Assignment 2-A critique of the literature

1. Assignment 2-A critique of the literature

2. Assignment Task • Assignment 2: Essay: A critique of the literature • Due Date: Week 10, Friday- 23rd December, before 2359hrs. • Length: 2000 words (+/- 10% =200 words). • Total marks: Out of 100, converted to a score out of 25 • Weighting: 25% of total grade • Late Penalty: 5% per day (if applicable) • Submit: Turnitin submission link as a word document, in week 10 Moodle

3. Assignment Task • This assignment is designed to help you become critical consumers of evidence-based health research. For assessment two you are asked to critically appraise either a quantitative or a qualitative research report. • The steps you need to follow for this assignment are: Select an appropriate evidence-based, peer-reviewed research report (you may select the health topic) which is less than 7 years old. You can choose whether you want to critique a qualitative or a quantitative study. Remember you are NOT critiquing the quality of the article but the quality (rigor) of the research. • Choose a study that you are familiar with and one without complex statistical analysis (because you need to be able to analyse the results). You may choose one of the articles you selected for Assignment one. • You MUST demonstrate that you understand the structure and sections of a research report

4. Assignment Task • You can use the following headings to guide your critical appraisal or follow the critiquing flowchart provided within week 7. • Introduction • Report Title • Literature review/Background • Methods/Design/Framework • Sample/Setting • Data Collection • Results • Discussion/Findings • Limitations • Research conclusion • Conclusion • Reference List

5. What to include in the Introduction: Introduction (approx. 200 words) • Aim of the assignment, what you intend to do- (critique) the selected study, state if the researchers chose a qualitative or quantitative approach and what ‘type’ e.g. phenomenology, grounded theory or experimental such as a randomized controlled trial. “The research team conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) because an RCT is the most rigorous method of determining whether a cause-effect relationship exists between an intervention and outcome”.

6. An example introduction: • Health care professionals are required to critique the literature in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of research, so that patients receive assessments and treatments based on the best evidence available (Richardson –Tench 2011). As a student nurse critiquing the literature is necessary to evaluate the quality of research, and develop critical thinking skills in order to apply knowledge and draw conclusions about the legitimacy of research (Benner, Hughes, & Sutner, 2008). According to Richardson-Tench (2011), when critiquing a research study it is necessary to assess both the general quality of the article as well as the quality of the research undertaken. This includes the significance of the findings, the methods used, whether the design was appropriate, and identification of logical links between the purpose, the findings and any conclusions drawn (Richardson-Tench 2011). This paper will involve the critiquing of a peer- reviewed quantitative research study by Liu et al. (2008) using a systematic framework provided by ………………….

7. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Report Title (one sentence) • Was the title a good one, suggesting the key phenomenon and the group or community under study? (you should be able to determine if the study is going to suit your purposes from reading the title) • Does the title reflect the content?

8. Example According to Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor (2010) the title of a research study should be succinct and indicate the focus of the study. The title of the research paper by Liu et al. (2008) is concise and informative, and includes the topic of the research and the target population.

9. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Literature review/Background • Does the report adequately summarise the existing body of knowledge related to the problem or phenomenon of interest? (The literature review in qualitative research is often shorter than in quantitative studies especially in grounded theory where the aim is to ‘build’ theory. ) • Does the literature review provide a solid basis for the new study? (What is known, unknown and what are the gaps in the existing body of knowledge)? • Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date? • Is the rationale for undertaking the research clearly outlined? • Are the authors credible?

10. Example; According to Richardson-Tench, (2011) characteristics of a good literature review include identification of a relationship between previous research and the current research project, a summary of the search strategy used, identifying trends and gaps in the literature and using primary sources rather than secondary sources. The article by Liu et al. (2008) provides a summary of previous research and highlights the inconsistencies in the results of previous studies and also the lack of research into the interaction effects of age and gender on HRQOL. The literature reviewed is relevant to the topic of HRQOL and uses primary sources rather than secondary sources. The literature review however does not include the search strategy used for locating previous research, which helps the reader determine if the literature review is comprehensive and unbiased (Houser 2008). The conceptual framework used in the research paper by Liu et al. (2008) is health related quality of life. HRQOL is an appropriate health care framework evolved from the WHO (1948) definition of health as physical, mental and social well being and is an appropriate framework for this study. The author has linked the conceptual framework to the research question by using it as a measure. The literature review also includes research that has been undertaken using the same conceptual framework, which improves credibility and without such a framework it limits both the ability of the research to be applied to clinical practice and the development of further research based on the results (Houser 2008). The authors of this research are qualified and appropriate……

11. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Methods/Design/Framework • Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants? There are considerable issues surrounding consent – minors, dementia, no-English spoken, illiterate. • Was the study subject to external review? (Is there an explicit statement that the study was approved by an Ethics Review Committee)? • Was the study designed to minimise risks and maximise benefits to participants? • Is the identified research (if any) congruent with the methods used to collect and analyse data? • Was an adequate amount of time spent in the field or with study participants? • Did the design unfold in the field, giving researchers opportunities to capitalise on early understandings? • Were there an adequate number of contacts with study participants? • Is the methodology identified and justified? • Is the study design clearly identified, and is the rationale for choice of design evident?

12. Example: As Richardson-Tench (2011) highlight, the method of a study should provide enough detail for the study to be replicated. The study by Liu et al. (2008) provides information about the design and sample, the measurements used and the tools used for data analysis. The design of the study was a cross- sectional design which is a study conducted at a defined point in time using a cross-section of the population (Richardson-Tench 2011). A longitudinal study whereby a subject is studied at various points over time to identify changes could have been used which excludes variables such as cultural differences, however the disadvantage of longitudinal studies is that they are time consuming (Liamputtong 2010) and so for the purposes of efficiency a cross-sectional design was appropriate. Threats to internal validity in the study were overcome by the use of randomly coded survey packs that contained no personal identifying information (Liu et al. 2008). This ensured that the investigators were not aware of an individual subjects age or gender when conducting surveys or collating results and so could not influence the results. As explained by Richardson-Tench (2011) this threat to validity is known as the experimenter effect where the experimenter may consciously or unconsciously affect the results of experiment. In addition, confounding variables, which are variables that are known to have an effect on the independent variable but are not being measured by the study, were overcome by the use of the data analysis technique, a multivariate analysis of covariate (MONOVA) (Liamputtong 2010). The eligibility criterion in the study by Liu et al. (2008) was included, however the exclusion criteria were not. The exclusion criteria is important as subjects may not be appropriate for a study even though they may meet the inclusion criteria (Houser 2008).

13. Example cont: The procedure of the study was designed to protect the privacy of the participants, as access to the survey data was secured and restricted to a small number of investigators (Liu et al. 2008). The instruments used to gather data were described and included a rationale of the suitability of measurement tools i.e. the survey has been used successfully in other research studies (Liu et al., 2008). As explained by Liamputtong (2010) researchers should select instruments that have been shown to be reliable in the population of interest. The researchers also modified the scale used in previous research to measure overall health status to ensure a more valid result (Liu et al. 2008). Differences in instruments are a major threat to the validity of a study (Richardson Tench 2011) and this was overcome by using the same survey for all subjects participating in the study.

14. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Sample/Setting • Was the group or population of interest adequately described? • Were the setting and sample described in sufficient detail? • Was the approach used to gain access to the site or to recruit participants appropriate? • Was the best possible method of sampling used to enhance information richness and address the needs of the study? • Was the sample size adequate? (a small sample size is expected in qualitative research) • Was saturation achieved?

15. Example: • The author identified the target population and the sampling process of convenience sampling and rolling recruitment was used (Liu et al. 2008). Although a probability sample would have been more representative of the population, as Richardson-Tench (2011) highlights this is not always possible in medical studies where there is often not enough people to form a probability sample. Another way the study could have reduced sample bias is to use subjects from a number of kidney transplant hospitals rather than using subjects from a single hospital where the population may have a biased concentration of a particular variable (Richardson-Tench 2011). The sampling process and size is important so that the reader can determine if the sample is representative of the population and whether bias can be eliminated (Caldewell, Henshaw & Taylor 2010). The sample size is discussed in the results section, and in order to ensure an adequate number of participants were selected to ensure valid results, a power analysis was conducted (Liu et al. 2008). The authors also considered ethical considerations as participation in the study was voluntary, and the consent procedure was provided (Liu et al. 2008).

16. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Data Collection • Were the methods of gathering data appropriate? • Were data gathered through two or more methods to achieve triangulation? • Did the researcher ask the right questions or make the right observations, and were they recorded in an appropriate manner? • Was a sufficient amount of data gathered? • Was the data of sufficient depth and richness? • Was saturation achieved? • Were data collection and recording procedures adequately described and do they appear appropriate? • Was data collected in a manner that minimised bias or behavioural distortions? • Were the staff who collected data appropriately trained • Were methods used to enhance the trustworthiness of the data (and analysis), and was the description of those methods adequate? • Were the methods used to enhance credibility appropriate and sufficient? • Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable?

17. Example: Data was collected using a self-administered survey. Although the authors of the study did not explain why they chose this method it is commonly understood that questionaries are more cost effective and time effective than interviews (Ingham-Broomfield ,2008). The purpose of statistical tests in research is to determine whether the results are statistically significant (Liamputtong,2010). The study by Liu et al. (2008) used appropriate tests to measure the relationship between the two variables being tested (age and gender). A chi-square test was used which is appropriate for measuring categories rather than numbers (Richardson-Tench, 2011). A two-way multivariate analysis of covariance was also used, which is appropriate as there were two dependent variables (age and gender) and one covariant (time after transplantation) (Liamputtong, 2010). Details in the method that were omitted by Liu et al. (2008) were the training the data collectors received. Data collection procedures and data analysis procedures were however explained in detail. The study was reviewed and approved by a review board of the university medical centre (Liu et al. 2008). As explained by Liamputtong (2010) an ethics committee’s role is to ensure the research conforms to accepted scientific principles and statements should be made within the research about ethical considerations which was achieved by Liu et al. (2008) by discussing how the privacy of subjects would be protected and by gaining participants consent to participate in the study.

18. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Results • Are the results presented in a way that is appropriate and clear? • Were the data management (e.g., coding) and data analysis methods sufficiently described? • Was the data analysis strategy compatible with the research tradition and with the nature and type of data gathered? • Did the analysis yield an appropriate "product" • Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of biases? • Are the results generalizable? ( for qualitative) • Are the results transferable? ( for quantitative)

19. Example: The results of the study by Liu et al. (2008) are concise and presented in predominately table format. As highlighted by Richardson-Tench (2011) graphs are the preferred method of displaying categorical data, as they are easier for the reader to interpret. All results relevant to he research question have been included. Statistically significant results and marginal effects were highlighted in the results table, which is important to ensure they stand out (Richardson-Tench 2011). The levels of significance were provided which is important for determining if the results are statistically significant rather than the results occurring simply by chance (Richardson-Tench 2011).

20. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Discussion • Are the findings interpreted within an appropriate frame of reference? • Are major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies? • Are the interpretations consistent with the study's limitations? • Does the report address the issue of the transferability of the findings? • Do the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further inquiry, and are those implications reasonable and complete?

21. Example: According to Richardson-Tench (2011) the discussion of a research paper should be concise and discuss the significance of the findings rather than simply summarise the findings. The discussion in the research conducted by Liu et.al (2008) compares the results of the study to the general population and to the findings of previous studies that were outlined in the literature review. The authors summarise previous research relevant to this research and demonstrates that the current research is consistent with previous research findings. The article by Liu et al. (2008) also describes how this research differs from previous research and explains why these differences may have occurred, for example the use of different instruments to measure HRQOL in other studies. It extends from previous research by reporting on the interaction effect of age and gender (Liu et al. 2008).

22. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Limitations • Have study limitations been addressed and if so what were these limitations. • Did the researcher highlight how the limitations could be addressed or how the weaknesses could be addressed in future studies

23. Example: The research paper by Liu et al. (2008) does not highlight the strengths of the study, however the weaknesses have been addressed by explaining the limitations based on the type of sampling used, in addition to limitations of the breakdown of data. Excluded data, which may have influenced the subjects HRQOL such as socioeconomic status, education level and social support, was also included as an appropriate limitation. The research paper by Liu et al. (2008) also highlights how weaknesses could be addressed in further studies such as the use of longitudinal data and larger sample sizes. Limitations that were omitted included the use of a broader sample to include kidney recipients from more than one hospital. Limitations in a research paper are important to when considering the validity of the study and can also suggest how future research could be improved (Liamputtong 2010).

24. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Research conclusion • Do the study findings appear to be trustworthy and do you have confidence in the truth value of the results? • Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing/midwifery/social science/biomedical science disciplines and is it useful to the discipline • Do the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further inquiry, and are those implications reasonable and complete • Is the conclusion comprehensive

25. Example: The authors draw conclusions that are in line with the overall plan and methodology of the research and the findings of the research (Richardson-Trench 2011). Conclusions included implications for nursing practice, and the article provided recommendations on areas that need to be focused on in clinical practice to improve kidney transplant participant’s HRQOL (Liu et al. 2008). In addition, areas for future research such as developing and testing appropriate interventions were briefly mentioned (Liu et al).

26. Use the following questions to help you critique each section: Conclusion to the assignment ( approx. 200 words) • Was the report well written, well organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis? • Were the descriptions of the methods, findings, and interpretations sufficient? • Do the researchers' clinical, substantive, or methodological qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?

27. Example: In summary, the study by Liu et al. (2008) was thorough and well researched according to the criteria set by Richardson-Tench (2011). The information was presented in a logical sequence and was coherent and concise. In addition, the method and design was appropriate, there were logical links between the purpose, the findings and the conclusions drawn, and the findings were significant for clinical practice. These findings were……….

28. Some important points to consider: The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate your ability to critically appraise research for use in clinical practice Make sure you refer to the assignment writing guidelines (to be found on Moodle in the assessments folder). You will need an introduction and conclusion to this assignment and headings MUST be used. Include cover page, content page and end-text reference list. • Dot points are not acceptable – this must be written in essay style format. • Make sure you use the marking criteria to focus your preparation and discussion. • Follow the ECU-APA Referencing Guide. Please remember that: • All cited references should be credible resources including peer reviewed published journal articles. • The principle of assessing the adequacy of your references is that every piece of information should be supported with appropriate citation. So, there is no minimum number of references required. • Cite contemporary resources (not older than 7 years). • The word count can be +/- 10%. Therefore, the word limit of your essay is 2000 words +/- 10% (200 words). If it is beyond that, penalties will apply.

29. Submission details: • Only submit via Turnitin Link, NO hardcopy required. • Submission link can be found in EBP-Moodle Week 10. • NO marking guide needs to be attached as Turnitin creates it, as we mark online. • You will be provided bubble comments throughout your paper, once they are marked, please refer to these. Click on grade mark to view these comments. • Similarity report throughout the essay itself should be minimal. Do not use direct quotes as you should be demonstrating your interpretation of the research.

30. Assessment Criteria: 1. Evidence of appropriate interpretation of the assignment task. Demonstration of the ability to critically appraise research. 2. Demonstration of understanding the structure of a research report. 3. Demonstration of engagement with the literature and unit resources. 4. Written communication; a. The structure and logical sequencing of information including clearly identified introduction, conclusion and body headings. b. Clear, succinct written expression using correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure. c. Attention to referencing and acknowledgement of other sources – others’ ideas are paraphrased and interpreted rather than directing quoted. Correct academic referencing and in-text citation using ECU/APA conventions.

31. Marking rubric: • Marking rubric can be found at the end of the assessment task. Explanation of the marking rubric: • Using the literature effectively - Ability to search for and select material appropriate to the topic. Integrates ideas, information from texts resources and readings; makes connections across selected articles and the task criteria. • Critique of the literature - Evidence of ability to critique the literature i.e. analysis and interpretation of the articles selected; comparing and contrasting relevant aspects identified in the assignment task. • Structure, logical sequencing and flow of information with clearly identifiable introduction, body (headings) and conclusion. • Referencing - Attention to referencing and acknowledgement of other sources, use of paraphrasing (no plagiarism). Use of ECU/APA referencing conventions. • Written expression - Follows SNM writing guideline provided in assessment folder. Correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure.

32. Formatting checklist: • ECC cover page • Title page: IAW writing guideline example • Table of contents: IAW writing guideline • Margins: 3.5 cms for left and right margins and 2.5cms for top and bottom margins • Font Size and Type: Times New Roman size 12 or Arial size 11. • Line Spacing: Double spaced except for end-text referencing list. • Alignment: Do not justify, flush-left style. • Page Numbers: Number pages consecutively on the top right hand corner of the page, commencing at the title page. • Headers and Footers: NO headers or footers other than the page number are required. • Headings: see page 12 assignment writing guideline for example. • Paragraphs: The first line of a new paragraph has to be indented five to seven spaces or tab key (APA, 2010, p. 229)

33. Formatting checklist continued: • Third person: Academic writing has to be in the third person style, not first person (“I think…”) or second person (“you will see that...”), unless requested, such as reflective accounts. • Abbreviations: Where there is frequent repetition, defined abbreviations are acceptable. They must be written in full on the first occasion followed by the abbreviation in brackets, for example, Western Australia (WA). However, do not start a sentence with an abbreviation. • Paraphrasing: Academic integrity means that you should paraphrase any facts and evidence from your references and sources. This illustrates that you have read widely and critically and are able to integrate the information and present it in a new way. • Referencing: Use ECU-APA conventions. Correct in-text and end-text referencing. Articles no older than 7years, so (2009-present). • Wikipedia is not a credible source for university students and should not be referenced in academic assignments. • Online material must be from refereed journals or other recognised sites such as those with the suffix ‘gov’, ‘org’ or ‘edu’ in the link. • Good starting points for your literature search are the ECU’s Library One Search

34. ANY QUESTIONS? Remember no plagiarism The examples provided are just a guide and should not be copied, some examples may not apply to your paper either. You need to enhance your knowledge and content of this essay through further reading, do not just use the research paper.