What type of comparison was called for in the research design?

Use the guidelines in the Polit and Beck text to set a benchmark to critique the quantitative research study (page 233 of the book). Cite the benchmark source for each area of the critique and describe how the study authors met or did not meet the benchmark criteria listed below.

Guidelines for Critiquing Research Design in a Quantitative Study
1. Was the design experimental, quasi-experimental, or nonexperimental? What
specific design was used? Was this a cause-probing study? Given the type of
question (Therapy, Prognosis, etc.), was the most rigorous possible design used?
2. What type of comparison was called for in the research design? Was the
comparison strategy effective in illuminating key relationships?
3. If the study involved an intervention, were the intervention and control conditions
adequately described? Was blinding used, and if so, who was blinded? If not, is
there a good rationale for failure to use blinding?
4. If the study was nonexperimental, why did the researcher opt not to intervene? If
the study was cause-probing, which criteria for inferring causality were potentially
compromised? Was a retrospective or prospective design used, and was such a
design appropriate?
5. Was the study longitudinal or cross-sectional? Was the number and timing of data
collection points appropriate?
6. What did the researcher do to control confounding participant characteristics, and
were the procedures effective? What are the threats to the study’s internal validity?
Did the design enable the researcher to draw causal inferences about the
relationship between the independent variable and the outcome?
7. What are the major limitations of the design used? Were these limitations
acknowledged by the researcher and taken into account in interpreting results?
What can be said about the study’s external validity?

1. Critique the journal article, fully answering the questions in the table below. Cite benchmark reference sources to explain where the authors meet the criteria or miss the mark
article to critique: Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women of ethnic minority: a potential contributor to preeclampsia.
2. Include an introductory paragraph, purpose statement, and a conclusion.
3. Include level 1 and 2 headings to organize the paper.
4. Write the paper in third person, not first person (meaning do not use ‘we’ or ‘I’) and in a scholarly manner. To clarify: I, we, you, me, our may not be used. In addition, describing yourself as the researcher or the author should not be used.
5. Organize the critique paper using the IMRaD format with level 1 and level 2 headings as designated in the grid below:
Essay structure to follow:
Level 1 Heading: introduction
Level 2 heading: Research problems:
How well did the author identify the research problem?
How did the author build a persuasive argument for the new study?
How easy is the problem statement to locate?
Level 1 heading: Methods
Level 2 heading: Research Questions and Hypotheses Ethical Aspects of a Study:
What are the research questions and hypothesis?
How can the reader identify the type of research hypothesis presented – Directional/non-directional?
Was the study approved and monitored by an Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Board or similar committee?
What type of informed consent procedures were used with participants?

Level 2 heading: Research design:
Was the design experimental, quasi-experimental, or non-experimental?
Was the study longitudinal or cross-sectional?
What are the threats to the study’s internal validity?
Level 2 heading: Sampling
What type of sampling design was used?
How did the author address possible sample biases or weaknesses?
Level 2 heading: Data Collection:
What methods of data collection were utilized (Self-reports, Scales, Observation, and Rating Scales)?
If self-report methods were used, how did the researchers describe their decisions about specific methods (in-person interviews, mailed qu. estionnaires, etc.)?
If observational methods were used, what did the author describe about the methods and risks for interval validity?
Level 1 heading: Results:
Level 2 heading: Statistical analysis:
Identify the type of analyses undertaken to address each research question or test each hypothesis.
How did the author report appropriate statistical methods used, given the level of measurement of the variables, number of groups being compared, and so on?
Level 2 heading: Results:
How are important results presented?
Describe how the presentation aided or hindered the reader ability to understand.
Do the authors make causal or correlational inferences?
Are the inferences justified based on the study design and the results?

Level 1 heading: Discussion:
Level 2 heading: Findings:
What limitations do the authors discuss?
What other limitations that may affect internal validity do you find in the study?
Are the findings the authors present directly related to the results from the data in the study?
Level 2 heading: Clinical practice:
How did the researchers discuss the study’s implications for clinical practice or future research and were the implications grounded in the study evidence?

Last Completed Projects