Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, Or Mixed Methods Studies

Critiquing the validity and robustness of research featured in journal articles provides a critical foundation for engaging in evidence-based practice. In Weeks 5 and 6, you explored quantitative research designs. In Week 7, you will examine qualitative and mixed methods research designs. For this Assignment, which is due by Day 7 of Week 7, you critique a quantitative and either a qualitative or a mixed methods research study and compare the types of information obtained in each.
 
To prepare:
 

• Select a health topic of interest to you that is relevant to your current area of practice. The topic may be your Course Portfolio Project or a different topic of your choice.Using the Walden Library, locate two articles in scholarly journals that deal with your portfolio topic:  (does hand washing and appropriate staff dressing among the surgical ward nurses reduce cross infection during patient management?) 1) Select one article that utilizes a quantitative research design and 2)  select a second article  that utilizes either a qualitative OR  a mixed methods design.  These need to be single studies not systematic or integrative reviews (including meta-analysis and metasynthesis). You may use research articles from your reference list. If you cannot find these two types of research on your portfolio topic, you may choose another topic.
• Locate the following documents in this week’s Learning Resources to access the appropriate templates, which will guide your critique of each article:
  • Critique Template for a Qualitative Study
  • Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
  • Critique Template for a Mixed-Methods Study
• Consider the fields in the templates as you review the information in each article.
• Begin to draft a paper in which you analyze the two research approaches as indicated below.
• Reflect on the overall value of both quantitative and qualitative research. If someone were to say to you, “Qualitative research is not real science,” how would you respond?To complete this Assignment:

• Complete the two critiques using the appropriate templates (see attached files).
• Write a 2- to 3-page paper that addresses the following:
  • Contrast the types of information that you gained from examining the two different research approaches in the articles that you selected.
  • Describe the general advantages and disadvantages of the two research approaches featured in the articles. Use examples from the articles for support.
  • Formulate a response to the claim that qualitative research is not real science. Highlight the general insights that both quantitative and qualitative studies can provide to researchers. Support your response with references to the Learning Resources and other credible sources.As you complete this Assignment, remember to:

• Submit your paper to Grammarly and Turnitin through the Walden Writing Center. Based on the Grammarly and Turnitin reports, revise your paper as necessary.
• Reminder: The School of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The School of Nursing Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available from the Walden University website found in this week’s Learning Resources). All papers submitted must use this formatting.
• Combine all three parts of this assignment into one Word document including both critique templates and the narrative with your references.  Submit this combined document. 

Readings

• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012).  Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  • 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.
• Cantrell, M. A. (2011). Demystifying the research process: Understanding a descriptive comparative research design. Pediatric Nursing, 37(4), 188–189.
  Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. (for review)The author of this article discusses the primary aspects of a prominent quantitative research design. The article examines the advantages and disadvantages of the design.
• Schultz, L. E., Rivers, K. O., & Ratusnik, D. L. (2008). The role of external validity in evidence-based practice for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53(3), 294–302.
  Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.This article details the results of a study that sought to balance concern for rigor with concern for relevance. The authors of the article derive and determine a rating format for relevance and apply it to cognitive rehabilitation.

• Metheny, N. A., Davis-Jackson, J., & Stewart, B. J. (2010). Effectiveness of an aspiration risk-reduction protocol. Nursing Research, 59(1), 18–25.
  Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
• Padula, C. A., Hughes, C., & Baumhover, L. (2009). Impact of a nurse-driven mobility protocol on functional decline in hospitalized older adults. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 24(4), 325–331.
  Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
• Yuan, S.-C., Chou, M.-C., Hwu, L.-J., Chang, Y.-O,, Hsu, W.-H., & Kuo, H.-W. (2009). An intervention program to promote health-related physical fitness in nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(10), 1,404–1,411.
  Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
• Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
   
  NURS 6052
  Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
  Date:
  Your name:
  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?
   
  To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to 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.)
   
   
   
  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?
   
   
   
   
  7. Research Design
   
  What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
   
   
   
   
  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
   
  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 results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to 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?
   
   

  Click here  to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: