implications




This is the creative section of the
research report
Based on the conclusions of the study,
what changes could be suggested
Contains the “shoulds” of the study
Suggestions for further research
– logical extensions of the study
– replication
Explanation of Research Findings
to clients

Beer Therapy
Newspaper report of JAMA study concluded that
“Drinking three beers a day is about as good as jogging when it
comes to producing an effect that may decrease the risk of
coronary heart disease” The researchers found that joggers
registered the same HDL levels as did sedentary men who
drank 3 beers/day for three weeks. Moderate drinking causes
the liver to produce the same enzymes as exercise.
Explain this to your patient who asks you if he can now substitute
three beers a day for the walking that he had been encouraged
to do.
Critique of published research
What is a critique?
A critical estimate of a piece of research
which has been carefully and
systematically studied by a reader who
has used specific criteria to appraise the
general features of a research report.
Constructive Criticism
A critique:




Provides a descriptive report of the
study
judges scientific merit
judges ultimate worth and applicability
always precedes utilization
Purposes of critique



Helps researcher refine, and improve
the research
Helps future researchers on the topic
Helps consumers use findings while
understanding limitations and
constraints
Features of a good critique






Objective
Comprehensive
Correct
Respectful
Humane
Constructive
Do’s for sensitive critiques






Try to convey a sincere interest and understanding of
the article
Be sure to emphasize the points of excellence
Choose clear concise statements to communicate
your observations (avoid ambiguity)
When pointing out a study’s weaknesses include
explanations that justify your comments
Be aware of your own negative attitudes toward the
subject matter or the task
Include practical suggestions for improvement of the
next study on the same topic
Don’ts for a good critique






Avoid excessive nitpicking and faultfinding on trivial
details
Never ridicule or demean the project or researcher
Don’t use flattery merely to boost researcher’s self
esteem
Don’t base your summary and recommendations
about the study on some loose and biased attitude
toward science, the discipline or the topic
Don’t use patronizing or condemning language
Don’t forget your purpose in critiquing
Criteria for Good Research







Clarity and relevance of the problem
Researchability of the problem
Adequacy and relevance of the literature review
Match between the purpose, design and method
Suitability of the sampling procedure and the sample
Correctness of the Analytical procedures
Clarity of the findings
Errors to look for in research reports
















Problem too large or complex
Author not qualified
Scholarly format not used, too discursive
Objectives/purpose not clearly identified
Adjusting the purpose to meet the results
Different terms to define the same variable
Too much pathophysiology in review of literature
Too many quotations in review of literature
Paraphrasing author after author without synthesis
Tables which have no explanation in the text
No tables, charts or graphs
Incomplete description of methodology
No discussion of informed consent
Sample too small or inappropriate for study
Instruments not described
Overgeneralization
Clarity and Relevance of Study’s Purpose



Will the study solve a problem relevant
to nursing?
Will the facts collected be useful to
nursing?
Will the study contribute to nursing
knowledge?
Researchability of Problem


Can the research question be answered
through measuring empirical evidence
or data?
Is the problem stated as a relationship
between at least two variables?
Researchability of the problem








Is the problem presented early in report?
Is the problem presented in context of ROL?
Are the hypotheses explicitly stated?
Are the concepts operationally defined?
Are the limitations and assumptions stated?
Are they justifiable?
Do the problem statement and title match?
Are the hypotheses testable and consistent
with existing knowledge?
Adequacy and relevance of ROL







Are references logical to subject and
method?
Synthesized?
Organized?
Classics included?
Non-supportive work included?
Justifies operational definitions?
Supports choice of data collection
tools?
Agreement of Purpose, Design and Method








Study design named and described?
Design answers questions and maximizes
control?
Evidence from literature that design is
appropriate?
Data gathering instrument included?
Validity and reliability reported?
Checks against data collection errors?
Consistency of research conditions for all
subjects?
Blind or double blind possible?, desirable?
Suitability of sampling and sample









Probability or non-probability? Why?
Biased sample avoided?
Representative?
Large enough for test? To reduce error?
Too large?
Demographics of sample reported? Match target pop?
Sampling criteria stated and appropriate?
Informed consent and rights of subjects?
Attrition? Why?
Correctness of Analysis





Statistical tests named, p level?
Explanation and analysis of qual. Data?
Tests appropriate to level of
measurement?
Distinction between clinical and
statistical significance?
Right statistical tests?
Clarity of findings












Interpretations based on data?
Reasons for ways data presented?
Error in computations?
Discrepancies between tables and text?
Tables and graphs titled?
Actual findings and interpretations distinguished from
each other?
Interpretations and implications justified?(N?)
Secondary findings overemphasized?
Clearly and logically organized?
Impartial and unbiased?
Generalizations appropriate?
Negative outcomes and limitations?