research article critique example

research article critique example

Analyzing and Critiquing Research Articles: A Comprehensive Guide

1. Introduction to Research Article Critiques

The research article critique is an in-depth review by learners of substantive research articles. This type of critique requires the critique on the research article itself, the actual study, the staff and operating system in which the trial was conducted, the reason the authors decided to conduct the research, and the hypotheses, methodology, and design of the trial. In addition to serving as a review of the research article, providing the information needed for the critiques can be obtained and explained as familiar with all the essential components of the process involved in an existing research. The critique will focus on the important research features that sponsors, Principal Investigators, and key staff should consider before taking in which they will be involved or investing in a new study. Topics addressed in the critiques will include ethical considerations, Knowledge Gaps, GCP, risks, benefits, patient care and patient safety, staff knowledge and experience, destination unknown, and trustworthiness of results.

2. Key Components of a Research Article

Final considerations: This is the last section of the article. In the final considerations the researchers will need to present the most important field contributions, if any limitations were faced and, finally, what can be suggested for future investigations.

Results’ discussion: A description of the results is fundamentally aided by graphical and statistical reports. It must help and inform the conclusions obtained from the research.

Methodology: The description on how the research was conducted, detailing – both theoretically and practically – the instruments used, how the hypotheses were confirmed or disproved, etc.

Literature review: It must present detailed literature on the research theme. It should not be confused with a scientific discussion or a theoretical review.

Introduction: A good introduction is able to draw the reader’s attention and stimulate its understanding. Hence, this section is usually crafted in a more informal language. The introduction must foster in the reader the search for the reasons why this research was carried out and what was the main theoretical contribution and/or field applications of the research problem.

Abstract: Is a brief and concise information summary about the work. It informs the objective, method, results and conclusions’ findings. It is strategically inserted right in the beginning of the article, right after the cover page.

In order to critique the content of a research article effectively, it is important to understand the fundamental structure of a research article. Most research papers can be structured to fill the following sections, which are considered as “basis”. This means that a paper can have other isolated subtitles, but without all these sections, there is a high probability of the work not being considered systematic research.

3. Methods for Analyzing Research Articles

A discussion of participant selection, experimental conditions, measurement tools, participants, and results is important in analyzing research. Logic in how the study was done lacks internal validity. What the author wants to measure was really measured. An outlying result should have been removed from the study and not claimed to be accurate. Researchers are human and sometimes have personal subjective bias, and also show social, cultural or research-based bias. Investigators focus on the methods and results that support the hypotheses, even if other data were collected. The scientific method is sound for an article; nevertheless, bias can sometimes slip in and taint the findings.

After scanning the article and identifying the parts mentioned above, then read the literature review, research questions, and hypothesis. For quantitative articles, check that the author is using academic formulas. Interpret background material. Finally, read and interpret the results. One common mistake is knowing what the article found, but not what the author interpreted the findings to mean. An article often has a section of recommendations or conclusions. Authors’ conclusions can differ from your conclusions. What the author is saying is sometimes different from what is found in the research.

4. Common Pitfalls in Research Article Critiques

Entrapping science: The foundational principles of empirical science require going beyond the “each case…” suggestion. Many applications of empirical research in top journals can also be recast as testing existing theory, revising present theories to better fit data, combining theories, creating new theory when none are available, or providing early evidence where nothing is expected. They establish the inner workings of economic or business laws, delivering general, unbiased knowledge that benefits all interested scholars.

Note that evaluation techniques such as confirmation bias and those described in this book encourage a reviewer to develop the evaluative intuition skill. This skill leads the evaluator to pay attention to diagnostic tests and evidence from studies when reading a manuscript.

Selective outcome reporting: The author reports only statistically significant outcomes, where the probability is exceedingly improbable (0.05 or perhaps even less). Nonreproducible findings ensue if no adjustment is made to principal values, confidence or credible intervals, and standard errors. In Part III, we guide reviewers in applying these techniques by presenting in Chapter 6 our multitier, structured system for evaluating the quality of research articles. Accommodating these techniques should become a habit to avoid these pitfalls.

Nonrepresentative or lost data: In an attempt to find predictors of behavior, authors sometimes analyze data from studies in which a manipulated independent variable had no effect. In this case, a null-effect hypothesis is accepted, but it is not particularly meaningful.

Careless errors: The most common pitfalls are the most basic. Reviewers often reveal that they did not read the manuscript carefully. For instance, a common oversight is failure to evaluate the validity of conclusions based on the statistical analysis. Authors, eager to demonstrate that the predictions of the inferential hypothesis-testing model have been satisfied, often cite the results of significance tests that are not relevant to their research question. Reviewers must be vigilant to distinguish between these two tests and the corresponding types of error, especially if the author is not clear on the distinction. Chapter 8 presents further guidance on addressing and preventing errors.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations for Effective Critiquing

Throughout this book, I’ve emphasized the importance of interpreting study results within the context of the entire study, and of recognizing the possibility of the very kinds of artifacts that we have described. Let me also emphatically warn both inexperienced and experienced researchers that the techniques used for statistical “control” do not deserve that term. Measures that summarize data for analyses to be valid should never subject nurses to claims of precision or, what is worse, to clinical doggerel. Many of the articles which I have used in examples fall below the level of research nurse scholarship, but they are still sophisticated and ambitious efforts on the parts of the investigators. They certainly do enough things right to provide a basis for the criticisms that I have raised. They’re all doing their very best, working from their frameworks of professional, probably positivist, tradition.

The adjustments proposed here for critiquing research reports lead to a clearer notion of critiquing itself. It becomes more than merely inverting the elements of the study being reported. The critiquer is not a mere detective, weighing evidence in a linear way. What is our goal in asking about the worth of the study? Positivist-oriented critics tend to ask, “Did the study adequately control for unwanted variation? Is the study’s result internally consistent? Do the results and conclusions logically follow from the procedure used? Do the results replicate the findings of similar studies, or are they unexpected?” Anyone in a research-oriented field of nursing would share these concerns, but research is not done or read in a vacuum. It has complex and perhaps ever-changing social and professional implications.