Quantitative Critique Research Paper., ,A Critique of the Article by Kalischuk et al. (2013) about the Results of an Empirical Study on the Views of Nursing Preceptors in Canada
The title of this empirical study by Kalischuk et al. (2013) indeed represents the study focus which is the views held by nursing preceptors in Canada. This is because the data collection was by use of a questionnaire as the instrument. The study sample was 331 preceptors who are the ones that responded to the questions in the questionnaire (Kalischuk et al., 2013).Quantitative Critique Research Paper.,The Abstract
The abstract of the article summarizes the purpose of the study which was to assess the views of nursing preceptors in a Canadian undergraduate program with regard to benefits and other factors. It also gives the methodology and study design used by the researchers in conducting the research. The results and major findings are also reported in the abstract. However, the organisation of the abstract is not appealing and scholarly. Being a summary of the study, the abstract could have been better organised with sub-titles, viz Purpose, Methodology, Results, Conclusion, and so on. The organisation of the abstract with these sub-titles would have made it easy for the reader to find the information they want in the abstract quickly. As it is, if one wanted for instance to find out only the findings of the study in the abstract, they would be forced to read the whole abstract because of the abscence of sub-titles.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.
Statement of the Problem
The statement of the problem is provided in the introduction and appears to be significant and clear. It is in congruence with the purpose of the study. The background to the problem is also well described under a sub-title aptly named Background. The statement of the problem in the introduction also contains clear variables, the population of the study, and its setting.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.
The purpose or aim of this study is clearly stated under the sub-title Study Aim. It addresses the population of the study and the setting too. However, the variables do not clearly come out as this section on purpose/ aim of the study is too brief and lacking in detail.
There is no section on literature review in this study article. What the authors have done is go ahead and review the literature in the section on background. This is confusing and is actually not the norm. The authors review several previous studies that appear in the background review of literature. There is good synthesis of the studies, although critical appraisal is seriously lacking. The authors have merely reported what the previous literature states. There is also no clear summary of what is known and what is unknown. Lastly, the references in the review are not current. Most of them are studies that were published in the 1990s, with some from as way back as 1995.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.
The Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study is not explicit. It however seems to be based on scientific theory given the background of the problem and review of literature. It is based on facts and observations from surveys by previous researchers. The description and definition of the relationships among variables and concepts is not thorough, though an attempt has been made at that. There is no conceptual model presented.
The Research Objectives or Hypotheses
The research objectives are not clearly delineated and set aside. One has to decipher for themselves what these objectives are. It is therefore not possible to comment on their wording and consistency with the framework, purpose, and problem.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.
These are not clearly defined and it is difficult to tell which are dependent and which are independent. This can only be surmised from the statement of the problem. They are however reflective of the concepts identified in the implicit theoretical framework. The operational definition is in congruence with the conceptual definition, which is also not explicit but has to be surmised. Although demographic variables are identified, outside confounding variables are neither identified nor controlled.
Research Design: The descriptive correlational design employed is specific to the study. It is logically linked to the sampling method and examines hypotheses. It does not however sufficiently address threats to design validity or explain the links between the variables. No intervention potentially detrimental to the subjects was used. So the study was ethical and no one was harmed.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.
Sample and Setting: The sample size was 331 subjects. This is quite a small sample size and is not very appropriate to avoid a type II error. Power analysis was not done and the sampling was a non-probability purposive sample. Inclusion criteria are described and reflective of the population. Sample attrition was significant as the response rate was not good. Threats to the setting are not described.
Measurements: Selected measurements do have a name and author. Reliability and validity are questionable though as error not minimized.
Data Collection: The process is clearly described and conducted in a consistent manner. It was ethical and there were no adverse events.
Data Analysis and Findings: Statistical are appropriate and clearly described (inferential tests and also parametric analysis). Cases with missing data were deleted. Analysis addressed study purpose and enough statistical power is demonstrated. Results are understandable and their interpretation logical and consistent with study theoretical framework. Appropriate procedures were used to describe the sample and the alpha identified. 61.7% of the respondents felt that their workload was appropriate. Tables used were appropriate.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.
Interpretation: Findings are summarised in tables. The research questions appear to have been answered and the limitations of the study have been discussed. The conceptual framework (which was not explicit) is not clearly tied in. Generalizability has been addressed in the recommendations section and the conclusions do fit data analysis results. It is not possible to tell whether the findings are linked to the theoretical framework.
Implications: The study implications for practice and education have been extensively discussed in the recommendations. No suggestions for future research are apparent.
The major strength of the study is its use of strong non-parametric tests in data analysis which improve the reliability of its results. The limitations include a small sample size and a focus on the experiences of preceptors only without examining the influence of others around them (extraneous confounding variables).
This study contributes to nursing knowledge in that knowing what the experiences and expectations of preceptors goes a long way in improving nursing education and practice.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.,Critique of Quantitative Research
1. Use the following guidelines to critique the research article provided. There is a distinct difference between critiquing and reporting. Make sure you critique and provide the analysis of why in your support. Refer to Chapter 18, pages 436 to 443, for specific critiquing questions. Guidelines are adapted from: Gray, J.R., Grove, S.K., & Sutherland, S. (2017). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (8th ed.). St Louis, MO: Elsevier, Inc.
2. Prepare your paper using APA format 6th edition.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.
3. No abstract is required.
4. Page length should be no more than 4 pages, excluding title and reference pages.
5. This is a formal paper. Follow closely the Grading Rubric for Written Assignment found in the Course Resources section of the course.Be sure to include an Introduction and Conclusion to the assignment.
TITLE (3 points)
Does the title represent the focus of the study?
Abstract (3 points)
Does the abstract summarize the purpose of the study and methodology and major study results and findings?
Statement of the Problem (5 points)
Is the problem statement provided? Is it significant? Clear? Congruent with the purpose? Describes the background? Does is contain variables, the population, and setting?
Purpose (3 points)
Clearly stated? Addresses population, setting and variables?
Literature Review (5 points)
References current? Reviews previous studies and theories? Critically appraises and synthesizes the studies? Summarizes what is known and not known?Quantitative Critique Research Paper.,Conceptual/Theoretical framework (5 points)
Is the framework explicit or implicit? Based on tentative, substantive, or scientific theory? Identify, describe, define and describe relationships among variables or concepts? Presents a conceptual model/diagram? Links variables to concepts on the model/diagram?
Research objectives, questions or hypotheses (5 points)
Provides research objectives, questions or hypotheses? Appropriately worded?
Consistent with framework, purpose, and problem?
Variables (3 points)
Are they clearly defined? Independent, dependent, or research variables? Reflective of the concepts identified in the framework? Is the operational definition congruent with the conceptual definition? Demographic variables identified? Extraneous variables identified and controlled?
Research Design (5 points)
Is the design specific to the study? Examines hypotheses & questions? Logically linked to sampling method? Addresses threats to design validity? Does the framework explain links between variables? If a treatment or intervention is present is it clearly described?
Protection of human subjects addressed? Institutional Review Board process and outcome?Quantitative Critique Research Paper.
Sample and Setting (5 points)
Sample size? Is it appropriate? Was a power analysis done for sample size? Is size sufficient to avoid a type II error? What sampling method was used specific to probability and non -probability? Inclusion & exclusion criteria described? Reflective of the population? Sample attrition?
Threats to the setting as appropriate to the study described?
Measurement (5 points)
Selected measurements have name and author?Type and level of measurement appropriate? Reliability and validity? Minimized error? Explain instruments used and critique using Table 16-1 (p 371) and p. 438 as a guide.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.,Data Collection (3 points)
Is the process clearly described? Is it conducted in a consistent manner? Ethical? Any adverse events and were they managed well?
Data Analysis and Findings (15points)
Are statistical procedures appropriate for the type of data collected? Clearly described? How was missing data explained or problems managed? Do analysis techniques address study purpose? Was there enough power for statistical results? Are results presented in an understandable way? Interpretation logical and consistent with framework?Quantitative Critique Research Paper.
Were appropriate procedures used to describe the sample? List procedures. Was the alpha or level of significance identified? Provide specific results. Were tables appropriate?
Interpretation (5 points)
Findings summarized? Answered hypotheses or research questions?Limitations discussed? Did the author tie in the conceptual framework? Was external validity addressed particularly generalizability? Do conclusions fit the results from data analysis? Were findings linked to the framework?
Implications (5 points)
Were implications for nursing practice, education, research or science addressed? Were suggestions made for future research?
Summarize strengths and weaknesses of the study (5 points)
Explain how the study contributes to nursing knowledge (5 points)
APA, GRAMMAR, SPELLING, CONSTRUCTIVE WRITING (15 points)
Graduate level writing should be concise, clear, and organized. Content should flow from paragraph to paragraph using proper transitions. Correct use of grammar, spelling, and punctuation will assist in this process. All graduate papers must be written using the APA 6thedition.Quantitative Critique Research Paper.