The critical appraisal of a QUANTITATIVE research report should demonstrate that you are capable of analyzing a selected research report and producing an appraisal suitable for informing doctoral nursing practice. This is an individual assignment and should be written in accordance with APA 7 Style & Format.
This outline poses questions that should be addressed in each section of your appraisal. Keep in mind that you need to substantiate your appraisal rather than restating the question with a “yes” or “no”. Complete this as a formal paper and reference it appropriately.
The paper you are to appraise is linked below:
Sepucha, K., Bedair, H., Yu, L., Dorrwachter, J., Dwyer, M., Talmo, C., . . . Freiberg, A. (2019918). Decision support strategies for hip and knee osteoarthritis: Less is more: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial (DECIDE-OA Study). Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 101(18), 1645-1653. (Links to an external site.)
TITLE
Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the study population?
ABSTRACT
Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusions)?
Is the problem stated unambiguously, and is it easy to identify?
Does the problem statement build a cogent and persuasive argument for the new study?
Does the problem have significance for nursing?
Is there a good match between the research problem and the paradigm and methods used? Is a quantitative approach appropriate?
Hypotheses or research questions
Are research questions and/or hypotheses explicitly stated? If not, is their absence justified?
Are questions and hypotheses appropriately worded, with clear specification of key variables and the study population?
Are the questions/hypotheses consistent with the literature review and the conceptual framework?
Literature review
Is the literature review up-to-date and based mainly on primary sources?
Does the review provide a state-of-the-art synthesis of evidence on the research problem?
Does the literature review provide a solid basis for the new study?
Conceptual/theoretical framework
Are key concepts adequately defined conceptually?
Is there a conceptual/theoretical framework, rationale, and/or map, and (if so) is it appropriate? If not, is the absence of one justified?
METHOD
Protection of participants’ rights
Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants? Was the study subject to external review?
Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants?
How did or could the authors address issues surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion in their study?
Research design
Was the most rigorous possible design used, given the purpose of the research?
Were appropriate comparisons made to enhance interpretability of the findings?
Was the number of data collection points appropriate?
Did the design minimize biases and threats to the internal and external validity of the study (e.g., was blinding used, was attrition minimized)?
Population and sample
Was the population identified and described? Was the sample described in sufficient detail?
Was the best possible sampling design used to enhance the sample’s representativeness? Were sample biases minimized?
Was the sample size adequate? Was a power analysis used to estimate sample size needs?
Data collection and measurement
Are the operational and conceptual definitions congruent?
Were key variables operationalized using the best possible method (e.g., interviews, observations, and so on) and with adequate justification?
Are the specific instruments adequately described and were they good choices, given the study purpose and study population?
Does the report provide evidence that the data collection methods yielded data that were high on reliability and validity?
Procedures
If there was an intervention, is it adequately described, and was it properly implemented? Did most participants allocated to the intervention group actually receive it?
Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Was the staff who collected data appropriately trained?
RESULTS
Data analysis
Were analyses undertaken to address each research question or test each hypothesis?
Were appropriate statistical methods used, given the level of measurement of the variables, number of groups being compared, and so on?
Was the most powerful analytic method used (e.g., did the analysis help to control for extraneous variables)?
In intervention studies, were analyses performed using the intention-to-treat approach?
Were Type I and Type II errors avoided or minimized?
Findings
Are the findings adequately summarized, with good use of tables and figures?
Are findings reported in a manner that facilitates a meta-analysis, and with sufficient information needed for evidence-based practice?
DISCUSSION
Interpretation of the findings
Are all major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior research and/or the study’s conceptual framework?
Are the interpretations consistent with the results and with the study’s limitations?
Does the report address the issue of the generalizability of the findings?
Implications/recommendations
Do the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research—and are those implications reasonable and complete?
GLOBAL ISSUES
Presentation
Is the report well written, well organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis?
Was the report written in a manner that makes the findings accessible to practicing nurses?
Researcher credibility
Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodological qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?
Summary assessment
Despite any identified limitations, do the study findings appear to be valid—do you have confidence in the truth value of the results?
Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline? (outline adapted from Polit & Beck, Nursing Research, Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice)
Critical Appraisal – Quant Rubric
Critical Appraisal – Quant Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
Introductory portion of quantitative research report: title, abstract, statement of the problem, hypothesis or research question, literature review, conceptual or theoretical framework
view longer descriiption
20 to >17 pts
Excellent
Adequately and correctly critically appraises title, abstract, statement of the problem, hypothesis or research question, literature review, conceptual or theoretical framework
17 to >15 pts
Good
One element not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
15 to >14 pts
Weak
Two elements not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
14 to >0 pts
Poor
Multiple elements missing, not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate.
/ 20 pts
Method portion of quantitative research report: protection of participants’ rights, research design, population and sample, data collection and measurement, procedures (
view longer descriiption
20 to >17 pts
Excellent
Adequately and correctly critically appraises protection of participants’ rights, research design, population and sample, data collection and measurement, procedures
17 to >15 pts
Good
One element not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
15 to >14 pts
Weak
Two elements not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
14 to >0 pts
Poor
Multiple elements missing, not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate.
/ 20 pts
Results portion of quantitative research report: data analysis and findings
view longer descriiption
20 to >17 pts
Excellent
Adequately and correctly critically appraises data analysis and findings
17 to >15 pts
Good
One element not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
15 to >14 pts
Weak
Two elements not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
14 to >0 pts
Poor
Multiple elements missing, not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate.
/ 20 pts
Discussion portion of quantitative research report: interpretation of the findings, implications/ recommendations
view longer descriiption
20 to >17 pts
Excellent
Adequately and correctly critically appraises interpretation of the findings, implications/ recommendations
17 to >15 pts
Good
One element not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
15 to >14 pts
Weak
Two elements not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
14 to >0 pts
Poor
Multiple elements missing, not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate.
/ 20 pts
Mechanics/Useage
view longer descriiption
10 to >9 pts
Excellent
No errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. No errors in sentence structure and word usage
9 to >8 pts
Good
Almost no errors in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, sentence structure and word usage.
8 to >6 pts
Weak
Many errors in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, sentence structure and word usage.
6 to >0 pts
Poor
Numerous and distracting errors in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, sentence structure and word usage.
/ 10 pts
Global Issues: Presentation, research credibility, summary assessment
view longer descriiption
10 to >9 pts
Excellent
Adequately and correctly critically appraises presentation, researcher credibility, summary assessment
9 to >8 pts
Good
One element not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
8 to >6 pts
Weak
Two elements not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate
6 to >0 pts
Poor
Multiple elements missing, not adequately developed, confusing, or inaccurate.
/ 10 pts
Total Points: 0
Choose a submission type
