Critical Appraisal Process for Quantitative Research As you critically appraise studies, follow the steps of the critical appraisal process presented in Box 18-1. These steps occur in sequence, vary in depth, and presume accomplishment of the preceding steps. However, an individual with critical appraisal experience frequently performs multiple steps of this process simultaneously. This section includes the three steps of the research critical appraisal process applied to quantitative studies and provides relevant questions for each step. These questions are not comprehensive but have been selected as a means for stimulating the logical reasoning and analysis necessary for conducting a study review. Persons experienced in the critical appraisal process formulate additional questions as part of their reasoning processes. We cover the identification of the steps or elements of the research process separately because persons who are new to critical appraisal often only conduct this step. The questions for determining the study strengths and weaknesses are covered together because this process occurs simultaneously in the mind of the person conducting the critical appraisal. Evaluation is covered separately because of the increased expertise needed to perform this final step. Step I: Identifying the Steps of the Quantitative Research Process in Studies Initial attempts to comprehend research articles are often frustrating because the terminology and stylized manner of the report are unfamiliar. Identification of the steps of the research process in a quantitative study is the first step in critical appraisal. It involves understanding the terms and concepts in the report; identifying study elements; and grasping the nature, significance, and meaning of the study elements. The following guidelines are presented to direct you in the initial critical appraisal of a quantitative study. Guidelines for Identifying the Steps of the Quantitative Research Process The first step involves reviewing the study title and abstract and reading the study from beginning to end (review the key principles in Box 18-2). As you read, address the following questions about the research report: Was the writing style of the report clear and concise? Were the different parts of the research report plainly identified (APA, 2010)? Were relevant terms defined? You might underline the terms you do not understand and determine their meaning from the glossary at the end of this textbook. Read the article a second time and highlight or underline each step of the quantitative research process. An overview of these steps is presented in Chapter 3. To write a critical appraisal identifying the study steps, you need to identify each step concisely and respond briefly to the following guidelines and questions: I. Introduction A. Describe the qualifications of the authors to conduct the study, such as research expertise, clinical experience, and educational preparation. Doctoral .

1. Critical Appraisal Process for Quantitative Research
As you critically appraise studies, follow the steps of the
critical appraisal process presented in Box 18-1. These steps
occur in sequence, vary in depth, and presume accomplishment
of the preceding steps. However, an individual with critical
appraisal experience frequently performs multiple steps of this
process simultaneously. This section includes the three steps of
the research critical appraisal process applied to quantitative
studies and provides relevant questions for each step. These
questions are not comprehensive but have been selected as a
means for stimulating the logical reasoning and analysis
necessary for conducting a study review. Persons experienced in
the critical appraisal process formulate additional questions as
part of their reasoning processes. We cover the identification of
the steps or elements of the research process separately because
persons who are new to critical appraisal often only conduct
this step. The questions for determining the study strengths and
weaknesses are covered together because this process occurs
simultaneously in the mind of the person conducting the critical
appraisal. Evaluation is covered separately because of the
increased expertise needed to perform this final step.
Step I: Identifying the Steps of the Quantitative Research
Process in Studies
Initial attempts to comprehend research articles are often
frustrating because the terminology and stylized manner of the
report are unfamiliar. Identification of the steps of the research
process in a quantitative study is the first step in critical
appraisal. It involves understanding the terms and concepts in
the report; identifying study elements; and grasping the nature,
significance, and meaning of the study elements. The following
guidelines are presented to direct
you in the initial critical appraisal of a quantitative study.

2. Guidelines for Identifying the Steps of the Quantitative
Research Process
The first step involves reviewing the study title and abstract and
reading the study from beginning to end (review the key
principles in Box 18-2). As you read, address the following
questions about the research report: Was the writing style of the
report clear and concise? Were the different parts of the
research report plainly identified (APA, 2010)? Were relevant
terms defined?
You might underline the terms you do not understand and
determine their meaning from the glossary at the end of this
textbook. Read the article a second time and highlight or
underline each step of the quantitative research process. An
overview of these steps is presented in Chapter 3. To write a
critical appraisal identifying the study steps, you need to
identify each step concisely and respond briefly to the following
guidelines and questions:
I. Introduction
A. Describe the qualifications of the authors to conduct the
study, such as research expertise, clinical experience, and
educational preparation. Doctoral education, such as a PhD, and
postdoctorate training provide experiences in conducting
research. Have the researchers conducted previous studies,
especially studies in this area? Are the authors involved in
clinical practice or certified in their area of clinical expertise
(Fothergill & Lipp, 2014)?
B. Discuss the clarity of the article title (variables and
population identified). Does the title indicate the general type
of study conducted—descriptive, correlational, quasi-
experimental, or experimental (Shadish et al., 2002)?

3. C. Discuss the quality of the abstract. An abstract should
include the study purpose, design, sample, intervention (if
applicable), and results; and highlight key findings (APA,
2010).
II. State the problem (see Chapter 5).
A. Significance of the problem
B. Background of the problem
C. Problem statement
III. State the purpose (see Chapter 5).
IV. Examine the literature review (see Chapter 7).
A. Were relevant previous studies and theories described?
B. Were the references current? (Number and percentage of
sources in the last 10 years and in the last 5 years?)
C. Were the studies described, critically appraised, and
synthesized (Fawcett & Garity, 2009; Hoe & Hoare, 2012)?
D. Was a summary provided of the current knowledge (what is
known and not known) about the research problem (Wakefield,
2014)?
V. Examine the study framework or theoretical perspective
(see Chapter 8).
A. Was the framework explicitly expressed, or must the
reviewer extract the framework from implicit statements in the
introduction or literature review?
B. Is the framework based on tentative, substantive, or
scientific theory? Provide a rationale for your answer.

4. C. Did the framework identify, define, and describe the
relationships among the concepts of interest? Provide examples
of this.
D. Is a model (diagram) of the framework provided for clarity?
If a model is not presented, develop one that represents the
framework of the study and describe it.
E. Link the study variables to the relevant concepts in the
model.
F. How was the framework related to the body of knowledge of
nursing (Smith & Liehr, 2013)?
VI. List any research objectives, questions, or hypotheses (see
Chapter 6).
VII. Identify and define (conceptually and operationally) the
study variables or concepts that were identified in the
objectives, questions, or hypotheses. If objectives, questions, or
hypotheses were not stated, identify and define the variables in
the study purpose and the results section of the study. If
conceptual definitions were not included, identify possible
definitions for each major study variable. Indicate which of the
following types of variables were included in the study. A study
usually includes independent and dependent variables or
research variables but not all three types of variables.
A. Independent variables: Identify and define conceptually and
operationally.
B. Dependent variables: Identify and define conceptually and
operationally.
C. Research variables or concepts: Identify and define
conceptually and operationally.

5. VIII. Identify demographic variables and other relevant terms.
IX. Identify the research design.
A. Identify the specific design of the study. Draw a model of
the design by using the sample design
models presented in Chapters 10 and 11.
B. Did the study include a treatment or intervention (see
Chapter 11)? If so, is the treatment clearly described with a
protocol and consistently implemented, which indicates
intervention fidelity (Forbes, 2009; Mittlbock, 2008; Morrison
et al., 2009)?
C. If the study had more than one group, how were subjects
assigned to groups (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Shadish et al.,
2002)?
D. Were extraneous variables identified and controlled for by
the design or methods? Extraneous variables usually are
discussed in research reports of quasi-experimental and
experimental studies (Shadish et al.,2002).
E. Were pilot study findings used to design this study? If yes,
briefly discuss the pilot and the changes made in the study
based on the pilot.
X. Describe the population, sample, and setting (see Chapter
15).
A. Identify inclusion or exclusion sample or eligibility criteria
that designate the target population.
B. Identify the specific type of probability or nonprobability
sampling method that was used to
obtain the sample. Did the researchers identify the sampling
frame for the study (Kandola, Banner, Okeefe-McCarthy, &

6. Jassal, 2014; Thompson, 2002)?
C. Identify the sample size. Discuss the refusal rate and include
the rationale for refusal if presented in the article. Discuss the
power analysis if this process was used to determine sample
size (Aberson, 2010; Cohen, 1988).
D. Identify the sample attrition (number and percentage). Was a
rationale provided for the study
attrition?
E. Identify the characteristics of the sample.
F. Discuss the institutional review board approval. Describe the
informed consent process used in the study (see Chapter 9).
G. Identify the study setting, and indicate whether it is
appropriate for the study purpose.
XI. Identify and describe each measurement strategy used in the
study (see Chapters 16 and 17). The following information
should be provided for each measurement method included in a
study. Identify each study variable that was measured and link it
to a measurement method(s).
A. Identify the name and author of each measurement strategy.
B. Identify the type of each measurement strategy (e.g., Likert
scale, visual analog scale, and physiological measure).
C. Identify the level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval,
or ratio) achieved by each measurement method used in the
study (Grove & Cipher, 2017).
D. Describe the reliability of each scale for previous studies, for

7. this study, and for the pilot study if one was performed. Identify
the precision of each physiological measure (Bartlett & Frost,
2008; Bialocerkowski, Klupp, & Bragge, 2010; DeVon et al.,
2007; Polit & Yang, 2016).
E. Identify the validity of each scale and the accuracy of
physiological measures (DeVon et al., 2007; Ryan-Wenger,
2010).
F. If data for the study were obtained from an existing database,
did the researchers identify how, where, when, and by whom the
original data were collected?
The following table includes the critical information about two
measurement
methods, the Beck Likert scale to measure depression and the
physiological
instrument to measure blood pressure. Completing this table
allows you to
identify essential measurement content for a study (Waltz,
Strickland, & Lenz,
2010).
Table….
XII. Describe the procedures for data collection and
management (see Chapter 20).
XIII. Describe the statistical techniques performed to analyze

8. study data (see Chapters 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25).
A. List the statistical procedures conducted to describe the
sample.
B. Was the level of significance or alpha identified? If so,
indicate what it was (0.05, 0.01, or 0.001).
C. Complete the following table with the analysis techniques
conducted in the study: (1) identify the focus (description,
relationships, or differences) for each analysis technique; (2)
list the statistical analysis technique performed; (3) list the
statistic; (4) provide the specific results; and (5) identify the
probability (p) of the statistical significance achieved by the
result (Gaskin & Happell, 2014; Grove & Cipher, 2017; Hayat,
Higgins, Schwartz, & Staggs, 2015; Hoare & Hoe, 2013; Plichta
& Kelvin, 2013).
Table………..
XIV. Describe the researcher's interpretation of the study
findings (see Chapter 26).
A. Are the findings related back to the study framework? If so,
do the findings support the study
framework?
B. Which findings are consistent with the expected findings?
D. Which findings were not expected?

9. E. Are the findings consistent with previous research findings
(Fawcett & Garity, 2009; Tonelli, 2012)?
XV. What study limitations did the researcher identify?
XVI. How did the researcher generalize the findings?
XVII. What were the implications of the findings for nursing?
XVIII. What suggestions for further study were identified?
XIX. Was the researcher's description of the study design and
methods
sufficiently clear for replication?
Step II: Determining Study Strengths and Weaknesses
The next step in critically appraising a quantitative study
requires determining the strengths and weaknesses of the study
(see Box 18-1). To do this, you must have knowledge of what
each step of the research process should be like from expert
sources such as this textbook and other research sources
(Aberson, 2010; Bartlett & Frost, 2008; Bialocerkowski et al.,
2010; Borglin & Richards, 2010; Creswell, 2014; DeVon et al.,
2007; Fawcett & Garity, 2009; Forbes, 2009;
Fothergill & Lipp, 2014; Gaskin & Happell, 2014; Grove &
Cipher, 2017; Hoe & Hoare, 2012; Hoare & Hoe, 2013;
Morrison et al., 2009; Polit & Yang, 2016; Ryan-Wenger, 2010;
Shadish et al., 2002; Tonelli, 2012; Wakefield, 2014; Waltz et
al., 2010; Whiffin & Hasselder, 2013). Another source for
critical appraisal of research is the Critical Appraisal Skills
Programme (CASP) that was developed in the United Kingdom
with critical appraisal checklists provided online at
http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8 (CASP,
2013). The ideal ways to conduct the steps of the research
process are compared with the actual study steps. During this
comparison, you examine the extent to which the researcher
followed the rules for an ideal study and identify the study
elements that are strengths or weaknesses. Your critical

10. appraisal comments need to be supported with documentation
from research sources.
You also need to examine the logical links connecting one study
element with another. For example, the problem needs to
provide background and direction for the statement of the
purpose. In addition, you need to examine the overall flow of
logic in the study. The variables identified in the study purpose
need to be consistent with the variables identified in the
research objectives, questions, or hypotheses. The variables
identified in the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses
need to be conceptually defined in light of the study framework.
The conceptual definitions provide the basis for the
development of operational definitions. The study design and
analyses need to be appropriate for the investigation of the
study purpose and for the specific objectives, questions, or
hypotheses (Fawcett & Garity, 2009; Fothergill & Lipp, 2014).
Many study weaknesses result from breaks in logical reasoning.
For example, biases caused by sampling, measurement methods,
and the selected design impair the logical flow from design to
interpretation of findings (Borglin & Richards, 2010). The
previous level of critical appraisal addressed concrete aspects of
the study. During analysis, the process moves to examining
abstract dimensions of the study, which requires greater
familiarity with the logic behind the research process and
increased skill in critical thinking (Whiffin & Hasselder, 2013).
You also need to gain a sense of how clearly the researcher
grasped the study situation and expressed it. The clarity of the
researchers' explanation of study elements demonstrates their
skill in using and expressing ideas that require abstract
reasoning. With this examination of the study, you can
determine which aspects of the study are strengths and which
are weaknesses and provide rationale and documentation for
your decisions.
Guidelines for Determining Study Strengths and Weaknesses.

11. The following questions were developed to assist you in
examining the different aspects of a study and determining
whether they are strengths or weaknesses. The intent is not to
answer each of these questions but to read the questions and
make judgments about the elements or steps in the study. You
need to provide a rationale for your decisions and document
from relevant research sources such as those listed in the
previous section and in the references at the end of this chapter.
For example, you might decide the study purpose is a strength
because it addresses the study problem, clarifies the focus
of the study, and is feasible to investigate (Fawcett & Garity,
2009; Fothergill & Lipp, 2014).
I. Research problem and purpose
A. Was the problem sufficiently delimited in scope so that it is
researchable but not trivial?
B. Is the problem significant to nursing (Brown, 2014)?
C. Does the purpose narrow and clarify the focus of the study?
Does the purpose clearly address the gap in the nursing
knowledge?
D. Was this study feasible to conduct in terms of money
commitment; the researchers' expertise; availability of subjects,
facilities, and equipment; and ethical considerations?
II. Review of literature
A. Was the literature review organized to show the progressive
development of evidence from previous research?
B. Was a theoretical knowledge base developed for the problem
and purpose?

12. C. Was a clear, concise summary presented of the current
empirical and theoretical knowledge in the area of the study
(CASP, 2013; Craig & Smyth, 2012; Fawcett & Garity, 2009;
Wakefield, 2014)?
D. Did the literature review summary identify what was known
and not known about the research problem, at the beginning of
the study process, and provide direction for the formation of the
research purpose?
III. Study framework
A. Is the framework presented with clarity? If a model or
conceptual map of the framework is present, is it adequate for
explaining the phenomenon of concern?
B. Is the framework linked to the research purpose? If not,
would another framework fit more logically with the study?
C. Is the framework related to the body of knowledge in nursing
and clinical practice at the time the study was conducted?
D. If a proposition or relationship from a theory is to be tested,
is the proposition clearly identified and linked to the study
hypotheses (Fawcett & Garity, 2009; Smith & Liehr, 2013)?
IV. Research objectives, questions, or hypotheses
A. Were the objectives, questions, or hypotheses expressed
clearly?
B. Were the objectives, questions, or hypotheses logically
linked to the research purpose (Fothergill & Lipp, 2014)?

13. C. Were hypotheses stated to direct the conduct of quasi-
experimental and experimental research (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000;
Shadish et al., 2002)?
D. Were the objectives, questions, or hypotheses logically
linked to the concepts and relationships (propositions) in the
framework (Fawcett & Garity, 2009; Smith & Liehr, 2013)?
V. Variables
A. Were the variables reflective of the concepts identified in the
framework?
B. Were the variables clearly defined (conceptually and
operationally) and based on previous research or theories
(Fothergill & Lipp, 2014; Smith & Liehr, 2013)?
C. Is the conceptual definition of a variable consistent with the
operational definition?
D. Did the operational definitions capture both the concept and
the breadth of its manifestations in the population of interest?
VI. Design
A. Was the design used in the study the most appropriate design
to obtain the needed data (Creswell, 2014; Hoe & Hoare, 2012;
Shadish et al., 2002)?
B. Did the design provide a means to examine all of the
objectives, questions, or hypotheses?
C. Was the treatment clearly described (Forbes, 2009)? Was the

14. treatment appropriate for examining the study purpose and
hypotheses? Did the study framework explain the links between
the treatment (independent variable) and the proposed outcomes
(dependent variables)?
D. Was a protocol developed to promote consistent
implementation of the treatment to ensure intervention fidelity?
Did the researcher monitor implementation of the treatment to
ensure consistency? If the treatment was not consistently
implemented, what might be the impact on the findings
(Morrison et al., 2009)?
E. Did the researcher identify the threats to design validity
(statistical conclusion validity, internal validity, construct
validity, and external validity) and minimize them as much as
possible? What threats to internal validity were actually
controlled for in the design phase, and in what ways? (see
Chapters 10 and 11; Shadish et al., 2002)?
F. Was the design logically linked to the sampling method and
statistical analyses?
G. If more than one group is included in the study, do the
groups appear equivalent?
H. If a treatment was implemented, were subjects randomly
assigned to the treatment group, or were the treatment and
comparison groups dependent? Were the treatment and
comparison group assignments appropriate for the purpose of
the study (Borglin & Richards, 2010)?
I. If a quasi-experimental design was implemented instead of an
experimental one, was the decision justified by the researcher?

15. VII. Sample, population, and setting
A. Was the sampling method adequate for producing a sample
that was representative of the target population (Kandola et al.,
2014)?
B. If random sampling was employed, was the type of sample
actually obtained representative of the accessible population?
C. What were the potential biases in the sampling method?
Were any subjects excluded from the study because of age,
socioeconomic status, or ethnicity without a sound rationale
(Borglin & Richards, 2010; Thompson, 2002)?
D. Did the sample include an understudied or vulnerable
population, such as young, elderly,
pregnant, or minority subjects?
E. Were the sampling criteria (inclusion and exclusion)
appropriate for the type of study conducted?
F. Was the sample size sufficient to avoid a Type II error? Was
a power analysis conducted to determine sample size? If a
power analysis was conducted, were the results of the analysis
clearly described and used to determine the final sample size?
Was the attrition rate projected in determining the final sample
size (Aberson, 2010; Cohen, 1988)?
G. Were the rights of human subjects protected?
H. Was the setting used in the study typical of actual clinical
settings (Borglin & Richards, 2010)?
I. What was the refusal rate for the study? If it was greater than

16. 20%, how might this have affected the representativeness of the
sample? Did the researchers provide rationale for the refusals?
J. What was the attrition rate for the study? Did the researchers
provide a rationale for the attrition of study participants? How
did attrition influence the final sample and the study results and
findings (Cohen, 1988; Fawcett & Garity, 2009)?
VIII. Measurements
A. Did the measurement methods selected for the study
adequately measure the study variables (Polit & Yang, 2016;
Waltz et al., 2010)?
B. Were the measurement methods sufficiently sensitive for
detection of small differences between subjects? Should
additional measurement methods have been used to improve the
quality of the study outcomes (Waltz et al., 2010)?
C. Did the measurement methods used in the study have
adequate validity and reliability? What additional reliability or
validity testing might have improved the quality of the
measurement methods (Bartlett & Frost, 2008; Bialocerkowski
et al., 2010; DeVon et al., 2007)?
D. Respond to the following questions, which are relevant to the
measurement approaches used in the study:
1. Scales and questionnaires
(a) Were the instruments clearly described?
(b) Were techniques for completion and scoring of the
instruments provided?
(c) Were validity and reliability of the instruments

17. described (DeVon et al., 2007)?
(d) Did the researcher reexamine the validity and
reliability of instruments for the present sample?
(e) If an instrument was developed for the study, was
the instrument development process described (Waltz
et al., 2010)?
2. Observation
(a) Were the entities that were to be observed clearly
identified and defined?
(b)Was interrater reliability described?
(c) Were the techniques for recording observations
described (Waltz et al., 2010)?
3. Interviews
(a) Did the interview questions address concerns expressed in
the research problem?
(b) Were the interview questions relevant for the research
purpose and objectives, questions, or hypotheses?
(c) Did the design of the questions tend to bias subjects'
responses?
(c) Did the sequence of questions tend to bias subjects'
responses (Waltz et al., 2010)?
4. Physiological measures
(a) Were the physiological measures clearly described (Ryan-

18. Wenger, 2010)? If appropriate, are the brand names, such as
Hewlett-Packard, of instruments identified?
(b) Were the accuracy, precision, and error of physiological
instruments discussed (Ryan-Wenger,
2010)?
(c)Were the physiological measures appropriate for the research
purpose and objectives, questions, or hypotheses?
(d) Were the methods for recording data from physiological
measures clearly described? Was the
recording of data consistent?
IX. Data collection
A. Was the data collection process clearly described?
B. Were the forms used to collect data organized to facilitate
computerizing the data? Did the subjects enter their data into a
computer?
C. Was the training of data collectors clearly described and
adequate?
D. Was the data collection process conducted in a consistent
manner (Borglin & Richards, 2010)?
E. Were the data collection methods ethical?
F. Did the data collected address the research objectives,
questions, or hypotheses?
G. Did any adverse events occur during data collection? If
adverse events occurred, were these appropriately managed?

19. X. Data analysis
A. Were data analysis procedures appropriate for the type of
data collected (Grove & Cipher, 2017; Hayat et al., 2015;
Plichta & Kelvin, 2013)?
B. Were data analysis procedures clearly described? Did the
researcher address any problems with missing data and how this
problem was managed?
C. Did the data analysis techniques address the study purpose
and the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses?
D. Were the results presented in an understandable way by
narrative, tables, or figures, or a combination of methods (APA,
2010; Hoare & Hoe, 2013)?
E. Were the statistical analyses logically linked to the design?
F. Is the sample size sufficient to detect significant differences
if they are present (Gaskin & Happell, 2014)?
G. Were the results interpreted appropriately?
XI. Interpretation of findings
A. Were findings discussed in relation to each objective,
question, or hypothesis?
B. Were various explanations for significant and nonsignificant
findings examined?
C. Were the findings clinically significant (Gatchel & Mayer,
2010; Tonelli, 2012)?

20. D. Were the findings linked to the study framework?
E. Were the study findings an accurate reflection of reality and
valid for use in clinical practice?
F. Did the conclusions fit the results from the data analyses?
Were the conclusions based on statistically significant and
clinically important results?
G. Did the study have weaknesses not identified by the
researcher?
H. Did the researcher generalize the findings appropriately?
I. Were the identified implications for practice appropriate,
based on the study findings and the findings from previous
research (Wintersgill & Wheeler, 2012)?
J. Were quality suggestions made for further research?
Step III: Evaluating a Study
Evaluation involves determining the credibility, trustworthiness,
meaning, and usefulness of the study findings. This type of
critical appraisal requires more advanced skills and might be
performed by master's and doctoral level students in
determining current nursing knowledge and its usefulness in
practice. Evaluating research involves summarizing the quality
of the research process and findings, determining the
consistency of the findings with those from previous studies,
and determining the usefulness of the findings for practice. The
steps of the study are evaluated in light of previous studies,
such as an evaluation of present hypotheses based on previous
hypotheses, present design based on previous designs, and

21. present methods of measuring variables based on previous
methods of measurement. Evaluation builds on conclusions
reached during the first two stages of the critical appraisal so
that the credibility, meaning, trustworthiness, and usefulness of
the study findings can be determined for nursing knowledge,
theory, and practice.
Guidelines for Evaluating a Study
You need to reexamine the discussion section of the study
focusing on the study findings, conclusions, implications for
practice, and suggestions for further study. It is important for
you to read previous studies conducted in the area to determine
the quality, credibility, and meaning of the study based on
previous research. Using the following questions as a guide,
summarize your evaluation of the study, and document your
responses.
I. Did the study build upon previous research problems,
purposes, designs, samples, and measurement methods? Provide
examples to support your comments.
II. Could the weaknesses of the study have been corrected? How
might that have been accomplished?
III. When the findings are examined in light of previous studies,
do the findings build on previous findings?
IV. Do you believe the study findings are credible? How much
confidence can be placed in the study findings (Tonelli, 2012)?
V. Based on this study and the findings from previous research,
what is now known and not known about the phenomenon under
study?
VI. To what populations can the findings be generalized
(Cohen, 1988)?
VII. Were the implications of the findings for practice
discussed? Based on previous research, are the findings ready
for use in practice (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015)?
VIII. Were relevant studies suggested for future research?

22. JOURNAL 2 3
JOURNAL 2
Abdullatif Alnaser
3/23/2020
Step One: Summarizing
Based on the novel “Romeo and Juliet” by William
Shakespeare: Exposition in the drama presents characters where
the scene begins with a feud from two families the Capulets and
the Montagues. Romeo is Montagues son who seeks to attend a
party in disguise at the Capulet family where Juliet is supposed
to marry Paris. Rising action: Here the plot of scene is the
heated fight Mercuito and Tybalt who kills him and later Romeo
killed Tybalt. Romeo makes issues more complex and Romeo is
banished, (NOURANI, 2019). The climax in the drama is short

23. where Juliet is urging Romeo to flee but Romeo says goodbye.
Step Two: Responding
Personally, I believe that the scenes that happened in the rising
action because most of the drama from the two families is
experienced a great deal. The climax is not in the middle of the
story rather it’s experienced at the end of the plot where Romeo
buys poison to kill himself because Juliet was dead after finding
the truth from his servant. The final death scene is where the
climax lies because the characters are separated by death.
Step Three: Analysing
The main problem facing the main character in the “Romeo and
Juliet” the two main characters are Romeo and Juliet who comes
from families that hate each other and the main problem they
face is conflict. The Capulets and the Montagues have family
feuds that lead to the deaths of their children, (William,
2017). The love between the two characters is forbidden which
creates matters worst between the two families.
The symbols used by Shakespeare in the play include poison
which symbolizes the feud that existed between the two families
and the love between Romeo and Juliet was a poison that led to
the death of Mercuito and Tybalt. Apothecary sells poison
which symbolizes that the society drives people commit suicides
because the world is unbearable. Light and Darkness is another
symbol in the novel where characters like Romeo, Juliet and
Mercuito have good qualities of goodness which is displayed in
broad daylight while characters like Lord Capulet and Paris are
evil in the dark. Their relationship flourished at night and at the
tomb Romeo uses darkness and light as Juliet acts as light in the
darkness of the tomb through her beauty.
The main themes embedded in the play includes individual vs.
society: Romeo and Juliet struggle with their love against the
family customs leading to family feuds. They were in love with
each other and against their families. They wanted to break the
society norms and customs to be together. Death is also a major
theme throughout the scenes where Mercuito and Tybalt die in
fights instigated by conflict. The two lovers also end up dead

24. and bring the conflict because the untimely events act a
resolution to the two families. Love between Romeo and Juliet
is so authentic and they are passionate for one another despite
the social constraints they experienced. Patriarchy is
demonstrated by the Lord Capulet and Lord Montagues where
they encourage their wives and families to participate in the
conflict. Their views are not important and Juliet has no right to
choose a spouse Lord Capulet selects Paris as his daughter’s
husband, (William, 2017)It was a society where women had no
say.
References
NOURANI, M. (2019). A Study of Tragedy in Tchaikovsky’s
Romeo and Juliet, Overture-Fantasia Based on Freytag’s
Pyramid.
William, S. (2017). Romeo and Juliet. Strelbytskyy Multimedia.