Assessment part A 1500 words
Assessment part A
Research Critique
Due date 19th May, 1700hrs
Weighting 40%
Submission Your assessments will be submitted into a Turnitin submission box within the SNUG202 Moodle site. You will have the opportunity to review and re-submit your assignment up to the due date and time. To learn more about using Turnitin please access the link:
http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/tel/resourcehub/students/index.html
Type of Collaboration Individual Assessment
Length 1500 word limit
Details NO NEED FOR INTRO OR CONCLUSION
You are the RN working on a respiratory ward at a major Sydney Hospital. Your Nursing Unit Manager asks you to prepare a report that recommends a change in practice in relation to the self-management of asthma
During your initial search for evidence on the self-management of asthma, you locate the National Asthma Council guidelines. https://www.asthmahandbook.org.au/management/adults/selfmanagement/self-management
The purpose of this assessment is to critique 2 research articles using the checklist supplied on Moodle.
It is recommended that you review the evidence from the above website – however, you can locate other evidence using the UOW databases. Your 2 articles should be related or have commonalities, e.g. both on the best methods of using inhalers.
The task includes the following steps:
1. Using the Australian Asthma Handbook or the UOW databases find 2 research articles:
2. Identify the levels of evidence for each article.
3. Critique each research article using the supplied guidelines. (500 words for each article) and put the supplied guidelines in appendix
4. Select one idea from each of your articles and combine (synthesis) these 2 ideas into a discussion (500 words) about the change in practice in relation to the self-management of asthma you have selected.
Subject Learning Outcomes
2 and 4
Marking Criteria The marking criteria for this assessment task is available in this guide.
SUPPLIED GUIDELINE:
PUT these in appendix
Quantitative Critique
Elements Questions Yes/no/maybe Paper
Report title
Is the title clear, accurate and unambiguous?
Authors Are the researchers qualified to undertake research?
How was the study funded (and if industry what was there involvement)?
Are conflicts of interest reported?
Abstract Does the abstract provide a clear overview of the study including research problem, sample, design/methods, results, discussion and recommendations?
Introduction/ literature review Is the review logically organized? Does it offer a balanced critical analysis of the literature (which is from recent primary empirical sources)?
• Purpose/research problem
Are these clearly identified?
Methods/Design Is a clear research design outlined and does it fit the RQ?

• Aims/objectives/research question/ hypothesis Have these been clearly identified, and if so, do they reflect the literature, and purpose & research problem?
• Study outcome (validity-measurement) What were the primary and secondary outcomes?
If involving patients were these patient-centred and clinically meaningful?

• Sample (Validity - sample) Was the target population clearly identified?
What was the sampling framework, including inclusion and exclusion criteria?
Was a sample size calculated and was it achieved?
Does this fit the research design?
If RCT how was randomisation performed (selection bias)?
• Setting (generalisability) Is the study setting clearly described?
Single or multicentre; type of hospital or other; country?
• Ethical considerations Was the autonomy and confidentiality of the participants guaranteed? How were they protected from harm?
Is there an explicit statement regarding ethical permission?
• Intervention/ control (generalisability) If experimental, are these clearly described?
Were both groups treated equally except for the experiment
• Blinding (Validity – sample & measurement) Were researchers blinded to group allocation (allocation concealment)
Who were blinded to treatment: patients, treating clinicians (performance bias), outcome assessors (detection bias)
• Data collection (validity – measurement) What data was gathered, how was this done and was there quality control?
Was a valid and reliable instrument used, or if not, were these assessed during research?
If a researcher developed instrument was used, was the development method described?
• Data analysis (reliability) How the data was analysed and was this appropriate for the design?

Results How results are presented (narrative, tables)?
Is this logical and easy to follow?
• Participant flow through study (validity) Is there a CONSORT diagram?
Are all patients/participants accounted for (attrition bias)?
What was the loss to follow-up?
Is there a demographic table for participants and if experimental are groups equal across main and confounding variables?
• Outcomes (reliability) What are the outcomes? Are these statistically and clinically significant?
Are confidence intervals provided?

Discussion (generalisability) Are the outcomes as claimed by the researchers supported by their results, including generalisability?
Are the findings discussed in relation to current literature?
Are the conclusions consistent with results?
Do the authors discuss implications of research? (eg change in practice or further research?)
• Limitations and strengths Were these effectively described?
Structure of report and writing Is the report structured logically and easy to read so that each section is easy to find?
Is it well written?
• References Are these mostly contemporary primary sources?
Qualitative Critique:
Elements Questions Yes/ no/ maybe Paper
Report title
Is the title clear, accurate and unambiguous?
Authors Are the researchers qualified to undertake research?
How was the study funded?
Are the authors conflicts of interest reported?
Abstract Does the abstract provide a clear overview of the study including research problem, sample, design/methods, results, discussion and recommendations?
Introduction/ literature review
• Background Is the review logically organized? Does it offer a balanced critical analysis of the literature (which is from recent primary empirical sources?
• Phenomenon of interest Is this clearly identified

• Purpose/research problem
Is the purpose clearly identified and consistent with the phenomenon of interest?
Methods/Design Is a clear research design outlined and does it fit the research problem and question?
Was the philosophical underpinning the study described and is this consistent?

• Aims/objectives/research question Have these been clearly identified, and if so, do they reflect the literature, and purpose & research problem?

• Theoretical framework Was a conceptual or theoretical framework identified and clearly described?
Is this consistent with phenomenon and design?
• Sample How were they recruited?
Are the participants key informants (have they experienced the phenomenon of interest)?
Was the target population clearly identified?
Does this fit the research design?
• Setting Is the study setting clearly described?
• Ethical considerations Is this a vulnerable population?
How was the autonomy and confidentiality of the participants managed?
How were they protected from harm?
Is there an explicit statement regarding ethical permission?
• Author (research team)
Author (research team) continued
Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?
How did the research team engage with the participants and the field (credibility)
How did the team manage their preconceptions during all phases of the research process (reflexivity)
• Data collection What were the data and how was it collected (credibility)?
Does this fit the RQ, theoretical framework and design?
Was the interviewer/focus group facilitator trained?

• Data analysis How the data was analysed and was this appropriate for the design?
Was member checking used (credibility)?

• Audit trail (dependability and confirmability) Do the authors describe how they managed research processes across all phases of the study?

Results/findings How do the authors present the findings?

• Research participants How are the research participants described (thick description-transferrability)
• Results Is there enough data to support findings? (eg participants quotes or exemplars)
Were data saturation or triangulation used, and how were these described?
Discussion Are the outcome findings, as claimed by the researchers, supported by their results, including transferability?
Has the findings been discussed within the context of what was known about the phenomenon?
Are the conclusions consistent with findings?
Do the authors discuss implications of research? (eg change in practice or further research?)
• Rigour How have the researchers described how they addressed trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, reflexivity)?
Structure of report and writing Is the report structured logically and easy to read so that each section is easy to find?
Is it well written?
• References Are these mostly contemporary primary sources?

Part A research critique