Critical appraisal
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Critical appraisal

on

  • 624 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
624
Views on SlideShare
575
Embed Views
49

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

2 Embeds 49

http://taspoly.moodle.com.au 27
http://tastafe.moodle.com.au 22

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Critical appraisal Critical appraisal Presentation Transcript

  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 1 Critical Appraisal www.tastafe.tas.edu.au
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 2 Critical Appraisal of Research • An important skill to have is to be able to critically read research articles • It is not wise to accept research findings without a critical appraisal It helps you to determine • Is the research valid • Can I apply it to my „population‟ • Was it conducted “properly”
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 3 Articles will usually look like this… • Title • Abstract • Key words (not usual in quantitative research articles) • Introduction, rationale or background • Methodology • Results • Discussion • References
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 4 Appraisal – the first steps • The Title • The Abstract • Key Words • Publication Information • Author Information • This should be completed in 10-15minutes and you should be able to get this information from the first page of the article (and sometimes the references/bibliography)
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 5 The Title • Should be specific and to the point • Should show clear relationship to the content • Qualitative study titles can often be wordy and not related to the content (remembering qualitative is about subjectivity and is word heavy)
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 6 The Abstract • A summary of the article • By the end of the abstract, it should be clear if it is of use to you • Should be limited to 300 words or less • Should contain Why the research was conducted How the research was conducted Clear detail on the results or conclusions • Quantitative research abstracts can be very minimalistic and obscure using technical grammar and terminology that is specific to the research • Qualitative abstracts are more narrative
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 7 Key Words • Five or six words that cover the key concepts of the research • Usually straight after the abstract • Not always included in quantitative research articles • Can help in literature searches i.e. use the keywords to search
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 8 Publication Information • The type and quality of the publication chosen by the author can quickly inform of the potential quality of the research • Nursing research publication in Australia has only a brief history, however now a large amount of journals etc to chose from • Remember websites such as wikipedia can be authored by anyone
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 9 Hierarchies in Publication Peer Reviewed Journals • Assessed by one or two experts in the field of research • Considerations of the experts High quality research – is it? Fits the standards of the journals editorial board – does it? Makes a significant contribution to the area or specialty – does it?
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 10 Peer Review Journals in Australia • Nursing Inquiry • Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing • Contemporary Nurse • Collegian • Australian Health Review • and more… The editorial board members are listed in the journal to promote credibility and authority – adds weight.
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 11 Non-Peer Reviewed • Submitted research is not subjected to the same level of critique • Commonly read by more nurses as they are generally supplied as part of a subscription to a professional body • Research may/may not be high quality • Examples Australian Nursing Journal (ANF publication) JGenca (Gastro-Enterological Nurses College of Australia)
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 12 Author Information • What are the authors qualifications? • What are their affiliations? • Do these suggest credibility? • Does this increase your confidence in the research?
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 13 Review the References • Can point to the quality of the research • Ability to critique the references comes with being an expert in the particular field • Questions to ask How many articles are cited? Are the references current? (Last 5-10 years) Are the authors and journals specialised and relevant to the research?
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 14 Where to next…? • If you have determined that the article is relevant to your needs, it is now time to move on to appraisal of the methodology, results and implications for practice.
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 15 Further critique… some things to think about • Ethics Where any ethical issues identified? If so, how were these addressed? • How extensive was the literature search? Was it conducted on current literature? Was it extensive? Is there a description of how the search was conducted e.g. search terms?
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 16 Ctd… • Study Limitations Were any limitations of the research identified within the article? Can you identify any limitations that were not addressed within the article? • Sample How was the sample chosen? Is the sample representative of your population?
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 17 And even more… • Examine the data collection tools, the data collection process and analysis Are there any visible flaws? Was the collection tool reliable? Is the collection tool shown in the article? • Are the findings relevant to clinical practice? • How was funding obtained? Does the funding source present any ethical issues?
  • Document Title (Editable via „Slide Master‟) | Page 18 And after all that… • Are the findings relevant to practice? • Can the findings change practice? • Is this research of use to me?