NKU NRP472 Assignment Critique of Research Article using JHNEBP Tool Latest 2019 February Question # 00600905 Course Code : NRP472 Subject: Health Care Due on: 05/02/2019 Posted On: 05/02/2019 04:59 AM Tutorials: 1 Rating: 4.7/5

Evidence level and quality
rating:

Article title:

Number:

Author(s):

Publication date:

Journal:

Setting:

Sample (composition
and size):

Does
this evidence address my EBP question?

Yes

No-Do not proceed with appraisal of this
evidence

Is this study:

QuaNtitative (collection, analysis,
and reporting of numerical data)
Measurable data (how many; how much; or how often) used to formulate facts,
uncover patterns in research, and generalize results from a larger sample
population; provides observed effects of a program, problem, or condition,
measured precisely, rather than through researcher interpretation of data. Common
methods are surveys, face-to-face structured interviews, observations, and
reviews of records or documents. Statistical tests are used in data analysis.

Go to Section I: QuaNtitative

QuaLitative
(collection, analysis, and reporting of narrative data)
Rich narrative documents are used for uncovering themes; describes a problem
or condition from the point of view of those experiencing it. Common methods
are focus groups, individual interviews (unstructured or semi structured),
and participation/observations. Sample sizes are small and are determined
when data saturation is achieved. Data saturation is reached when the
researcher identifies that no new themes emerge and redundancy is occurring.
Synthesis is used in data analysis. Often a starting point for studies when
little research exists; may use results to design empirical studies. The
researcher describes, analyzes, and interprets reports, descriptions, and
observations from participants.

Go to Section II: QuaLitative

Mixed
methods (results reported both numerically and narratively)
Both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods are used in the study design. Using
both approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of research
problems than using either approach alone. Sample sizes vary based on methods
used. Data collection involves collecting and analyzing both quaNtitative and
quaLitative data in a single study or series of studies. Interpretation is
continual and can influence stages in the research process.

Go to Section III: Mixed Methods

Section I: QuaNtitative

Level of Evidence
(Study Design)

Is this a report of a single research
study?

oYes

o
No
Go to B

1. Was there manipulation of an
independent variable?

o Yes

oNo

2. Was there a control group?

o Yes

oNo

3. Were study participants randomly
assigned to the intervention and control groups?

o Yes

oNo

If Yes
to questions 1, 2, and 3,this is a randomized controlled trial (RCT)
or experimental study.

LEVEL I

If Yes to questions 1 and 2 and No to
question 3 or Yes to
question 1 and No to questions 2 and 3,this is quasi-experimental.
(Some degree of investigator control, some manipulation of an independent
variable, lacks random assignment to groups, and may have a control group).

LEVEL II

If No
to questions 1, 2, and 3,this is nonexperimental.
(No manipulation of independent
variable; can be descriptive, comparative, or correlational; often uses
secondary data).

LEVEL III

Study
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Skip to the Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies section

Section I:
QuaNtitative (continued)

Is this a summary of multiple sources of
research evidence?

o
Yes
Continue

o
No
Use Appendix F

1. Does it employ a comprehensive search
strategy and rigorous appraisal method?

If this
study includes research, nonresearch, and experiential evidence, it is an
integrative review (see Appendix F).

o
Yes
Continue

o
No
Use Appendix F

2. For systematic reviews and systematic reviews with
meta-analysis
(see descriptions below):

a.
Are all studies included
RCTs?

LEVEL I

b.
Are the studies a combination
of RCTs and quasi-experimental, or quasi-experimental only?

LEVEL II

c.
Are the studies a combination
of RCTs, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental, or non- experimental only?

LEVEL III

A systematic
review employs a search strategy and a rigorous appraisal method, but
does not generate an effect size.

A meta-analysis,
or systematic review with meta-analysis, combines and analyzes results from
studies to generate a new statistic: the effect size.

Study
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Skip
to the Appraisal of Systematic
Review (With or Without a Meta-Analysis) section

Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research
Studies

Does
the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how
the study will address any gaps in knowledge?

o Yes

o No

Was
the purpose of the study clearly presented?

o Yes

o No

Was
the literature review current (most sources within the past five years or a
seminal study)?

o Yes

o No

Was
sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale?

o Yes

o No

If there is
a control group:

· Were the characteristics and/or demographics similar in both the
control and intervention groups?

o Yes

o No

N/A

· If multiple settings were used, were the settings similar?

o Yes

o No

N/A

· Were all groups equally treated except for the intervention
group(s)?

o Yes

o No

N/A

Are
data collection methods described clearly?

o Yes

o No

Were
the instruments reliable (Cronbach’s a[alpha] > 0.70)?

o Yes

o No

N/A

Was
instrument validity discussed?

o Yes

o No

N/A

If
surveys or questionnaires were used, was the response
rate > 25%?

o Yes

o No

N/A

Were
the results presented clearly?

o Yes

o No

If
tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content?

o Yes

o No

N/A

Were
study limitations identified and addressed?

o Yes

o No

Were
conclusions based on results?

o Yes

o No

Complete
the Quality Rating for QuaNtitative
Studiessection

Appraisal of Systematic Review
(With or Without Meta-Analysis)

Were the variables of
interest clearly identified?

o Yes

o No

Was
the search comprehensive and reproducible?

·
Key search terms stated

o Yes

o No

· Multiple databases searched and identified

o Yes

o No

· Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated

o Yes

o No

Was there a flow diagram that
included the number of studies eliminated at each level of review?

o Yes

o No

Were details of included
studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths, and
limitations)?

o Yes

o No

Were methods for appraising
the strength of evidence (level and quality) described?

o Yes

o No

Were conclusions based on
results?

o Yes

o No

· Results were interpreted

o Yes

o No

· Conclusions flowed logically from the interpretation and
systematic review question

o Yes

o No

Did the systematic review
include a section addressing limitations and
how they were addressed?

o Yes

o No

Complete
the Quality Rating for QuaNtitative
Studiessection (below)

Quality
Rating for QuaNtitative Studies

Circle the appropriate quality rating below:

AHigh
quality: Consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for
the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent
recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes
thorough reference to scientific evidence.

B
Good quality: Reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for
the study design; some control, and fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably
consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review
that includes some reference to scientific evidence.

CLow
quality or major flaws: Little evidence with inconsistent results;
insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn.

Section
II: QuaLitative

Level of Evidence (Study Design)

Is this a
report of a single research study?

oYes
this is
Level III

o
No
go to II B

Study
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Completethe Appraisal of Single QuaLitative Research Studysection(below)

Appraisal
of a Single QuaLitative Research Study

Was
there a clearly identifiable and articulated:

·
Purpose?

?
Yes

?
No

·
Researchquestion?

?
Yes

?
No

·
Justificationformethod(s)used?

?
Yes

?
No

·
Phenomenonthatisthefocusoftheresearch?

?
Yes

?
No

Were study sample participants
representative?

?
Yes

?
No

Did they have knowledge of or experience with
the research area?

?
Yes

?
No

Were participant characteristics described?

?
Yes

?
No

Was sampling adequate, as evidenced by
achieving saturation of data?

?
Yes

?
No

Data
analysis:

·
Was a verification process
used in every step by checking and confirming with participants the
trustworthiness of analysis and interpretation?

?
Yes

?
No

·
Was there a description of
how data were analyzed (i.e., method), by computer or manually?

?
Yes

?
No

Do findings support the narrative data
(quotes)?

?
Yes

?
No

Do findings flow from research question to
data collected to analysis undertaken?

?
Yes

?
No

Are conclusions clearly explained?

?
Yes

?
No

Skip
to the Quality Rating for
QuaLitative Studiessection

ForsummariesofmultiplequaLitativeresearchstudies(meta-synthesis), wasacomprehensivesearchstrategyand
rigorousappraisalmethod
used?

o
Yes
Level III

o
No
go to Appendix F

Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP
Question

Complete
the Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis
Studies section (below)

Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies

Were the search strategy and criteria for
selecting primary studies clearly defined?

?
Yes

?
No

Were findings appropriate and convincing?

?
Yes

?
No

Was a description of methods used to:

·
Compare findings from each
study?

?
Yes

?
No

·
Interpret data?

?
Yes

?
No

Did synthesis reflect:

?
Yes

?
No

·
New insights?

?
Yes

?
No

·
Discovery of essential
features of phenomena?

?
Yes

?
No

·
A fuller understanding of the
phenomena?

?
Yes

?
No

Was sufficient data presented to support the
interpretations?

?
Yes

?
No

Complete
the Quality Rating for QuaLititative
Studiessection (below)

Quality Rating for QuaLitative Studies

Circle the appropriate quality
rating below:

No commonly agreed-on principles
exist for judging the quality of quaLitative studies. It is a subjective
process based on the extent to which study data contributes to synthesis and
how much information is known about the researchers’ efforts to meet the
appraisal criteria.

For meta-synthesis, there is preliminary agreement that quality
assessments should be made before synthesis to screen out poor-quality
studies¹.

A/B High/Good quality is used for single studies and
meta-syntheses².

The report discusses efforts to
enhance or evaluate the quality of the data and the overall inquiry in
sufficient detail; and it describes the specific techniques used to enhance
the quality of the inquiry.

Evidence of some or all of the
following is found in the report:

· Transparency:
Describes how information was documented to justify decisions, how data were
reviewed by others, and how themes and categories were formulated.

· Diligence:
Reads and rereads data to check interpretations; seeks opportunity to find
multiple sources to corroborate evidence.

· Verification:
The process of checking, confirming, and ensuring methodologic coherence.

· Self-reflection and self-scrutiny: Being continuously aware of how a
researcher’s experiences, background, or prejudices might shape and bias
analysis and interpretations.

· Participant-driven inquiry: Participants shape the scope and breadth of
questions; analysis and interpretation give voice to those who participated.

· Insightful interpretation: Data and knowledge are linked in meaningful ways to relevant
literature.

C Lower-quality studies
contribute little to the overall review of findings and have few, if any, of
the features listed for High/Good quality.

Section
III: Mixed Methods

Level of
Evidence (Study Design)

You
will need to appraise both the quaNtitative and quaLitative parts of the
study independently, before appraising the study in its entirety.

1.
Evaluate the quaNitative part
of the study using Section I.

Level

Quality

Insert
here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part:

2.
Evaluate the quaLitative part
of the study using Section II.

Level

Quality

Insert
here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part:

3.
To determine the level of
evidence, circle the appropriate study design:

· Explanatorysequential designs collect quaNtitative data first, followed by
the quaLitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaNtitative results
using quaLitative findings. The level is determined based on the level of the
quaNtitative part.

· Exploratory sequential designs collect quaLitative data first, followed by
the quaNtitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaLitative findings
using the quaNtitative results. The level is determined based on the level of
the quaLitative part, and it is always Level III.

· Convergent parallel designs collect the quaLitative and quaNtitative data
concurrently for the purpose of providing a more complete understanding of a
phenomenon by merging both datasets. These designs are Level III.

· Multiphasicdesigns collect quaLitative and quaNtitative data over more than
one phase, with each phase informing the next phase. These designs are Level
III.

Study
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete theAppraisal of Mixed Methods Studies
section
(below)

Appraisal
of Mixed Methods Studies3

Wasthemixed-methodsresearchdesignrelevanttoaddressthe quaNtitative
and quaLitative research questions (orobjectives)?

?
Yes

?
No

? N/A

Wastheresearchdesignrelevantto
addressthequaNtitativeand quaLitative aspects of
the mixed-methods question (orobjective)?

?
Yes

?
No

? N/A

Forconvergentparalleldesigns,wasthe
integrationofquaNtitative andquaLitativedata(orresults)relevanttoaddresstheresearch question orobjective?

?
Yes

?
No

? N/A

For convergent parallel designs, were the
limitations associated withtheintegration(forexample,the
divergenceofquaLitativeand quaNtitative data or
results) sufficientlyaddressed?

?
Yes

?
No

? N/A

Complete
the Quality Rating for Mixed-Method
Studies section (below)

Quality Rating for Mixed-Methods Studies

Circle the appropriate quality rating below

AHighquality:Containshigh-qualityquaNtitativeandquaLitativestudy
components;highlyrelevant studydesign;relevantintegrationofdataor
results;andcarefulconsiderationofthe
limitationsof thechosenapproach.

BGoodquality:Containsgood-qualityquaNtitativeandquaLitativestudy
components;relevantstudy design;moderatelyrelevantintegrationofdataorresults;and
somediscussionoflimitationsof integration.

C Low quality or major flaws:Contains low quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study
components; studydesignnot
relevanttoresearchquestionsorobjectives;poorlyintegrateddata
orresults;and no
considerationoflimitsofintegration.