A Quantitative Research Study Critique Mary L. Dornbos Kerri A. … · 2018-10-12 · study findings and utilization of nursing research are reviewed. This critique concludes with

Running head: A QUANTATITIVE RESEARCH STUDY CRITIQUE 1

A Quantitative Research Study Critique

Mary L. Dornbos

Kerri A. Souter

Ferris State University

A QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ARTICLE 2

Abstract

This is a critique of a quantitative research article using the rules in the text Foundations of

Nursing Research by Rose Marie Nieswiadomy. This critique includes the article‟s strengths

and weaknesses. The readers of this article review the preliminary steps in the research process

including but not limited to: the problem, review of literature, the framework, hypothesis and

research question. Also research design, sampling methods, collection of data, data analysis,

study findings and utilization of nursing research are reviewed. This critique concludes with

rationale regarding the article supporting or opposing the texts objectives, therefore showing if it

is a strong or weak article of quantitative research.

Keywords: quantitative article, research study critique, self-efficacy, personal digital assistants


A Quantitative Research Article

The readers are critiquing the article The Use of Personal Digital Assistants at the Point of Care

in an Undergraduate Nursing Program by Sandra Goldsworthy, RN, BScN, CNCC (C), MSc,

Nancy Lawrence, RN, BScN, MEd, and William Goodman, PhD. (2006). By using the text

Foundations of Nursing Research by Rose Marie Nieswiadomy (2008) as criteria, the readers

will critique this article to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the research to determine its

usefulness as evidence.

Purpose and Problem

Evidence

In the featured article the problem statement is not clearly defined and is not measurable.

The problem statement could be:

In an environment that is fast paced, has complex patient requirements, has constant

demands on clinical judgment, and requires critical thinking skills, the novice nurse or

student must be able to retrieve and process information quickly to make the safest

patient care decisions. (Goldsworthy, Lawrence, & Goodman, 2006, p.138)

The purpose statement is also not clearly defined and could be: “The study examined the

relationships between the use of personal digital assistants and self-efficacy and the preparation

for medication administration among second-year Bachelor of Science in Nursing students in a

medical-surgical clinical environment” (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p.138). The authors lead into

how “clinical education is stressful,” (Goldsworthy et al., 2006) and how PDA‟s (personal digital

assistant) function. This article is not an interrogative sentence and the population is defined in

the abstract only as being second year Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) students. The only

empirical data in this article appears to be the PDA, there is no other variables mentioned. This


article mentions nothing about efficacy and gave no indication that the students would not suffer

from this study; they also did not mention feasibility. This study could be very useful to the

nursing profession if it contained a dependent variable or measurable outcomes.

Support

The problem and purpose statements should be clear. Nieswiadomy wrote, “The problem

statement of a study contains what will be examined by the researcher, or the content of the

study, whereas the purpose statement of the study contains why the study will be conducted”

(Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.77). Also, “If the problem statement is not clearly stated, it will be

difficult for the reader to proceed further in evaluating the study” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.85).

The problem statement is not in the form of a question. “Interrogative sentences are in the form

of a question” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.80). “Empirically testable problem statements contain

variables that can be measured by the researcher, and this data consists of observations that are

made through hearing, sight, touch, taste or smell” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.83). This article

never talks about ethical issues. “It is the responsibility of researchers to guarantee, to the best of

their ability, that their research is ethical” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.85). The article seems to be

pertinent to the nursing field, but the authors did not ask the appropriate questions. “The

researcher should ask pertinent questions that will make their study significant to the nursing

profession” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.78).

Analysis

This article is lacking a clear and concise problem and purpose and it is not easy to find.

It does not have measureable goals or direction. The authors confuse the readers by not using the

correct format of a research article and do not explain why they picked the population they did.

They also did not expand on why they feel this study will impact the nursing field.


Review of Literature

Evidence

The authors of this article do not critique all the materials that they have listed in their

references. This review is not clear and concise. They are able to state the benefits in the use of

PDA‟s, but they do not explain how this is pertinent to the nursing profession or what the

benefits are for the nursing students. This paragraph flows logically, and the references seem

relevant if they were trying to prove the benefits of the PDA in general, but they do not have

evidence to support it would be beneficial to the second year students. There is no evidence of

this article being critically appraised. The references indicate they used both classic and current

sources. There were 5 articles that were over 5 years old, and the rest were current. They do

paraphrase and reference all 31 articles, but they did not use proper citations or review them

individually. They do not have any articles opposing the use of PDAs or on the possibility of

confidentiality being breached. They used mostly primary journal articles. One of the cited

articles mentions the student‟s experiences with PDA‟s, but it does not define what type of

student. The reference list is not in alphabetical order as instructed by APA format. All have the

appropriate volume and issue numbers, but references #5 and #19 are missing page numbers.

When articles were accessed from the internet they did not mention the data base that the

journals were accessed from.

Support

The authors paraphrased the literature that was reviewed but not individually. They also

did not use any experts to examine the articles. “The literature should contain mostly paraphrases

rather than direct quotes. Sources should be critically appraised, and the relevance of the sources


should be clear. The review should be concise and to the point” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.100).

The authors did not mention the opposing views on this subject. “Determine if the researcher has

presented both supporting and opposing literature…. the researcher should present this

information in the literature review section” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.101). A few of the articles

did not have page numbers, and a few that seemed to be accessed on the computer did not

mention which data base they were accessed from. “It is not uncommon for a journal article

reference list to have errors. Most of these errors were related to mistakes in issue numbers or

missing issue numbers” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.101).

Analysis

In the literature review section of this article the authors do not follow the rules of writing

and citing in APA format. They do not cite each reference individually and do not give the

readers a great deal of information on the benefits of clinical use or any opposing views on this

subject. The authors did not follow the guidelines for writing a literature review.

Theoretical/ Conceptual Model

Evidence

There is not a theoretical or conceptual model in this article, and it does not appear to

have any sort of framework. The authors use the phrase self-efficacy in the literature review and

in the purpose statement but never explain the concepts to understand the relationship between

PDA‟s and self-efficacy. They also do not discuss which theory they are relating to this study or

explore different theories to predict the success of PDA‟s and self efficacy. It is very confusing

whether the authors are referring to the self efficacy of the students or something else. There

were not any prepositional statements or operational definitions noted.


Support

There was no defined framework and according to Nieswiadomy (2008), a framework for

a research study helps organize the study and provides a context for the interpretation of the

study findings. Either a theoretical or conceptual framework should be used in all quantitative

studies” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.111). There was no theory mentioned in this article. “A theory

is a set of statements that describes or explains phenomena in a systematic way” (Nieswiadomy,

2008, p.120). “An operational definition indicates how a variable will be observed or measured”

(Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.48).

Analysis

The authors did not define the keywords in their journal, and they did not have any

framework for this article. They assumed the readers would be able to follow the directionless

article. They do not mention any theories, or how this article relates to or how it could improve

the nursing profession. This article is not organized from any standpoint. It is also very hard to

follow and apply to the nursing field.

Hypothesis and Research questions

Evidence

No sentence or statement that includes the criteria for a hypothesis is mentioned in the

article. This would lead the readers to believe no hypothesis was written by the authors. In this

article‟s abstract the authors mention second year BSN students. So, this could be the population

to include in the hypothesis that was not written. The independent variable could be PDAs, and

the dependent variable could be self efficacy. This is difficult to evaluate since the problem

statement is not clearly identified. If a hypothesis was written using correct wording, then it


could be empirically tested. It is difficult to determine if there is a prediction included in this

article. There is mention of PDAs building confidence. “Among the general benefits found for

PDAs is that they build confidence among students and increase motivation” (Goldsworthy et al.,

2006, p. 138). Perhaps this could be a prediction. The article does contain research questions,

but not all are answered. The authors chose to focus on two parts of a four part question. For the

second question, the authors had a brief reason to answer it in the affirmative. The readers do not

see these research questions being more precise because all the questions are already mentioned

in the article. The research questions do not delineate the problem area of study.

Support

A hypothesis should: 1. be written in a declarative sentence 2. be written in the present

tense 3. contain the population 4. contain variables 5. reflect the problem statement or purpose

statement 6. be empirically testable (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 132). This is the criteria for a

hypothesis and was not used by the authors, so the readers are lead to believe no hypothesis was

written. A research hypothesis is “an alternative hypothesis to the statistical null hypothesis;

predicts the researcher‟s actual expectations about the outcome of a study; also called scientific,

substantive, and theoretical” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 410). So a hypothesis following this

definition could be: Nursing students who use PDAs will have a higher self-efficacy than those

who use standard text books. “Populations need to be specifically identified in the hypothesis,

just as it is in the problem statement” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.133). “The hypothesis links two or

more variables together” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 133). “The hypothesis should contain

essentially the same material as the problem statement or purpose statement” (Nieswiadomy,

2008, p. 133). “A hypothesis that cannot be empirically tested has no scientific merit”

(Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 134). “Research questions are more precise and specific than the broad


question found in the problem statement or purpose statement” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.135).

Using this cited information from the text, another possible hypothesis could be: There is a

correlation between use of PDAs for second year BSN students and enhancement of their self

efficacy.

Analysis

This article does not meet the criteria of including a hypothesis. None of the text‟s

information about hypothesis is found in the article. If it is, it is not clear. The framework is not

found, nor is the prediction.

Research (Study) Design

Evidence

The research and study design of this article is barely existent. The author describes this

article as being an experimental design. It could be a quasi-experimental design. The research

could have benefited from using an experimental design. In the abstract, the authors wrote “The

sample consisted of 36 students, of which two groups had PDA‟s and two groups served as a

control. The control groups were provided with paper resources equivalent to the software

provided by the PDAs” (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 138). The groups were then split up and

assigned to one of two community hospitals, and each group was under the supervision of one of

two professors. Each professor was then assigned to oversee one PDA group and one control

group. The subjects were in a way randomly assigned. The design is not appropriate to test the

study hypothesis or answer the research question, because as previously described, they were not

clearly defined in this article. The researchers then selected 36 volunteer students rather than


using randomly selected study participants, which may be a threat to the internal validity of this

research project. The threat to external validity could be the use of a pretest.

Support

Nieswiadomy (2008) states that the second criterion for a true experimental design is the

use of comparison or a control group. The author did have a control group, but the participants

were not random, they were volunteers who were then split into groups randomly. According to

Nieswiadomy (2008), quasi-experimental designs are those in which there is either no

comparison group or subjects are not randomly assigned to groups. The researchers randomly

assigned volunteer students who volunteered for this project. The text states “Selection bias

should be considered in experimental studies when subjects are not randomly assigned to

experimental and comparison groups” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.155). The researchers used a pre

test and post test in their study. According to the text: “The researcher must be aware not only of

internal validity threat that may occur but also of the external validity threat that may exist”

(Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 150).

Analysis

The selection of second year bachelor students, without an indication of why they were

chosen, and the use of volunteers for this study, has weakened this article‟s effectiveness in

showing the benefits of PDA use. Even though pretest-posttest control group design were used

and may be a threat to the validity of the experiment, Nieswiadomy (2008) states it is probably

the most frequently used experimental design. The readers feel the authors could have shown the

effectiveness of this study by randomly assigning a larger population of nursing students in

various years of education and by measuring something other than self-efficacy.


Sample and Sampling Methods

Evidence

The article states the population as 36 second-year baccalaureate nursing students. The

article defines the sample as “The sample consisted of 36 second-year baccalaureate nursing

students who were randomly assigned to either a PDA or a control group” (Goldsworthy et al.,

2006, p. 140). In the abstract the authors define the sample this way, “The sample consisted of

36 students, of which two groups had personal digital assistants and two groups served as a

control” (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p.138). There is no mention of which sampling method they

used to arrive at these 36 students. Were they volunteers? So the readers cannot determine if the

sampling method was appropriate for the study. The authors use tables, but do not show results

for all students, which affects internal and external validity. The readers are lead to believe

sampling bias has occurred because dropouts were not discussed. The article states all groups

were homogeneous (Goldsworthy et al., 2006). There is no suggestion of a possible Hawthorne

effect occurring in this study.

Support

“The target population consists of people or things that meet the designated set of criteria

of interest to the researcher” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 188). “Because the likelihood of being

able to obtain a list of these populations is quite low, the researcher usually samples from an

available group, called the accessible population or study population” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.

188). The authors could define their population as accessible or study population, but did not

include this definition in the article for the readers. The four types of sampling our text uses are:

simple random, stratified, cluster, and systematic. (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.188) In the article the

authors did not mention the type of sampling used.


“In most nursing research studies, a sample or subset of the population is selected to

represent the population. When a sample is chosen properly the researcher is able to

make claims about the population based on data from the sample alone” (Nieswiadomy,

2008, p. 189).

One type which could be appropriate for this study is stratified sampling. This involves dividing

the population into strata or layers, then determining the number of cases to study in each

stratum. The advantage would be increasing the probability of samples being represented.

Therefore, learning at which population level the introduction of PDAs would be appropriate, not

just relating PDAs to self efficacy. The authors never explain why they chose second-year BSNs

students and never discuss any ethical consideration. “The ethics board was very concerned that

the process of review met the highest standards for the protection of all parties involved”

(Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 140). The readers could believe sampling bias has occurred since

only second-year students were studied, without insight as to why this population was targeted.

Our text states,” Sampling bias occurs when samples are not carefully selected” (Nieswiadomy,

2008, p. 203). Our text states there is no simple answer to determine sample size. Nieswiadomy

(2008). “If the population is very homogeneous or alike on all variables other than the one being

measured, a small sample size may be sufficient” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 201). So the sample

size may have been adequate. “The Hawthorne effect occurs when study participants respond in

a certain manner because they are aware that they are being observed” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.

149). This effect was not discussed in the article and easily could have occurred.

Analysis

The authors do not explain why or how they chose second year BSNs students. If they

did state the sampling method used, more knowledge could be gained on this information alone.


The authors do not share why 36 students were studied and if this number was based on a

dropout rate. The article does mention homogeneous groups, but not if this includes ages. Based

on the textbook‟s information on populations and samples, this article does not meet their

criteria.

Measurement and Collection of Data

Evidence

The authors of this study did not discuss the: who, what, when, where and why questions

relating to the instrument they used. They simply left this information out of the article. They did

not discuss the level of measurement used. There is a short paragraph that discusses the 10 item

General Self-efficacy instrument, and one sentence stating the use of an additional safety

administration tool. Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 140). They did not explain the instruments and

why they used them. This section was lacking all items necessary to explain the reliability or

validity of the instruments which strongly weakens their study. They also never address a pilot

study.

Support

Nieswiadomy states,

“There are five important questions to ask when the researcher is in the process of

collecting data: What data will be collected? How will the data be collected? Who will

collect the data? Where will the data be collected? When will the data be collected?”

(2008, p.214-215).

Nieswiadomy (2008) also describes that great care should be taken to select the most

appropriate data collection instruments. “The use of an already tested instrument helps connect


the present study with the existing body of knowledge on the variable. Of course, the instrument

selected must be appropriate to measure the study variables” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 215-216).

Nieswiadomy (2008) also describes that the reliability of the instrument increases the more items

it contains.

Analysis

The readers of this article believe the lack of information relating to the instrument and

data collection weakens the article. The authors did not explain the: who, what, when, where and

why questions needed for the readers to understand the reliability and validity of the instruments

they used for this study.

Data Collection Methods and Instruments

Evidence

This article does not describe any of the data collection methods used during this study.

It briefly mentions the two tools used for this study; the general self-efficacy instrument and a

medication administration safety tool. The authors did not explain or validate the tools used. It

seems the authors should have mentioned how the data was collected and how it impacts the

study they conducted. The readers believe the study pre and post tests were an adequate way to

test the students, but self efficacy was not what the authors should have been focusing on. A test

to see if the students had increased test scores or decrease the length of time needed to locate

information or times spent studying might have been a better option for the authors. There are

only four sentences describing the tools used; it mentions the length of the questionnaire, and a

quote describing what the tool is believed to validate and the coefficients of the tool. It failed to


mention how long it would take to answer the questionnaire, the response rates, the sample

biases and if the questionnaires were confidential or not. The authors did refer to three tables in

their article but do not explain why they chose them or their significance.

Support

Nieswiadomy (2008) describe that the data collection section would need to be very long

and explicit to allow exact replication of a study. Space limitations, particularly in journal

articles, require the deletion of many of the details of the data-collection procedures.

Nieswiadomy (2008) also states five general questions asked in evaluating the data-collection

section concern; what data will be collected, how will the data be collected, who will collect the

data, where will the data be collected and when will the data be collected. Nieswiadomy (2008)

explains, all data collection instruments used in a study should be clearly identified and

described. The text states “the most important characteristics of a data collection instrument

concern the reliability and validity” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.385).

Analysis

This is a very weak portion of the article. The authors might have had to limit the amount

of information about their data collection because of space constraints in the journal it was

published; but if that was the case, they cut too much information. The article is weakened by the

authors lack of explanation and validation of the tools used. It would have also been beneficial to

the readers to include the 10 question questionnaire and to understand why the authors believed

these tools were relevant to this study. The authors also mention a “second instrument that was


used was a safety tool for medication administration” (Goldsworthy, et al., 2006, p. 140). But

they never mention the significance or importance of this tool.

Data Analysis (Descriptive and Inferential Statistics)

Evidence

The article does include a four group design, using two professors. “Each professor was

responsible for one control group and one PDA group. All groups had a pre and post general

self-efficacy instrument administered” (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 140). This is a positive

point of the article. There is no mention of the mode or median which is part of descriptive

statistics. The authors do present the mean of the pre-test scores for the PDA groups and non-

PDA groups. The article does not tell if the results are significant or not, they just include some

levels of probability and if they increased or decreased. They have one sentence related to the

findings, but no mention if this is statistically significant. “These quantitative findings are

consistent with evidence from the PDA students‟ entries in their reflective journals”

(Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 141).

Support

“Descriptive statistics are those that organize and summarize numerical data from

populations or samples” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 290). This article does not present all parts of

descriptive statistics. They do mention some mean scores but do not explain the values of these

numbers. No mode or median is available. “A measure of central tendency summarizes a

frequency distribution by the use of a single number” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 276). The authors

do not explain any middle or average value, nor is there a reference made to a general trend.

Demographic characteristics are included by the authors, but no rationale is given as to why

second year BSN students in a medical-surgical clinical environment were chosen. The authors


do not include how they were chosen, if male or female, or the ages. The article does include two

tables relating to the self efficacy pre test and post test. These tables have dashes without any

explanation. This is a threat to the external validity. The readers do not see any correlation

between these tables and the statistics presented in the article.

Analysis

This is a four group design experiment consistent with the Solomon four group designs.

This is a positive part of the article because it minimizes threats to internal and external validity.

Nieswiadomy (2008). With the tables being incomplete, the authors allow a threat to external

validity. When discussing the demographic characteristics, the ages, income levels, and sex

were not included. “Descriptive statistics should be presented in a manner that can be

understood by the average practicing nurse” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 289). The readers do not

believe this article followed this statement. Although the authors do use a Solomon four group

design for this experiment, it still has a weak presentation, and they do not explain the results

clearly. The readers do not feel this is a strong data analysis of the test they performed.

Study Findings

Evidence

There is a small amount of information in this article discussing the results or findings of

this study. The authors of the article do present in text and in two tables the results of the pre and

post self efficacy tests. They also include these sentences regarding the findings:

These quantitative findings are consistent with evidence from the PDA students‟

entries in their reflective journals. All students reported regular use of this


equipment throughout their daily clinical experiences. Many (76%) used the

PDA more than five times in a shift. They found the PDA immensely helpful in

its capacities as a drug book, laboratory book, PDQ/medical surgical tips

provider, and class notes recorder (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 141).

This article states “With this powerful resource to aid them as they navigated a new and

potentially stressful clinical environment, it is not surprising that these students felt more

confident and effective than peers who lacked this resource” (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 141).

Only one research question is addressed by the authors. “Suggestions for future research may

include exploring the use of PDAs in a wider variety of clinical areas, such as maternal child and

community placements” (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p.142). The author‟s state the small sample

size, and the usability of the medication safety instrument as limits.

Support

“Most research reports present the findings in both a narrative form and in tables”

(Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 321). The authors do include two tables plus narrative form to discuss

the findings. The tables help present the findings of the pre and post tests, but the dashes present

show subjects are missing, and the narrative is not objective because it uses phrases such as

„regular use‟, „immensely helpful‟, and „more confident and effective‟. These are subjective

terms. The research questions are addressed separately, and only one of two is studied. “The

findings are interpreted in light of the theoretical framework and within the context of the

literature review” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 323). There is no evident conceptual framework or

theoretical framework, so it is difficult to relate the findings to the framework. In the results

discussed in the article, no comparison is made to the review of literature section; instead the

authors include reports and statements from the PDA students. The researcher also reports study


limitations. “As mentioned in Chapter 1, study limitations are uncontrolled variables that may

affect study results and “limit” the generalizability of the findings” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 323-

324). The authors do include a statement on limitations and why the safe administration of

medications had „limits‟. “However, the designed instrument for this proved to be too

cumbersome for the instructors to complete in the fast-paced clinical environment, in which their

first priority was, of course, the safe oversight of nine students in a real-time hospital setting”

(Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p.142). The article does not clearly state a null hypothesis. If it does,

it is not clearly evident to the readers. A possible null hypothesis could be: Nursing students who

use PDAs will have a higher self-efficacy than those who use standard text books. This null

hypothesis was mentioned earlier in this critique. “Statistical significance means that the null

hypothesis has been rejected and the study findings are probably not related to chance. Clinical

significance means that the findings may be useful in the clinical setting” (Nieswiadomy, 2008,

p. 332). The article does suggest positive results from the students using the PDAs, so perhaps

this study could have clinical significance, but clear results are not evident.”The study

conclusions are the researcher‟s attempt to show what knowledge has been gained by the study

and are also an attempt to generalize the findings” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 326). The authors do

include the tables showing pre and post self efficacy tests. They include statements by the PDA

students, but the study conclusions are not clearly stated. Also, generalizations made are not

clearly evident in this article. “The implications of a study contain the “shoulds” that result from

the study. A study implication might be that no change is needed, that more research is called

for to further verify the study results, or that changes need to be made based on the study

conclusions” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 328). The authors do explore the use of PDAs in a wider

variety of clinical areas as an implication. (Goldsworthy, 2006) No suggestion is made regarding


nursing education, nursing research or future research studies as the text suggests.

Analysis

Based on the support found in the text and what the authors of this article state, this is a

weak section of discussions of the findings. The results section is small. Two tables show test

results with missing subjects, and the narrative portion is subjective. One of two research

questions was discussed, and no framework is found. There was no comparison made between

the review of the literature and the discussion of the findings. One statement is made regarding

limitations. Confusion is present surrounding the null hypothesis and statistical significance, but

clinical significance is discussed. Conclusions, generalizations and implications are vague.

Utilization of Nursing Research

Evidence

The article states the findings were communicated to others in the acknowledgment

section. “Findings of the research reported here were presented at the Rutgers University

International Nursing and Technology Conference, Atlanta, GA (April 2005); the CNIA National

Conference, Toronto, Ontario (September 2005); and the National Nursing Administration and

Research Conference, Tucson, AZ (October 2005)”. (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 142). This

section of the article is the only area which discusses communication. It is short and does not

include any results of the presentations or how the authors disseminated the results. One sentence

is included referring to a possible utilization of nursing research. “Suggestions for future research

may include exploring the use of PDAs in a wider variety of clinical areas, such as maternal


child and community placements.” (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 142).

Support

The text states, “A nurse researcher must begin by presenting study results to peers. Next,

this researcher might attend a research conference at which study results are discussed in an oral

presentation or in a poster session” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 338). This article does not state if the

findings were presented to peers, nor does it states who was present at the conferences. The

authors do not state if the presentations were oral or a poster session. There is not a research

report in this article. “No research project is complete until the final report has been written”

(Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 339). “Nurse researchers need to exert as much effort in implementing

research findings as they do in conducting research in the first place” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.

338). The authors include one sentence for future implementation. They do not elaborate at all

on how this would benefit maternal child or community placements.

Analysis

Discussion by the authors regarding communication is minimal. They do state where the

findings were presented but no description is included on how this was performed. The only

mention of utilization of their research was found in one sentence. It leaves the readers with

many unanswered questions about how their findings were presented and received. This is a

weak portion of the article.

Study Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Evidence


The article does not have a strong conclusion, implications, or recommendations. The

authors include one statement:

The results of this study have shown that PDAs have the potential to increase

self-efficacy among undergraduate nursing students, and at a meta-level, the

study shows that claims of this sort can be subjected to experimental testing, even

within the practical and ethical constraints of real-time teaching and practice

in the clinical environment (Goldsworthy et al., 2006, p. 142).

The authors also include suggestions for future research but not why they choose these certain

clinical areas.

Support

This is a very brief portion of this article. “Conclusions answer the “so what?” question

that might be posed to a researcher at the end of a study” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 386). By

using words such as „potential‟,‟claims‟, and „real-time teaching‟ the authors show subjectivity

and do not answer the „so what?‟ of the study. “The implications section of a research report

contains the “shoulds” that result from the research findings” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p. 386). The

authors do not use the word „should‟, nor do they come close to defining any implications for

nursing practice or nursing education. If no changes are implied, this is not present in this article

either. “Although recommendations may be made for nursing practice and nursing education,

recommendations generally concern future research that is needed” (Nieswiadomy, 2008, p.

386). The authors do suggest future research with using PDAs in a wider variety of clinical

settings, and they state the limitations of the study. They do not recommend sample size or the

use of any instruments.

Analysis


The conclusion, implications and recommendations are brief, weak and do not answer the

„so what‟ or the „should‟. Also the authors do not present findings of previous studies with

PDAs. The readers find this area of the article to be irrelevant and impractical for nursing

practice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both the problem and the purpose are weak and disjointed. Without the

problem and purpose the study cannot be valid. No variable or population is defined. The

authors do not critique each article in the review of literature, and no opposing theory is

included. There is not a heading for the theoretical/conceptual model. The authors do not

explain the self-efficacy theory, one of the keywords, and it is difficult to determine if the

authors are referring to self-efficacy or something else. This article does not state a hypothesis

of any kind. The authors did include research questions, but did not answer all of them leaving

no clear aim of the study. Selecting second year BSN students without any explanations

weakens the study design. The authors never acknowledged limitations and possible bias‟ of

their study which can be threats to the study‟s internal and external validity. The authors do not

explain what study method, if any, they used to arrive at the 36 second year BSN students. The

authors omitted to state how or when the self-efficacy instrument was given or what it contained.

The reliability and validity of this instrument was not stated. This is a four group design

experiment consistent with the Solomon four group designs. This is a positive part of the article

because it minimizes threats to internal and external validity, but the authors do not include any

descriptive statistics. The study finding section is small. Two tables show test results with

missing subjects which is a threat to external validity. The narrative portion of the findings is

subjective. The article leaves the readers with many unanswered questions about how their


findings were presented and received. The article does not have a strong conclusion,

implications, or recommendations. All are weak and do not answer the „so what?‟ and „should‟.

The readers believe this is a weak article because of the evidence presented. The readers

recommend a more complete and thorough design using the correct steps to nursing research.


References

Goldsworthy, S., Lawrence, N., & Goodman, W. (2006, May). The Use of Personal

Digital Assistants at the Point of Care in an Undergraduate Program.

CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 138-143.

Nieswiadomy, R. (2008). Foundations of Nursing Research (5th ed., pp. 3-414).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.


Research Critique

Grading Criteria

Headings Possible

Points

Points

Earned

Comments

Abstract and

Introduction: No heading

for intro, but there should be

a introduction of the study

and what your paper will

address, why you are doing

the critique

10

Purpose & Problem

Statement (Identify the

problem & purpose and

analyze whether they are

clear to the reader. Are there

clear objectives & goals?

Analyze whether you can

determine feasibility and

significance of the study)

10

Review of the Literature

and Theoretical

10


Framework (Analyze

relevance of the sources;

Identify a theoretical or

conceptual framework &

appropriateness for study)

Hypothesis(es) or Research

Question(s) (Analyze

whether clearly and

concisely stated; discuss

whether directional, null, or

nondirectional

hypothesis[es])

10

Sample & Study Design

(Describe sample &

sampling method &

appropriateness for study;

analyze appropriateness of

design; discuss how ethical

issues addressed)

10

Data Collection Methods &

Instruments (Describe &

analyze the appropriateness

of the what, how, who,

10


where and when; describe &

analyze reliability and

validity of instrument)

Data Analysis (Describe

descriptive & inferential

statistics & analyze whether

results are presented

accurately & completely)

10

Discussion of Findings

(Analyze whether results are

presented objectively &

bound to the data, whether

there is a comparison to

previous studies and whether

new literature is introduced

that was not included in the

Literature Review

10

Conclusions, Implications, &

Recommendations (Analyze

whether the conclusions are

based on the data, whether

hypotheses were supported

or not supported, whether

10


implications are a result of

the findings, and

recommendations consider

limitations

Your paper should end with

a brief conclusion of your

critique

10

100

APA Format: up to 30 points or 30% can be removed after the paper is graded for Title

page, abstract, headers Margins, spacing, and headings, reference page, title page, abstract

Sentence structure, spelling, grammar & punctuation.

Documents

A Quantitative Research Study Critique Mary L. Dornbos Kerri A. … · 2018-10-12 · study findings and utilization of nursing research are reviewed. This critique concludes with