This document outlines the process of critically evaluating a research report. A research critique requires critical thinking and appraisal skills to systematically and objectively examine all aspects of a study. The purposes of a critique are to assess methodological and analytical abilities, provide guidance to researchers, and advance the nursing profession. The critique process involves comprehending, comparing, analyzing, evaluating, and conceptually clustering the various components of a study. Key areas to critique include the introduction/problem statement, literature review, methodology, results, and conclusions. A critique should identify both strengths and limitations.

2. WHAT IS RESEARCH CRITIQUE?
• A critical evaluation / appraisal of a research report.
• Systematic, unbiased, careful examination of all aspects of a study to
judge the merits, limitations, meaning and significance based on
previous research experience and knowledge of the topic.

3. RESEARCH CRITIQUE … Requires
• critical thinking,
• appraisal
• intellectual skill

4. Importance of research critique
• To broaden understanding for use in practice.
• For implementing an evidence based nursing practice.
• Encourages nurses to participate in clinical inquiry and provide
evidence for use in practice.

5. PURPOSES OF CRITIQUE
• To assess students’ methodological and analytical skills (identify
limitations & strengths).
• Seasoned researcher to help journal editions
• Written critique is a guide to researcher
• To advance nursing knowledge & profession

6. APPROACHES FOR CRITIQUING
Principles
• Be objective: make comments specific to the work you are reviewing
• Be constructive: Critique should be an advisory and constructive
nature

7. CRITIQUE PROCESS
• Comprehension
• Comparison
• Analysis
• Evaluation
• Conceptual clustering

8. GENERAL GUIDELINES
• Read & critique the entire study
• Be objective & realistic
• Comment on strengths and weakness
• Give specific examples
• Suggest alternatives

9. • Use positive terms whenever possible and say the positive points first
• Avoid vague generalizations of praise and fault findings
• Be sensitive in handling negative comments
• Evaluate substantive, ethical, methodologic, interpretative &
presentational dimensions

10. INITIAL CRITIQUE
• What type of study was conducted?
• What was the setting?
• Were the steps clearly identified?
• Was there a logical flow?

11. CRITERIA: INTRODUCTION
• Is the purpose of the study presented?
• Is the significance (importance) of the problem discussed?
• Does the investigator provide a sense of what he or she is doing and
why?

12. PROBLEM STATEMENT
• Is the problem statement clear?
• Does the investigator identify key research questions and variables to
be examined?
• Does the study have the potential to help solve a problem that is
currently faced in clinical practice?

13. LITERATURE REVIEW
• Does literature review follow a logical sequence leading to a critical
review of supporting and conflicting prior work?
• Is the relationship of the study to previous research clear?
• Does the investigator describe gaps in the literature and support the
necessity of the present study?

14. RESEARCH QUESTIONS/HYPOTHESES
• Are research questions or hypotheses formally stated?
• Do the research questions and hypotheses naturally flow from the
research problem and theoretical framework?
• Does each research question or hypothesis contain at least two
variables?
• Are the research questions or hypotheses worded clearly and
objectively?

15. METHODOLOGY
• Are the relevant variables and concepts clearly and operationally
defined?
• Is the design appropriate for the research questions or hypotheses?
• Are methods of data collection sufficiently described?
• What are the identified and potential threats to internal and external
validity that were present in the study?
• If there was more than one data collector, was the inter-rater
reliability adequate?

16. SAMPLE
• Are the subjects and sampling methods described?
• Is the sample of sufficient size for the study, given the number of
variables and design?
• Is there adequate assurance that the rights of human subjects were
protected?

17. INSTRUMENTS
• Are appropriate instruments for data collection used?
• Are reliability and validity of the instruments adequate?

18. DATA ANALYSIS
• Are the statistical tests used identified and the values reported?
• Are appropriate statistics used, according to level of measurement,
sample size, sampling method, and hypotheses / research questions?

19. RESULTS
• Are the results for each hypothesis clearly and objectively presented?
• Do the figures and tables illuminate the presentation of results?
• Are results described in light of the theoretical framework and
supporting literature?

20. Conclusions / discussion
• Are conclusions based on the results and related to the hypotheses?
• Are study limitations identified?
• Are generalizations made within the scope of the findings?
• Are implications of findings discussed (i.e., for practice, education and
research)?
• Are recommendations for further research stated?

21. RESEARCH UTILIZATION IMPLICATIONS
• Is the study of sufficient quality to meet the criterion of scientific
merit?
• Does the study meet the criterion of replicability?
• Is the study of relevance to practice?
• Is the study feasible for nurses to implement?
• Do the benefits of the study outweigh the risks?