Kawasaki Infectious Disease Health Medical Assignment Help

You will select a quantitative and a qualitative nursing
research article. Each study’s main components should be summarized. A critique
also contains comments about the positive and negative aspects of the study and
the report of the study. The critique should be written as concisely as
possible, no longer than five pages, typewritten, double-spaced. The paper
should address all parts of the report equally, with strengths and weaknesses
outlined where appropriate. Where possible, include suggestions for
improvement. A copy of the research discussed must be submitted with the
assignment. At least one of the lead authors on each article must be a nurse.
Use the research critique guide provided by your professor to complete this
assignment.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
CRITIQUE GUIDE

Use the following guide in
writing the critique:

1. Statement of the
Problem/Purpose

 Is the problem/purpose
clearly stated?

 Is it easy to identify and
locate?

 Is it significant to nursing?

2. Review of Literature

 Is it recent? Five years or
newer?

 Were primary sources of
authorities or experts used?

 Is it relevant to the stated
problem?

 Does it provide a solid basis
for the study?

3. Conceptual/Theoretical
Framework

 Is there a theoretical or
conceptual framework, rationale, and/or map, and (if so) is it appropriate? If
not, is the absence of one justified?

 Are key concepts adequately
defined conceptually?

4. Hypothesis(es) or research
question(s)

 Are research questions and/or
hypotheses explicitly stated? If not, is their absence justified?

 Are they adequately stated
with clear specification of key variables and the study population?

 Are they placed in the
contexts of a theoretical or conceptual framework?

5. Research Method(s)

 Were appropriate procedures
used to safeguard the rights of study participants? Was the study subject to
external review by an IRB/ethics review board?

 Was study designed to
minimize risk?

6. Research Design

 Does the approach fit the
purpose and hypothesis (es)?

 Was the most rigorous
possible design used, given the purpose of the research?

 Was the number of data
collection points appropriate?

 Did the design minimize
biases and threats to internal construct, and external validity of the study?

7. Population and Sample

 Was the population properly
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?

8. Data
Collection and Measurement

 Are the
operational and conceptual definitions congruent?

 Were key
variables operationalized using the best possible method and with adequate
justification?

 Are
instruments objective? Reliable? Valid?

 Were data
collected in a manner that minimized bias? Were the staff that collected data
appropriately trained?

9. Data
Analysis

 Were
appropriate statistical methods used, given the level of measurement of the
variables, number of groups being compared?

 Is a
thorough descriptive analysis given?

10.
Presentation of Findings/Implications

 Are all
hypotheses discussed with findings adequately summarized, with appropriate 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?

 Were the
recommendations for clinical practice and further research reasonable and
complete?

 Are
limitations presented and adequate?

QUALITIATIVE
RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDE

1. Is the
research tradition for the qualitative study identified? If none was
identified, can one be inferred? If more than one was identified, is this
justifiable or does it suggest “method slurring”?

2. Does the
study purpose match the study design? Was the best possible design (or research
tradition) used to address the study purpose? Is the research question
congruent with a qualitative approach and with the specific research tradition?

3. Is the
design appropriate, given the research question? Does the design lend itself to
a through, in-depth, intensive examination of the phenomenon of interest?

4. Does the
report describe an explicit theoretical or conceptual framework for the study?
If not, does the absence of a framework detract from the significance of the
research or its conceptual integration?

5. Given the
nature of the data, was the data analysis approach appropriate for the research
design?

6. Is the
category scheme described? If so, does the scheme appear logical and complete?
Does there seem to be unnecessary overlap or redundancy in the categories? Were
manual methods used to index and organize the data, or was a computer program
used?

7. Did the
report adequately describe the process by which the actual analysis was
preformed? Did the report indicate whose approach to data analysis was used
(e.g., Glaserian or Straussian, in grounded theory studies)?

8. What major
themes or processes emerged? If excerpts from the data are provided, do the
themes appear to capture the meaning of the narratives?

9. What
evidence did the report provide that the analysis is accurate and replicable?
Were data displayed in a manner that allows you to verify the researcher’s
conclusions?

10. Did the
analysis yield a meaningful and insightful picture of the phenomenon under
study? Did the report give you a clear picture of the social or emotional world
of study participants?

11. Which
specific techniques (if any) did the researcher use to enhance the
trustworthiness and integrity of the inquiry? Where these strategies used
judiciously and to good effect? Given the efforts to enhance data quality, what
can you conclude about the study’s validity/integrity/rigor/trustworthiness?
Does the report adequately address the transferability of the findings?

12. Did the
report discuss any study limitations and their possible effects on the
credibility of the results or on interpretations of the data? Were results
interpreted in light of findings from other studies? Did the researchers
discuss the study’s implications for clinical practice or future research?