Sufficiently Narrow in Scope Without

¶ … sufficiently narrow in scope without being trivial?

The journal article clearly states that the problem being tested is a condition called Pressure Ulcers and the frequency of its occurrence.

Is the problem significant and relevant to nursing?

This subject matter is related to nursing. Pressure Ulcers has become an increasingly prevalent problem in hospitals and nursing homes.

Does the purpose clarify the aim of the study and identify the research variables, population, and setting?

All of this information is clearly stated in the text. The researchers have reported that this research takes place in a hospital setting with patients that have pressure ulcers in specific locations on their bodies, which are prevalent sites for the ulcers to occur.

Was this study feasible to conduct in terms of money, expertise, subject availability, facility, equipment, and ethical constraints?

However, subject availability could have been increased to include more subjects possibly at different hospital or heath care facilities.

2. Literature Review

Does the literature review show progressive development of ideas from past research?

The research does a good job of displaying how the occurrence of pressure ulcers has continued and increased over time, further supporting the need for the current research.

Does the review cite primary sources?

A number of primary sources are indicated throughout the research.

Does the review critically appraise and compare key studies? Does it identify gaps in the literature?

Yes and no- there is a review of studies related to the subject matter. However, there are some gaps in research that have not been supported nor reported in the review.

Does the literature review end with a clear, concise summary of the state of the knowledge on the topic?

The article does a good job of pooling information regarding the subject matter and explaining what angle the current research is coming from.

3. Study Framework

Is a framework included in the study? If not, does the absence of a framework detract from the study?

Though there is a framework in place, more clarification would have been useful.

Is the framework presented with clarity? Are concepts clearly defined in relation to the framework?

There is room for some misinterpretation. Some concepts are left a little obscure.

Does the researcher tie the findings back to the framework at the end of the report?

The researcher does tie all of these aspects together.

4. Research objectives questions or hypotheses a. Are objectives, questions, or hypotheses expressed clearly?

The journal article clearly states why the research is being conducted, what is in question, as well as what the researcher believes the findings will support.

b. Are the objectives, questions, or hypotheses logically linked to the research purpose?

Yes, everything has been tied together and supported with the information provided in the journal article.

5. Variables a. Are the variables clearly defined conceptually and operationally?

All variables are described and explained clearly.

b. Are there uncontrolled extraneous variables that may have influenced the findings?

The variables in this study are rather controlled and the chances of uncontrolled extraneous variables occurring do not appear to be likely.

6. Design a. Was the best design selected to direct this study?

The design fits the population and the subject matter involved.

b. Does the design provide a means to examine all of the objectives, questions, or hypotheses?

The structure allows for all areas of study to be tested and reported.

c. Have threats to design validity been minimized?

There appears to be no true threats to validity in the structure.

7. Sample, population, and setting a. Is the target population defined?

The target population is described in the article.

b. Is the sampling method adequate to produce a representative sample?

However, there could be a larger sample to help further support testing and findings.

c. What are potential biases in the sampling method?

Potential biases could be that occurrences in the hospital could be higher than in other facilities.

d. Is the sample size sufficient to avoid a Type II error?

e. Are the rights of human subjects protected?

Permissions are in place for testing to occur. However, more concern could have been placed in this area.

f. Is the setting clearly identified?

There are no questions regarding the setting, everything has been clearly described regarding setting.

8. Measurements a. Do the instruments adequately measure the study variables?

Instruments effectively measure results.

b. What types of reliability were used? Is the reliability of the instruments adequate?

Several trials were run in order to insure reliability.

c. What types of validity were used? Is the validity adequate?

Multiple trials, yes validity is adequate d. Are the instruments clearly described?

All instruments utilized in the study are clearly described.

e. Is interrater reliability described?

The journal article also does a good job of expressing what aspects do not effect interrater reliability

9. Data collection a. Is the data collection process clearly described?

All process have been clearly described and explained b. Is the training of data collectors clearly described?

This is not a completely accurate yes answer. The article does inform the reader that the data collectors are nurses with x amount of years in the field. However, numbers of years in the field do not insure that the nurses do the same things, in the same ways.

c. Are the data collection methods ethical?

Nothing appears to be un-ethical.

10. Data analysis a. Are data analysis procedures clearly described?

Everything is clearly described in the research b. Do data analyses address each objective, question, or hypothesis?

All aspects are covered in the research c. Are the results presented in an understandable way?

However, data could be explained more plainly in order to insure that a larger population of individuals would be able to understand the information being presented.

d. Are the analyses interpreted appropriately?

Everything is explained exactly as the results and information are reported in the article.

e. Was the sample size significant to detect significant differences? Was a power analysis done?

Yes, the sample was significant in size, however a larger population could have been used.

11. Interpretation of findings a. Are findings discussed in relation to each objective, question, or hypothesis?

Everything has been associated and answers the questions etc.

b. Are findings explained?

Everything is explained thoroughly.

c. Was clinical significance addressed?

Everything was related to the clinical significance in the findings of the article.

d. Does the interpretation appear biased?

Everything appears to be presented in a non-biased manner e. Did the researchers identify important study limitations?

Study limitations are described. The researcher also makes sure that they report what should be considered in order to make sure the limitations are less likely to cause an issue in future research.

f. Are there inconsistencies in the report?

Document appears cohesive in nature.

Adapted from Burns & Grove (2002). Understanding nursing research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, and Polit & Beck (2004). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Used with permission of Dr. Sole who designed the format.

The study findings are supported not only by the results but also by past research indicated in the journal article. The finings are a reflection of reality, the subject matter is regarding a serious issue that occurs more than it should today. (Vanderwee, Grypdonck, Bacquer, & Defloor) 2005, explain that the current problem being researched is that of pressure ulcers and where they occur. This is necessary and important to the impact of the information in the study. (p.156)