Qualitative Research Critique of Nurses’ Perspectives on Patient and Visitor Violence

Assignment Instructions for Qualitative Research Critique:
The Qualitative Research Article Critique assignment provides an opportunity for students to write a formal paper reflecting review and critique of one of the three provided qualitative research articles. The critique is an analysis of the qualitative research article.
The primary citations and references for the formal paper are the selected article (one article selected from the three provided articles outlined in the assignment) and Polit and Beck (2020), MSN 600 required research textbook. Other current professional resources may be included to support rationale for questions.
The Qualitative Research Critique Paper Question Guide lists the guiding questions per research component to answer for the assignment. Students must reference the chapters outlined in required textbook Polit and Beck (2020) to assist in answering questions completely. Particularly note aspects related to critical appraisal in chapters 5, 6, 7, 22, 23, 24, 25 and aspects of trustworthiness in chapter 26 of Polit and Beck (2020) in regard to completing an overall critique of a qualitative research article. A link for the Qualitative Research Critique Paper Question Guide is listed below. Please synthesize answers to questions on the Qualitative Research Critique Paper Question Guide and per Polit and Beck (2020) textbook to fully meet grading criteria on the Qualitative Research Critique Grading Rubric. The Qualitative Research Critique Grading Rubric is provided below.
Students need to address each research component thoroughly based on the content of the article, synthesizing and providing rationale for each of the statements. If a research component is not addressed in the article, students must explain whether or not this is justified and provide rationale.
The Qualitative Research Critique paper is a formal paper and should include a title page, abstract with keywords, an introduction, body of the paper, personal reflection/conclusion, and a reference page (listed on a separate page following the conclusion of the paper). The paper should be a minimum of nine pages and no more than ten pages, excluding title, abstract, and reference page. Points may be deducted for not meeting the page limit requirements. The personal reflection/conclusion should answer questions such as: How does the article contribute to your understanding of research? Does the article change your views of the topic? What do you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of the article? Do the study findings appear to be trustworthydo you have confidence in the truth value of the results? Does the article inspire confidence about the types of people and settings for whom the evidence is applicable?
The paper is to be written using APA (2020) 7th edition format including the professional paper required elements.
Please choose one of the provided three articles listed below on which to write your critique. Choose just one and include the entire citation in your critique.
Henderson, L., Kamp, B., Niedbalski, K., Abraham, S. & Gillum, D. (2018). Nurses
perspectives on patient and visitor violence: A qualitative study.
International Journal of Studies in Nursing, 3(2), 117-126.
https://doi.org/10.20849/ijsn.v3i2.427

Textbook for required reference: Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2021). Nursing research generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

MSN 600
Qualitative Research Critique Formal Paper Question Guide
Categories with Questions to Address for Qualitative Research Critique
Title:
-Is the title of study clear and accurate? Explain.
-Does the title reflect the topic of interest (phenomenon) and group or community being studied? Explain.
-Does the title reflect the group or community being studied? Explain.
Abstract:
-Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the article? Explain.
Introduction-Purpose:
-Is the study purpose clearly/directly stated? Explain.
-What is the study purpose?
Introduction-Significance:
-Is the significance for the study described? Explain.
-Is the problem significant to nursing? Explain.
Introduction-Statement of Problem:
-Is the problem statement stated clearly/directly and easy to identify? Explain.
-What is the problem statement?
-Does the problem statement build a cogent and persuasive argument for the new study? Explain
Introduction-Qualitative Method Used:
-Is the type of qualitative method stated or inferred? Explain.
-What is the type of qualitative method (phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, narrative theory, and such)?
-Is the qualitative approach appropriate? Consider if there is a good match between the research problem and the paradigm, tradition, and methods. Explain.
Introduction-Research Question:
– Are the research questions present and explicitly stated? Explain. If not, are their absence justified? Explain.
-If present, are the research questions consistent with the studys philosophical basis, underlying tradition, or ideologic orientation? Explain.
Introduction-Literature Review:
-Was the review thoroughdid the review include all major studies on the topic? Did the review include current research (studies published within the last three to five years)? Were studies from other related disciplines included, if appropriate? Explain.
-Did the review rely mainly on primary source research articles? Explain.
-Was the review merely a summary of existing work, or did it critically appraise and compare key studies? Did the review identify important trends and gaps in the literature? Explain.
-Was the review well organized? Was the development of ideas clear? Explain.
-Did the review use appropriate language regarding the tentativeness of prior findings? Was the review objective? Did the author paraphrase, or was there an overreliance on quotes from original sources? Explain.
-If the review was part of a research article for a new study, did the review support the need for the study? Explain.
-If it was a review designed to summarize evidence for clinical practice, did the review draw reasonable conclusions about practice implications? Explain.
**Refer to chapter 5 in Polit and Beck (2020) to assist when synthesizing information to provide complete answers. Questions from Box 5.5 (Guidelines for Critically Appraising Literature Reviews) of chapter 5 in Polit and Beck (2020).
Introduction-Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks:
– Did the article describe an explicit theoretical or conceptual framework for the study? If not, did the absence of a framework detract from the usefulness or significance of the research? Explain.
-Did the article adequately describe the major features of the theory or model so that readers could understand the studys conceptual basis? Explain.
-Did the research problem, hypotheses (if any), and study methods naturally flow from the framework, or did the purported link between the problem and the framework seem contrived? Were deductions from the theory logical? Explain.
-Were concepts adequately defined, and in a way that was consistent with the theory? If there was an intervention, were intervention components consistent with the theory? Explain.
-Was the framework based on a conceptual model of nursing or on a model developed by nurses? If framework was borrowed from another discipline, was there adequate justification for its use? Explain.
-Did the researcher tie the study findings back to the framework in the Discussion section? Did the findings support or challenge the framework? Were the findings interpreted within the context of the framework? Explain.
**Refer to chapter 6 in Polit and Beck (2020) to assist when synthesizing information to provide complete answers. Questions from Box 6.2 (Guidelines for Critically Appraising Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks in a Research Article) of chapter 6 in Polit and Beck (2020)
Method-Protection of Human Rights:
– Was the study approved and monitored by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Research Ethics Board (REB), or other similar ethics review committee? Explain.
– Were participants subjected to any physical harm, discomfort, or psychological distress? Did the researchers take appropriate steps to remove, prevent, or minimize harm? Explain.
-Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits? Did the benefits to participants outweigh any potential risks or actual discomfort they experienced? Did the benefits to society outweigh the costs to participants? Explain.
-Was any type of coercion or undue influence used to recruit participants? Did they have the right to refuse to participate or to withdraw without penalty? Explain.
-Were participants deceived in any way? Were they fully aware of participating in a study and did they understand the purpose and nature of the research? Explain.
-Were appropriate informed consent procedures used? If not, were there valid and justifiable reasons? Explain.
-Were adequate steps taken to safeguard participants privacy? How was confidentiality maintained? Were Privacy Rule procedures followed (if applicable)? Was a Certificate of Confidentiality obtained? If not, should one have been obtained? Explain.
-Were vulnerable groups involved in the research? If yes, were special precautions used because of their vulnerable status? Explain.
-Were groups omitted from the inquiry without a justifiable rationale, such as women (or men), minorities, or older people? Explain.
**Refer to chapter 7 in Polit and Beck (2020) to assist when synthesizing information to provide complete answers. Questions from Box 7.3 (Guidelines for Critically Appraising the Ethical Aspects of a Study) in Polit and Beck (2020).
Method-Research Tradition and Research Design:
-Was a research tradition for the qualitative study identified? If none was identified, can one be inferred? Explain.
-Was the research question congruent with a qualitative approach and with the specific research tradition (i.e., was the domain of inquiry for the study congruent with the domain encompassed by the tradition)? Were the data sources, research methods, and analytic approach congruent with the research tradition? Explain.
-How well was the research design described? Were design decisions explained and justified? Did it appear the researcher made all design decisions up-front, or did the design emerge during data collection, allowing researchers to capitalize on early information? Explain.
-Was the design appropriate, given the research question? Did the design lend itself to a thorough, in-depth, intensive examination of the phenomenon of interest? Explain.
-Did the researcher spend a sufficient amount of time doing fieldwork or collecting the research data? Explain.
-Was there evidence of reflexivity in the design? Explain.
-Was the study undertaken with an ideological perspective? If so, was there evidence ideological methods and goals were achieved? (e.g., was there evidence of full collaboration between researchers and participants? Did the research have the power to be transformative, or was there evidence that a transformative process occurred?) Explain.
**Refer to Chapter 22 in Polit and Beck (2020) to assist when synthesizing information to provide complete answers. Questions from Box 22.1 (Guidelines for Critically Appraising Qualitative Designs) in Polit and Beck (2020).
Method-Sample and Setting:
-Was the setting or context adequately described? Was the setting appropriate for the research question? Was there an explanation of why the setting was chosen? Explain.
-Were the sample selection procedures clearly delineated? What type of sampling strategy was used? Explain.
-Were the eligibility criteria for the study specified? How were participants recruited into the study? Did the recruitment strategy yield information-rich participants? Explain.
– Was the sampling approach appropriate for the qualitative tradition of the study? Are dimensions of the phenomenon under study adequately represented? Explain.
-Was the sample size adequate and appropriate for the qualitative tradition of the study? Did the researcher indicate saturation had been achieved? Explain.
-Did the findings suggest a richly textured and comprehensive set of data without any apparent holes or thin areas? Did the sample contribute sufficiently to analytic generalization? Explain.
-Were key characteristics of the sample described (e.g. age, gender)? Was a rich description of participants and context provided, allowing for an assessment of the transferability of the findings? Explain.
** Refer to Chapter 23 in Polit and Beck (2020) to assist when synthesizing information to provide complete answers. Questions from Box 23.1 (Guidelines for Critically Appraising Sampling Designs) in Polit and Beck (2020).
Method-Data Collection and Procedure:
-Were appropriate methods used to gather data? Was data gathered through two or more methods to achieve triangulation? Explain.
-Given the research question and the characteristics of study participants, did the researcher use the best method of capturing study phenomena (e.g., self-reports, observation)? Should supplementary data collection methods have been used to enrich the data available for analysis?
-If self-report methods were used, did the researcher make good decisions about the specific method used to solicit information (e.g., focus group interviews, semi-structured interviews, and so on)? Was the modality of obtaining the data appropriate (e.g., in-person interviews, telephone interviews, Internet questioning, etc.)? Explain.
-If a topic guide was used, did the report present examples of specific questions? Were the questions appropriate and thorough? Did the wording encourage full and rich responses?
-Were interviews recorded and transcribed? If interviews were not recorded, what steps were taken to ensure the accuracy of the data? Explain.
– Were self-report data gathered in a manner that promoted high-quality responses (e.g., in terms of privacy, efforts to put respondents at ease, etc.)? Explain.
-If observational methods were used, did the report adequately describe what the observations entailed? What did the researcher actually observe, in what types of settings did the observations occur, and how often and over how long a period were observations made? Were decisions about positioning described? Explain.
-Was sufficient time spent in data collection? Explain.
-What role did the researcher assume in terms of being an observer and a participant? Was this role appropriate? Explain.
-Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Explain.
-Were the right questions and/or observations recorded in an appropriate fashion? Explain.
-Who collected the data, and were they adequately prepared for the task? Explain.
**Refer to chapter 24 in Polit and Beck (2020 to assist when synthesizing information to provide complete answers. Questions from Box 24.3 (Guidelines for Critically Appraising Unstructured Data Collection Methods) of Chapter 24 from Polit and Beck (2020)
Method-Enhancement of trustworthiness:
-Overall question: Was there evidence that data derived from the research study was trustworthy (as described in Chapter 26 of Polit and Beck, 2020)? Questions to address:
-Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness/integrity of the study, and was there a good description of those strategies? Which specific techniques did the researcher use to enhance the trustworthiness and integrity of the inquiry? What quality-enhancement strategies were not used? Would additional strategies have strengthened confidence in the study and its evidence? Explain.
– Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings were authentic (auditable and confirmable)? Explain.
– Were results interpreted in light of findings from other studies? Explain.
-Given the efforts to enhance data quality, what can be concluded about the studys validity/rigor/trustworthiness? Explain.
-Did the researchers discuss the studys implications for clinical practice or future research? Were the implications well-grounded in the study evidence? Explain.
-Did the report discuss any study limitations and their possible effects on the credibility of the results or on interpretations of the data? Explain.
-Was there evidence of researcher reflexivity? Explain.
-Was there thick description of the context, participants, and findings, and was it at a sufficient level to support transferability? Explain.
**Refer to chapter 26 in Polit and Beck (2020)
Results-Data Analysis:
-Was the data analysis strategy/method compatible with the research tradition and with the nature and type of data gathered? Explain.
-Were major analytic decisions communicated in the article (e.g., who did the analysis and transcription)? Were the decisions reasonable ones? Explain.
-Were the coding process and coding scheme described? If so, does the process seem reasonable? Does the scheme appear logical and complete? Does there seem to be unnecessary overlap or redundancy in the codes? Explain.
– Were manual methods used to index and organize the data, or was computer software used? Explain.
– Does the article adequately describe the process by which the actual analysis was performed? If codes were collapsed into categories, does the resulting set of categories make sense? Explain.
-What major themes or processes were gleaned from the data? If excerpts from the data were provided, do the themes appear to capture the meaning of the narrativesthat is, does it appear that the researcher adequately interpreted the data and conceptualized the themes or categories? Explain.
-What evidence does the report provide that the analysis is accurate and appropriate? Were data shared in a manner that allows you to verify the researchers conclusions? Explain.
-Was a metaphor used to communicate key elements of the analysis? Did the metaphor offer an insightful view of the findings, or did it seem contrived? Explain.
-Was the context of the phenomenon adequately described? Does the article give you a clear picture of the social or emotional world of study participants? Explain.
-Did the analysis yield a meaningful and insightful picture of the phenomenon under studyor is the resulting theory or description trivial and obvious? Explain.
-Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of biases? Explain.
**Refer to chapter 25 in Polit and Beck (2020) to assist when synthesizing information to provide complete answers. Questions from Box 25.2 (Guidelines for Critically Appraising Qualitative Analyses and Interpretations) of chapter 25 in Polit and Beck (2020)
Results-Findings:
-Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments? Explain.
-Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation? Explain.
Results-Theoretical Integration:
– Were the themes or patterns logically connected to each other to form a convincing and integrated whole?
-Did the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data? Explain.
-Was discussion of key findings congruent with the research approach? Explain.
Discussion-Interpretation of the findings:
-Were the findings discussed and interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context and within the context of prior studies? Explain.
-Were interpretations consistent with the studys limitations? Explain.
-Did the article address the transferability and applicability of the findings? Such as: Did the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research, and were those implications reasonable and complete? Explain.
Personal Reflection/Conclusion:
The personal reflection/conclusion should answer questions such as:
-How does the article contribute to your understanding of research?
-Does the article change your views of the topic?
-What do you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of the article?
-Do the study findings appear to be trustworthydo you have confidence in the truth value of the results?
-Does the article inspire confidence about the types of people and settings for whom the evidence is applicable?

Last Completed Projects