critical evaluation of research

1. Critical Evaluation of Research QAA benchmark statements for SLT training with regard to evaluation & research state that graduate SLTs should be able to: �recognise the potential clinical application of research findings and use current literature and appreciate its application to clinical practice� if new assessments and treatments are published you need to be able to evaluate them Have they been properly researched? Should you begin to use them? Sill crucial to our professional lives re ethical duty to keep up-to-date, e.g. journal clubs This is a skill which you will use for the rest of your professional life

2. Critical Evaluation of Research (1) �Clinicians who systematically investigate the nature, quality and outcomes of their treatments are likely to provide high quality clinical practice. A clinician who constantly evaluates other intervention options is likely to provide a comprehensive, knowledgeable and eclectic approach to treatment. The clinician is able to compare and contrast treatment programmes with the aim of achieving the best possible outcome for the client� (Carding, 2000 p.1)

3. Critical Evaluation of Research (2) �If questions posed by clinical practice are to be answered properly then all enquiry must follow a logical chain of thought: if we are to judge correctly what is and what is not appropriate to our own practice, we must be able to evaluate research reports critically� (Parry, 1987 p. 375)

5. Guidelines to Appraising a Research Paper (Parry, 1987 p. 377) Title: Is it informative, interesting and to the point? Authors: Are they members of the profession/likely to have sufficient knowledge of SLT to carry out quality research? Have SLTs participated in the design of the study & interpretation of results or did they just collect data? Abstract: Does it summarise the main points of the study accurately and adequately?

6. Guidelines to Appraising a Research Paper (Parry, 1987 p. 377) Introduction: The problem/area of interest/research question: is this made clear? The literature: does the author/s appear to know their subject? Do they appraise a range of relevant research? Do they present both supporting and any conflicting evidence/theories? Need: In relation to clinical studies, is clinical relevance clear? Aims: do these flow logically from the above? In clinical studies, do they support clinical intuition/experience?

7. Guidelines to Appraising a Research Paper (Parry, 1987) Method: Design: is this adequately described and does it seem appropriate? Are any assumptions made? If so are they justifiable and valid? Ethical considerations: is the study ethically acceptable? Participants: Are selection criteria made explicit? If people were excluded, is it clearly explained why and is this valid? If data are to be generalised to whole population, is sample size adequate and is it representative? Data collection: is method described sufficiently to allow replication? Are copies of any Assessment forms, questionnaires etc obtainable? Analysis: Does method of analysis appear appropriate? Is it clear why statistical tests have been used?

8. Guidelines to Appraising a Research Paper (Parry, 1987 p. 377) Results: Are results easily interpreted? Are raw data given or only percentages/proportions? Are tables/graphs helpful and adequately explained? Is statistical probability included? Discussion: Are the results interpreted in relation to the original question laid out earlier in the study? Are any weaknesses of the study discussed? Is anything omitted and if so is this discussed? Are findings discussed in relation to existing theory and are clinical implications described?

9. Guidelines to Appraising a Research Paper (Parry, 1987 p. 377) Conclusions: do these follow logically from the results? Recommendations: Do any recommendations for implementation into clinical practice follow from the results /conclusions? Does author suggest ways in which study could be improved? References: Is list more impressive by virtue of its length than its quality? Are there any conspicuous absences?

10. Bowers et al (2001) suggest asking the following questions re research papers: Who were the authors, what is their standing and can they be trusted? What question or questions did they want to answer, and what was the clinical importance of doing so? Who were the subjects in the study, how were they chosen, and were the methods used the most suitable? How were the data collected? Was this the best approach? What methods did the authors use to analyse the data, and were the methods employed appropriate? What did they find? Were their conclusions consistent with their results? Were there any shortcomings in the study? Do the authors acknowledge them? What are the clinical implications of their results? Does it all make sense?

11. References: Bhogal, S.K., Teasell, R.W., Foley, N.C. and Speech ley, M.R. (2003) Rehabilitation of aphasia: more is better. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 10, 66-76. Bowers, D., House, A. and Owens, D. (2001) Understanding Clinical Papers. Chichester: Wiley Enderby, P. and Emerson, J. (1995) Does Speech and Language Therapy Work? London: Whurr Carding, P. (2000) Evaluating Voice Therapy: Measuring the Effectiveness of Treatment. London: Whurr Parry, A. (1987) Guidelines to Appraising Research Papers in Journals. Physiotherapy, 73, (7). Pring, T. (2004) Ask a silly question: two decades of troublesome trials. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 285-302. Robey, R. (1998) A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in the treatment of aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 172-187.