MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE

Pres. Diosdado Macapagal Blvd.

Metropolitan Park, Pasay City

GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH

CRITIQUE

1. Statement of the Problem

 Is the statement of the problem clearly presented early in the report?
 Have the investigators placed the study problem within the context of existing
knowledge and prior work on the topic?
 Are the concepts of variables that are included in the study problem measurable?
 Is the researchable question written at the appropriate level?
 Is the problem significant to the development of knowledge about the discipline or
the practice of nursing?
 Can a feasible study design be developed to address the question?
 To sum up, knowledge of the characteristics of a good researchable question will help
you, as a research consumer, select study findings that have scientific merit to put into
practice.

2. Review Literature and Related Studies

 Is the article's literature review simply a "laundry list," or does it offer critical
appraisal of relevant research? .
 Does the literature review indicate how the present study will refine, revise,
extend or transcend existing knowledge?
 Has the author consulted literature from other disciplines beside nursing?
 Are the primary sources from reputable, sound journals or publishers?
 Are all the cited sources relevant to the study, or are many simply marginally
related?
 Does the literature review appear to have been exhaustive, or was it perhaps
cursory?
 Are cited sources up-to-date?
 Is the literature review well organized, with an obvious summary?

3. Theoretical Framework
 Is the theoretical background of the research study clearly stated in the report's
review of the literature?
 Are the theoretical concepts, proportions and constructs dcfined and related to the
research at hand, or are concepts generated?
 Is the research based. on a theory or a conceptual framework appropriate to the
research?
 Does the research draw solely on run-sing history, or-does it draw on theory from
other disciplines?
 Does the research report successfully demonstrate the relationship between theory
and research findings?

4. Statement of Purpose
 Does the study include a statement or purpose? If so, at what level of inquiry is it
written?
 Are all varieties concrete or abstract? Has special care been taken to operationalize
 abstract values?
 What confounding variables have been taken into account?
 Are hypotheses testable, justifiable, and related to the study purpose?
 Are hypotheses written clearly and concisely? Do they contain the three essential
components of a good hypothesis?
 Are the hypotheses simple or complex? Directional , or nondirectional Researchable
or statistical?

5. Research Design ,
 What type of design has been used in the study?
 Is the design carefully described in the methods section?
 Has the researcher examined the strengths and weaknesses of this particular design
approach?
 Is the design well suited to the researchable problem? To the purpose of the study?
 If the design is a case study, what procedures has the researcher use' to try to impose
order on the data collection?
 If the design is historical, have rules for external and internal criticism been met?
 If the design is a survey, were survey questions relevant to the research problem?
Was the return rate sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions?
 If the design is experimental, what methods were caused to control for extraneous
variables? What attempts were made to keep research conditions the same for all
subjects? Does the design demonstrates internal validity? External validity?
 If the design is quasi-experimental, why was this approach chosen? What steps were
taken to try to mitigate the disadvantages of this type of design?
 If the design is ex post facto, has the researcher gone beyond the data in drawing
conclusions from the study?

6. Methodology
 What methods of measurement were used for quantifying the study's variables? Does
the researcher explain why these measures were chosen?
 If a scale has been used, does it meet the criteria of having at least two possible
values, being exhaustive, and containing mutually exclusive items?
 Has the highest level of scale available (internal or ratio) been used? If not , why not?
 What instruments were used in collecting qualitative data? Were they existing or self-
developed? What reasons are given for choosing' these instruments?
 If the instrument was self-developed, has the researcher included a description of the
processes used for developing it and methods used to establish its validity and
reliability? Has the investigator included a copy of the instrument?
 Were measures objective or subjective? Direct or indirect (Proxy). Were these
instruments logical and practical ways of gathering evidence on the study's variable?
 Was the data-collection method used appropriate to the study problem and the
research purpose?
 Did the researcher include checks to guard against possible errors in collecting and
recoding data?
 Was the data-gathering approach appropriate in the particular subjects being studied?
 What were the attitudes of the respondents toward the instrument? Could these
attitudes have affected their responses?
 How was the instrument administered? Why was this method chosen?
 What measures were taken to reduce the likelihood or error in scoring the
instruments and tabulating raw data?
  If the research used biophysiologic instruments, were they used to create
independent variables or to qualify changes in dependent variables? What methods
were used to ensure the validity and reliability of the instruments?

7. Sampling Techniques
 What type of sampling procedure did the investigator employ?
 Did the investigator choose a probability or non-probability sample? Is a rationale
given for the choice?
 Is the sample representative of the population to which the findings are being
generalized?
 What strategies were used to avoid collecting a biased sample?
 Is the sample size large enough to allow meaningful statistical analysis?
 How were the rights of subjects protected?

8. Statistical Treatment
 Does the researcher clearly state the types of statistical analyses performed on
quantitative data?
 Are statistical procedures the rights ones to answer the research question?
 What descriptive statistics are repeated? Do data reported in the text match those
presented in tables and figures?
 What correlational findings are reported? Are researcher's conclusions warranted on
the basis of these correlations?
 How was sampling error been controlled for?
 What was the null hypothesis? What criteria were used to reject the null hypothesis?
 Are statistical tests appropriate to the level of measurement (nominal, ordinal,
interval or ratio) was represented by data?
 Are parametric statistics used according to requisite assumptions?
 If the computer analysis was performed, has the researcher explained how the
computer programs were utilized?
 Does the researcher demonstrate a knowledge of his or her data as well as of the
statistical findings?

9. Ethical, Components
 Does the research report contain a statement that the study was approved by an
ethical review board or similar institutional committee?
 Were vulnerable subjects used?
 Were subjects deceived in any way?
 Were subjects fully informed of all the procedures involved in the study?
 Were careful measures taken to protect subjects from harm and invasion of privacy?
 Were subjects appraised of the risks both obvious and subtle., of participating in the
study?
 Did the benefits resulting from the study outweigh the risks?
 Was informed consent obtained from all subjects? In what form?
 Did subjects have the right of self-determination (were they coerced in any way)
 Were subjects debriefed?
 Have data been kept anonymous and confidential?
  Has the researcher been objective in reporting results, as evidenced by inclusion of
data that are unsupportive as well as those that are supportive?
 Has credit been given to others who contributed to the research?
 Has the researcher disclosed any sources of financial suppprt or sponsorship?

CRITERIA FOR GOOD RESEARCH

1. clarity and relevance of the purpose

2. research ability of the problem
3. adequacy and relevance of the literature review
4. match between the purposes, design and methods
5. suitability of the sampling procedure and the sample
6. correctness of the analytic procedures
7. clarity of the findings

Reference:
Wilson, Holy Skodol. Introducing Research in Nursinq,_ California: Addison - Wesley Nursing.
1993.