Was the group or population of interest adequately described? Were the setting and sample described in sufficient detail?Discuss.

Chapter 4
Reading and Critiquing Research Articles

TABLE 4.2 Guide to a Focused Critique of Evidence Quality in a Qualitative
Research Report
Aspect of the Report Critiquing Questions Detailed Critiquing Guidelines
Method
Research design and research tradition ● Is the identified research tradition (if any) congruent with the methods used to collect and analyze data?
● Was an adequate amount of time spent in the field or with study participants?
● Was there evidence of reflexivity in the design? Box 11.1, page 193
Sample and setting ● Was the group or population of interest adequately described? Were the setting and sample described in sufficient detail?
● Was the best possible method of sampling used to enhance information richness?
● Was the sample size adequate? Was saturation achieved? Box 12.1, page 203
Data collection ● Were the methods of gathering data appropriate? Were data gathered through two or more methods to achieve triangulation?
● Did the researcher ask the right questions or make the right observations?
● Was there a sufficient amount of data? Were they of sufficient depth and richness? Box 12.2, page 208
Procedures ● Do data collection and recording procedures appear appropriate?
● Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Were the people who collected data appropriately trained? Box 12.2, page 208
Enhancement of trustworthiness ● Did the researchers use strategies to enhance the trustworthiness/integrity of the study, and were those strategies adequate?
● Do the researchers’ clinical and methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation? Box 17.1, page 305
Results
Data analysis ● Was the data analysis strategy compatible with the research tradition and with the nature and type of data gathered?
● Did the analysis yield an appropriate “product” (e.g., a theory, taxonomy, thematic pattern)?
● Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of biases? Box 16.2, page 290
Findings ● Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts from the data and with strong supporting arguments?
● Did the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data? Does it appear that the researcher satisfactorily conceptualized the themes or patterns in the data?
● Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation? Box 16.2, page 290
Summary assessment ● Do the study findings appear to be trustworthy—do you have confidence in the truth value of the results?
● Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline?