Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues (2005) Vol 6, No 1
45
Abstract
A new framework for critiquing health-related research
is presented in this article. More commonly used existing
frameworks tend to have been formulated within the
quantitative research paradigm. While frameworks for
critiquing qualitative research exist, they are often
complex and more suited to the needs of students
engaged in advanced levels of study. The framework
presented in this article addresses both quantitative and
qualitative research within one list of questions. It is
argued that this assists the ‘novice’ student of nursing
and health-related research with learning about the two
approaches to research by giving consideration to aspects
of the research process that are common to both
approaches and also that differ between quantitative and
qualitative research.
Key words
Research critique; critique framework; heath research.
Introduction
When undertaking an undergraduate programme in
health related studies, as in many other academic
disciplines, students are required to demonstrate the
ability to read, understand and critique research reports.
Health research was at one time guided by the ‘medical
model’. However, though this model remains influential,
Polgar & Thomas (2000) suggest that there have been
changes in the role and status of other health
professionals that have brought different perspectives,
and require different approaches to research. A more
holistic approach now influences how health care is
conceptualized, and how research is conducted. The
methodology of social research has become an accepted
part of health research.
Green and Thorogood (2004) state that “health research
includes any study addressing understandings of
human health, health behaviour or health services,
whatever the disciplinary starting point” (p5). They
further suggest that health research may expand
knowledge of society and health, or address an existing
health care problem. Undergraduates of health related
studies therefore have to consider health research in its
broadest sense.
A common method of assessing understanding both of
the subject area and the research methodologies utilized
within that subject area is the presentation of a detailed
critique of a piece of published research. Our experience
in teaching students across a range of programmes in
Nursing, Health Sciences/Studies, Health Promotion
and Health Policy programmes has taught us how
difficult many of our students find this task. With the
help of funding from the Learning Development Unit we
undertook a project to develop, implement and evaluate
a research critique framework that students could use as
a guide.
This article analyses the content of frameworks that are
commonly used to critique quantitative research and
frameworks that are commonly used to critique
qualitative research and then presents a single
framework that addresses both research approaches.
This new framework is currently being used to assist
teaching and learning activities relating to the critical
appraisal of published research. As such, it is still in the
developmental stage and as teachers we continue to
reflect on the application of this framework to our
teaching. Feedback from students is essential to this
development and the article presents evaluations from
students who have been involved in learning activities
during the early developmental stage of the framework.
This evaluation is continuing and we would also welcome
comments from our colleagues.
The need for a research critique
framework
The need for able and competent health care
practitioners is self-evident. One way of ensuring
competence is through evidence based practice and
health professionals are expected to be intelligent
consumers of research, and this entails the ability to
read, understand and apply published research
(Murdaugh et al, 1981).A change of culture arose
Developing a framework for critiquing health research
BSc, PhD, RN, RNT, PGCHE, ILTM, Head of the Institute of Nursing and Midwifery,
School of Health and Social Sciences, Middlesex University
BA, MPhil, RN, RGN, RNT, CertED, Senior Lecturer in Nursing, School of Health and
Social Sciences, Middlesex University
BA, MSc, PGDip, RN, DN, CertED (FE), Senior Lecturer in Health Studies, School of
Health and Social Sciences, Middlesex University
Kay Caldwell,
Lynne Henshaw,
Gina Taylor,
following the move of colleges of nursing into the further
and higher education sector, resulting in an educational
culture where critical enquiry and evidence-based
practice is accorded greater priority (Benton, 1999). Most
students are introduced to research methods and critical
appraisal during their undergraduate education, or
preparation for professional practice. Yet McCaughan et
al (2002) report that qualified nurses reported problems
in interpreting and using research. MacAuley et al (1998)
highlighted how GPs who had been introduced to a
model of critical reading were shown to have applied a
more appropriate appraisal to studies than those who
relied on critical appraisal skills acquired previously.
Whilst literature in relation to the ability to critically
appraise research is abundant in relation to nursing and
to a lesser degree in medicine, there is an emerging body
of evidence in relation to other health care professionals.
Chalen et al (1996) identified several barriers to
research-mindedness in radiographers, including a lack
of knowledge of research methodologies. Domholdt et al
(1994) noted that this group had particular difficulty in
identifying concerns with construct validity.
Work in the field of health and health care is multidisciplinary
and involves a variety of approaches to
research. Further the range of such research is wide,
from concerns with the relationship between the health
needs of a population to aspects of the provision of health
services (Bowling, 2002). Government policy and
professional guidance insist that professional practice
should be based on evidence (Gomm & Davies, 2000).
While Pearson & Craig (2002) elaborate on the need for
nursing practice to be evidence-based, the need for
evidence-based health promotion has been highlighted
by Perkins, Simnett & Wright (1999), who also point out
that the achievement of the targets of ‘Our Healthier
Nation’ depend on the commissioning and
implementation of effective health promotion
programmes.
Given the primacy placed on the use of evidence in the
field of health and health care, it is important that
students are enabled to critique published research in
order to determine the usefulness of that research in
their chosen field of work. By ‘critique’ we mean the
ability to critically appraise published research by
identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the research
and forming judgements concerning its overall quality
and applicability.
Research in the fields of nursing, health studies, health
promotion and health policy can be of a quantitative or
qualitative nature: both research approaches provide
valuable information for the disciplines and often
complement each other. As such, students are required
to read and critically review quantitative and qualitative
studies. However, many of the available frameworks for
conducting a critical review are written within the
quantitative paradigm (e.g. Benton & Cormack, 2000;
Polgar & Thomas, 2000). There has been a tendency to
evaluate qualitative research against criteria appropriate
to quantitative research (Sandelowski, 1986). This can
result in students attempting to analyse qualitative
research within a quantitative framework and thus can
lead to unjustified criticism, for example, quantitative
frameworks for critique will direct students to raise
questions concerning reliability and validity, rather than
confirmability, dependability, credibility and
transferability. These activities, which may lead to
students appropriating the language of quantitative
research when critiquing qualitative research, can only
serve to perpetuate the view of qualitative research as a
‘soft science’ and detract from its value as a research
approach in its own right that aims to acquire
information that is different from that acquired by
quantitative research (Leininger, 1994).
There has been considerable debate concerning whether
quantitative and qualitative research can be assessed
using the same criteria (Mays & Pope, 2000). While
there are many criteria that will be common to both
research approaches such as the identification of an
appropriate question, the choice of an appropriate
research design, the conduct of a thorough and relevant
literature review, there are also discrete areas of
difference. For example, variables are not always given
operational definitions in qualitative research as
sometimes the aim of the research is to seek definitions
of the concepts from the viewpoint of the informants.
Various frameworks were reviewed and the common
features that relate to quantitative and qualitative
research were identified. In general guidelines tend to
reflect the philosophies of the respective approaches in
that guidelines for quantitative research tend to be in the
form of checklists, whereas guidelines for qualitative
research tend to be more discursive.
Frameworks for critiquing
quantitative research
The framework presented by Sajiwandani (1996)
provides a useful checklist covering points that are
appropriate for critiquing quantitative research relevant
to nursing and health care students and provides an
explanation and rationale for critique. Polgar & Thomas
(2000) also provide guidelines specific to the critical
evaluation of quantitative research papers. Benton &
Cormack (2000) offer criteria for critical evaluation of
research but do not state that their criteria are intended
for use with a particular research approach, however, the
criteria are written within the quantitative framework in
so far as they refer to hypothesis, operational definitions,
validity and reliability of any instruments or
questionnaires. Treece & Treece’s (1986) classic text
offers a comprehensive list of questions to aid critical
evaluation, but again it is written within the quantitative
paradigm.
The website of cybernurse
(http://www.cybernurse.org.uk/research/Reading_and
_Critiquing_Research.htm) offers a framework for the
46
Developing a framework for critiquing health research
Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues (2005) Vol 6, No 1
47
areas that should be considered when critiquing a
research report. There is no indication regarding which
research approach this framework can be used for, but in
terms of data analysis only statistical analysis is
mentioned, yet hypotheses are not mentioned. In
addition, there are many important omissions, for
example, research design, recommendations,
limitations.
While considering a range of frameworks focusing on
quantitative research the areas that appeared most
consistently were in relation to the research design;
hypothesis, operational definitions, population and
sampling, sampling methods, validity and reliability of
data collection, data analysis and generalizability.
However, there were a plethora of critique frameworks
that focused on very specific designs, rather than on
generic quantitative research, and these of necessity had
far more detailed guidelines for critique. The website of
the University of Wales
(www.uwcm.ac.uk/library/critical_appraisal/forms)
offers different frameworks for appraising systematic
reviews; randomised control trials; trials without
randomisation; cohort (longitudinal) studies; casecontrol
studies and cross-sectional studies. This in itself
pre-supposes a level of research design awareness that is
likely not to be evident in undergraduate students during
the early stages of their programmes of study.
While there appears to be some degree of consensus
concerning the areas that should be addressed when
critiquing quantitative research the situation is less clear
when it comes to qualitative research.
Frameworks for critiquing
qualitative research
Hammersley (1992), writing specifically concerning
ethnography, provides criteria for assessing
ethnographic studies. Questions are raised concerning
the extent to which new theory is produced, how far is the
theory developed and how novel are the claims made. He
also refers to the credibility and transferability of the
findings, as well as the influence of the researcher on the
findings. Mays & Pope (2000) refer to the increase in
interest in assessing the quality of qualitative research
and, drawing on the earlier work of Hammersley (1992),
identify two broad criteria: validity and relevance. These
authors acknowledge that these concepts can also be
used when assessing the quality of quantitative research,
but when used in relation to qualitative research they
need to be operationalized differently to reflect the
distinctive goals of qualitative research.
The website of the Public Health Resource Unit
(http://www.phru.nhs.uk/~casp/qualitat.htm) presents
a framework for critically appraising qualitative research
built around ten questions, with supporting detailed
guidelines. Areas that are specific to qualitative research
include the relationship between the researcher and the
participants and rigour in relation to data analysis.
Greenhalgh & Taylor (1997) provide an overview of the
nature of qualitative research and again suggest a
framework for critique based on nine questions with
supporting guidance. In terms of being specific to
qualitative research, the authors refer to the need to
acknowledge the researcher’s perspective, a detailed
description of methods used for data collection, quality
control measures in data analysis and the credibility of
the results and the transferability of the findings to other
settings. Forchuk & Roberts (1993) claim that there is a
paucity of guidelines for examining qualitative work and
provide a framework for this purpose, which is aimed at
undergraduate nurses and other health professionals.
The authors cover Leininger’s (1990) criteria for rigour,
but with minimal explanation. Overall the guidelines are
relevant and useful for qualitative studies, but the journal
may not be readily accessible to all health studies
students.
Highly specialized texts exist that offer advice, discussion
and debate, concerning the evaluation of qualitative
research (Leininger, 1994; Morse & Field, 1996; Kuzel &
Engel, 2001), and, inter alia, refer to issues like the
context of the research and the need for an audit trail.
Frameworks for critiquing both
quantitative and qualitative
research
Gomm, Needham & Bullman (2000) provide questions
to be asked concerning quantitative research, in terms of
three sections: Questions to ask about data collection
instruments; questions to ask about experiments;
questions to ask about surveys, case finding (or ‘clinical
epidemiological’) studies and case control studies. They
also provide questions to ask about qualitative research
in which attention is drawn to the setting of the research,
the researcher’s role in the research and the relationship
of the study to other research in the field.
Stevens, Schade, Chalk & Slevin (1993) provide a chapter
on evaluating research in a book aimed at health care
professionals. This is perhaps one of the most misleading
guides in terms of evaluating qualitative research. A
framework for research evaluation is provided and at the
beginning it is acknowledged that qualitative research is
not necessarily performed and presented in the same
format as quantitative research. It is further stated that,
in the light of this, reference will also be made to
qualitative research. Though reference is made to
qualitative studies, it is inadequate and sometimes
misleading, for example, in the methods section
reference is made to validity and reliability in measuring
instruments, but qualitative methods are ignored.
Further, in the results section qualitative findings are not
mentioned.
Nieswiadomy’s (1998) guidelines for critique appear to
follow the quantitative paradigm, however, she does
stress that not all studies require a hypothesis and that
“studies of a purely descriptive nature” (p342) may not
contain hypotheses, in which case research questions
may be used. Also, under the section headed ‘Research
Design’, Nieswiadomy states that quantitative designs
and qualitative designs are evaluated using different
criteria. However, limited advice is offered to guide
qualitative critique. Valente (2003) provides a
framework that mentions quantitative and qualitative
research in some sections, for example, method, but
refers solely to quantitative in others, for example,
analysis. Overall, the framework is heavily biased
towards quantitative research, and when both
approaches are discussed it is not clear which approach
is being addressed.
The website of the University of Wales College of Medicine
(www.uwcm.ac.uk/library/critical_appraisal/forms)
provides a series of guides on critical appraisal of
research studies, all taking the format of a table that
identifies a question and directs the reader to answer by
ticking ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘can’t tell’, but with no guidance as to
what should be considered when answering the question.
The questions are focused towards critically appraising
the research for the purpose of ascertaining its relevance
to practice, and assumes a high level of knowledge of
research methods in order to be able to answer the
questions, so would be difficult for undergraduates to use
effectively.
Parahoo (1997) takes account of both quantitative and
qualitative approaches to research and provides a list of
broad headings that encompass both approaches. The
guidelines are comprehensive in terms of quantitative
research, but less so for qualitative research. Each point
for critique initially addresses quantitative strategies and
is followed by a paragraph suggesting a different
approach for qualitative work. For example, Parahoo
states “in qualitative studies, researchers may not want
to be influenced by previous research. They should,
however, give a rationale and make reference to the
relevant literature” (p363). However, qualitative
research is addressed with less rigour than quantitative
research and the less discerning student may well
confuse the two approaches. The guidelines fail to clearly
set out the different criteria for each strategy, for
example reliability and validity are discussed, but
confirmability, dependability, credibility and
transferability are not referred to. However, attention is
also drawn to the need for rigour and an audit trail.
In a book written for nurses, LoBiondo-Wood & Haber
(1994) provide two separate chapters for quantitative
and qualitative critique. Dealing with the two strategies
in different chapters could be difficult for the novice
student who is still trying to internalize the difference
between the two approaches. However, both are dealt
with thoroughly and do provide useful guidelines for the
more advanced students. They make useful crossreferences
to other chapters in the book. Hek (1996)
highlights the importance of critical evaluation as a
means by which nurses can practice knowledgeably, and
stresses the importance of developing critical evaluation
skills, recommending a six-stage process. Quantitative
and qualitative research are both addressed within a
specific guide to the sections of the research that should
be considered, but the complex integration of
quantitative and qualitative critique might be confusing
to the novice student. Some essential components, such
as setting, population and sample are omitted. Further,
the guide is presented in textual format and so some
detail can be lost.
Burns & Grove (2001) offer frameworks for both
quantitative and qualitative research in nursing,
acknowledging the need for differing approaches to the
critique of different types of studies. While their
framework for quantitative research includes the
standard topics like research objectives, questions or
hypotheses, the definition of variables, the identification
of independent and dependent variables, validity of
instruments, statistical procedures, when it comes to
qualitative research, other questions are raised. Burns
and Grove thus refer to ‘descriptive vividness’, looking
for clarity and factual accuracy of the researcher’s
account of the study. The context must be clear as data
are context-specific. Rigour in qualitative research
demands a clear account of the study elements, e.g. the
philosophy, the role of the researcher, the process.
Auditability and a decision trail are also required and any
theory derived from the study must reflect the data.
DePoy & Gitlin (1998) provide ‘guiding questions’ to
critically evaluate quantitative and qualitative research
studies. They present two adjacent lists, headed
‘experimental-type’ and ‘naturalist inquiry’, each with
very similar questions except for the entry for
quantitative research concerning validity and reliability,
where its qualitative counterpart refers to
trustworthiness.
Polit & Hungler (1999) offer separate guidelines for
quantitative research and for qualitative research. These
are thorough and complex and are presented in sections,
for example, guidelines for critiquing research problems,
research questions and hypotheses; guidelines for
critiquing research literature reviews, and so on. The
guidelines for quantitative research vary little from those
already reviewed. The guidelines for qualitative research
include reference to the research tradition within which
the study is carried out and highlight that the research
question and methodology should be consistent with the
research tradition. Again, an accurate description of the
research design is required, as is trustworthiness of the
data. Credibility, transferability, dependability and
confirmability are included in the guidelines. In terms of
data analysis, Polit and Hungler state that the themes
48
Developing a framework for critiquing health research
Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues (2005) Vol 6, No 1
49
should represent the narratives and there should be
evidence of accuracy of the researcher’s analysis and that
the context of the research should be clear. Polit and
Hungler’s framework for critiquing research is also
available on a web-site
(http://www.sonoma.edu/users/n/nolan/n400/critique
.htm). This is a comprehensive framework, but complex
and not easily accessible for novices.
Development of a new framework
Having reviewed a range of published research critique
frameworks, the first step was to identify the common
features (Table 1). Following this the strengths of
individual research critique frameworks were identified.
This enabled us to develop a framework that had areas
that were common to both quantitative and qualitative
approaches, and areas that were specific to each (Figure
1). To support the diagrammatic framework guidelines
are available and provide the teacher and the student
with an extended explanation of each item. Examples of
these guidelines are as follows:
Item in Research Critique
Framework Guideline
Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date? The literature review should reflect the current state of
knowledge relevant to the study and identify any gaps for
conflicts. It should include key or classic studies on the topic as
well as up to date literature. There should be a balance between
primary and secondary sources.
Quantitative:
Is the sample adequately described and reflective of
population?
Both the method of sampling and the size of the sample should
be stated so that the reader can judge whether the sample is
representative of the population and sufficiently large to
eliminate bias.
Qualitative:
Is the selection of participants described and the
sampling method identified?
Informants are selected for their relevant knowledge or
experience. Representativeness is not a criteria and purposive
sampling is often used. Sample size may be determined through
saturation.
Is the conclusion comprehensive? Conclusions must be supported by the findings. The researcher
should identify any limitations to the study. There may also be
recommendations for further research or, if appropriate,
implications for practice in the relevant field.
Quantitative Qualitative
Research design Philosophical background
Experimental hypothesis Research design
Operational definitions Concepts
Population Context
Sample Sample
Sampling Sampling
Validity/reliability of data collection Auditability of data collection
Data analysis Credibility/confirmability of data analysis
Generalizability Transferability
Table 1: Common features of research critique frameworks
50
Developing a framework for critiquing health research
Does the title reflect the content?
Are the authors credible?
Does the abstract summarize the key
components?
Is the rationale for undertaking the
research clearly outlined?
Is the literature review comprehensive
and up-to-date?
Is the aim of the research clearly stated?
Are all ethical issues identified and
addressed?
Is the methodology identified and justified?
Quantitative Qualitative
Is the study design clearly identified, and is the
rationale for choice of design evident?
Are the philosophical background and study
design identified and the rationale for
choice of design evident?
Is there an experimental hypothesis
clearly stated?
Are the key variables clearly defined?
Are the major concepts identified?
Is the population identified? Is the context of the study outlined?
Is the sample adequately described and reflective
of the population?
Is the selection of participants described
and the sampling method identified?
Is the method of data collection valid and reliable? Is the method of data collection auditable?
Is the method of data analysis valid and reliable? Is the method of data analysis credible and
confirmable?
Are the results presented in a way that is
appropriate and clear?
Is the discussion
Are the results generalizable? comprehensive Are the results transferable?
Is the conclusion comprehensive?
Figure 1: – Research critique framework
Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues (2005) Vol 6, No 1
51
Use of the framework
The framework is designed to be used both as a teaching
tool and as an aid to assessment. One of the motivating
factors for producing a framework was to provide clarity
and to ensure fairness for those students undertaking a
critical review of a research paper for assessment
purposes. During our experiences of helping students to
perform such critical review we had found that some
students had been unable to discriminate between those
questions that are appropriate to ask of quantitative
research and those that are relevant to qualitative
research. We hoped that by placing the questions that are
appropriate for the respective research approaches in
one single framework we would be able to facilitate the
clarification of some of the theoretical positions that
inform the respective research approaches and thus, in
turn, aid understanding of the need to pose different
questions. Thus, the framework can also be used in the
classroom for facilitating learning, and as a tool for group
activity.
Experience has demonstrated that it is the practice of
critically reviewing a research report that is valuable in
the learning process. Small group work provides the
student with opportunities for rewarding engagements
(Quinn, 1995), it allows students to work independently
and to discuss and clarify learning. In small groups
students have been provided with both quantitative and
qualitative research papers and have used the framework
and guidelines to produce their review. Feedback of the
review to the larger group allows further discussion and
development of knowledge and understanding.
The critique framework was used in teaching sessions
with two groups of under-graduate nursing and health
studies students and one small group of post-graduate
students. Nineteen students completed an evaluation
form. The numbers of students responding to particular
questions on a 0 – 5 scale are shown in Table 2. Students
were also asked two open questions:
• What did you like most about the framework?
• What did you like least about the framework?
What did you like most about the framework?
In response to the first question, the responses can be
grouped under two headings: ease of use and practical
application.
Ease of use
Students liked the presentation of the framework and
described it as straightforward, succinct and precise. The
fact that it fits on one page was pleasing to the students
and there were also comments relating to its simplicity
and brevity.
Practical application
Students found the framework easy to follow and
understand, describing it as very easy and very helpful.
They described the structure and the questions as good
and stated that the framework will help them to advance
their skills relating to the research process and methods.
It was also felt that the framework provides a useful
guide for critiquing research.
What did you like least about the framework?
Some comments suggested that the framework was too
short and could be more elaborate, but eight students
stated that there was nothing they disliked about it.
Discussion
We recognise that the comments presented here
represent the contributions of a small number of selfselecting
students and there is a need for a more
systematic approach to the evaluation of this framework.
This will be undertaken as the framework continues to be
used in classroom activities with students. However, the
current contributions from students do provide some
early indications of the potential value of the framework.
Overall, the students found the framework easy to use
and useful in terms of covering both quantitative and
qualitative research and helpful when carrying out a
critique of published research. Student responses to the
framework were largely positive, suggesting that it is a
0 1 2 3 4 5
How easy was the framework to use?
0 = not at all easy; 5 = very easy
2 5 5 7
How useful is it to have a framework covering both
quantitative and qualitative research?
0 = not at all useful; 5 = very useful
1 7 11
As a learning tool, to what extent did the framework help you
to appreciate the features that:
a) are common to all research?
0 = not at all; 5 = to a great extent
4 8 7
b) are specific to quantitative research? 3 13 3
c) are specific to qualitative research? 5 8 6
To what extent did the framework help you to carry out a
critique of a piece of research?
0 = not at all; 5 = to a great extent
2 8 9
Table 2: Evaluation of the Framework for Research Critique
useful tool in aiding learning about research and in
undertaking a research critique. The undergraduate
students who used the framework are required to
critique a piece of published research for their
assignment in their research methods module and it is
evident that they felt that the framework would help
them with this task.
Students responded favourably to the questions relating
to the features that are common to all research,
quantitative and qualitative research. However, in this
brief evaluation it was not possible to explore this
further, for example, by asking them why their responses
were positive or what in particular they found helpful.
This will form part of further evaluation as the
framework is used more widely.
Unlike some frameworks for research critique, this
framework gives equal weight to both quantitative and
qualitative research and uses the language of both
paradigms. In this way, students do not attempt to
critique qualitative research using a framework and
terms originally designed for quantitative research.
While students could be referred to two separate
frameworks, and students continue to be able to choose
to use separate frameworks, we believe that the
incorporation of the two approaches into one framework
serves to assist learning and reinforces the differences
between quantitative and qualitative research for the
‘novice’ student of research methods. Having acquired
understanding at an introductory level, advanced
frameworks are available for both research approaches
when, and if, students require greater depth at a more
advanced level of study.
Conclusion
Though the framework and guidelines were initially
designed for students working at both level two and level
three, it has also been found valuable with more
advanced students. Those undertaking masters level
study are frequently given the more complex task of
writing a critical literature review in preparation for a
research proposal or research report. Those students
who have not undertaken academic study for some time
find this daunting, and often request revision. The
framework has proved to be a useful tool in this activity.
For assessment at level two and three, students are
frequently required to critically review a paper of their
choice. Provision of the framework, with the assessment
guidelines, provides a direction for all students. The
inclusion of both strategies ensures that whatever the
choice of paper all students have guidelines with which to
work.
The framework, then, is of value in both teaching and
assessment at level two and three, and is also a
potentially useful teaching tool for masters level
students. It can be used as a teaching tool and displayed
on an overhead projector or on PowerPoint. It can also be
easily copied as a one page handout for students to work
with in the classroom or to take away for study. Further
use of the framework is required, but the intention is to
place it on WebCT, with the guidelines available as
‘clickable links’. As such, it will also serve as a revision
aid and will allow students to test their own knowledge,
clicking on those areas where they feel they need further
explanation. The next stage is to facilitate a more
systematic evaluation of this framework: we also
welcome comments from our colleagues.
References
Benton, D. C. (1999). Clinical effectiveness. In S. Hamer
and G. Collinson (Eds.) Achieving Evidence-Based
Practice. A. Handbook for Practitioners. Edinburgh:
Baillière Tindall.
Benton, D. C. & Cormack, D. F. S. (2000). Reviewing and
evaluating the literature. In D. F. S. Cormack (Ed.) The
research process in nursing (4th Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell
Sciences Ltd.
Bowling, A. (2002). Research methods in health.
Investigating health and health services (2nd Ed.).
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Burns, N. & Grove, S., K. (2001). The practice of nursing
research. Conduct, critique and utilization (4th Ed.).
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.
Chalen, V., Kaminski, S. & Harris, P. (1996). Researchmindedness
in the radiography profession. Radiography,
2, 2, 139-51.
DePoy, E. & Gitlin, L. N. (1998). Introduction to
research. Understanding and applying multiple
strategies (2nd Ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
Domholdt, E., Flaherty, J. & Phillips, J. (1994). Critical
appraisal of literature by expert and inexperienced
physical therapy researchers. Physical Therapy, 74, 9,
853-60.
Forchuk, C. & Roberts, J. (1993). How to critique
qualitative research articles. Canadian Journal of
Nursing Research, 25, 4, 47-55.
Gomm, R. & Davies, C. (Eds.) (2000). Using evidence in
health and social care. London: Sage.
Green, J. & Thorogood, N. (2004). Qualitative methods
for health research. London: Sage.
Greenhalgh, T. & Taylor, R. (1997). How to read a paper:
Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research).
British Medical Journal, 315, 740-743.
52
Developing a framework for critiquing health research
Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues (2005) Vol 6, No 1
53
Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with
ethnography? Methodological explorations. London:
Routledge.
Hek, G. (1996). Guidelines on conducting a critical
research evaluation. Nursing Standard, 11, 6, 40-43.
Kuzel, A. J. & Engel, J. D. (2001). Some pragmatic
thoughts about evaluating qualitative health research in
Morse, J. M., Swanson, J. M. & Kuzel, A. J. (Eds). The
nature of qualitative evidence. London: Sage.
Lo-Biondo-Wood, G. & Haber, J. (1994). Nursing
Research (3rd Ed.). London: Mosby.
MacAuley, D., McCrum, E. & Brown, C. (1998).
Randomised controlled trial of the READER method of
critical appraisal in general practice. British Medical
Journal, 316, 1134-1137.
Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in
qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320, 50-
52.
McCaughan, D., Thompson, C., Cullum, N., Sheldon, T. &
Thompson, D. (2002) Acute care nurses’ perceptions of
barriers to using research information in clinicaldecision-
making. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 39, 1,
46-60.
Morse, J. M. & Field, P. A. (1996). Nursing research. The
application of qualitative approaches (2nd Ed.).
Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.
Murdaugh, C., Kramer, M. & Schmalenberg, C. (1981).
The teaching of nursing research. A survey report. Nurse
Educator, 28-35.
Nieswiadomy, R. M. (1998). Foundations of nursing
research (2nd Ed.). Connecticut: Appleton & Lange.
Parahoo, K. (1997). Nursing research. Principles,
process and issues. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Pearson, M. & Craig, J. V. (2002). Evidence-based
practice in nursing. In J. V. Craig and R. L. Smyth (Eds.)
Evidence-Based Practice Manual for Nurses. London:
Churchill Livingstone.
Perkins, E. R., Simnett, I. & Wright, L. (1999). Creative
tensions in evidence-based practice. In E. R. Perkins, I.
Simnett and L. Wright (Eds.) Evidence-based health
promotion. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Polgar, S. & Thomas, S. A. (2000). Introduction to
research in the Health Sciences (4th Ed.). London:
Churchill Livingstone.
Polit, D. F. & Hungler, B. P. (1999). Nursing research.
Principles and methods (6th Ed.). Philadelphia:
Lippincott.
Quinn, F. (1995). The principles and practice of nurse
education (3rd Ed.). London: Chapman.
Sajiwandani, J. (1996). Ensuring the trustworthiness of
quantitative research through critique. Nursing Times
Research, 1, 2, 135-141.
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in
qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 3,
27-37.
Stevens, P., Schade, A., Chalk, B. & Slevin, O. (1993).
Understanding research. Edinburgh: Campion Press.
Treece, E. W. & Treece, J. W. Jr. (1986). Elements of
research in nursing (4th Ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
Valente, S. (2003). Critical analysis of research papers.
Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 19, 3, 130-142.
http://www.uwcm.ac.uk/library/critical_appraisal/for
ms (Accessed January 16 2004).
http://www.cybernurse.org.uk/research/Reading_and_
Critiquing_Research.htm (Accessed January 16 2004).
http://www.phru.nhs.uk/~casp/qualitat.htm (Accessed
January 16 2004).
http://www.sonoma.edu/users/n/nolan/n400/critique.
htm (Accessed January 16 2004).
Kay Caldwell
Head of the Institute of Nursing and Midwifery
School of Health and Social Sciences
Middlesex University
Archway Campus
Furnival Building
10 Highgate Hill
London
N19 5LW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)208 411 6458
Email: k.caldwell@mdx.ac.uk
Lynne Henshaw
Senior Lecturer in Nursing
School of Health and Social Sciences
Middlesex University
Queensway
Enfield,
EN3 4SA
UK.
Tel: +44 (0)208 411 6474
Email: l.henshaw@mdx.ac.uk
Gina Taylor
Senior Lecturer in Health Studies
School of Health and Social Sciences
Middlesex University
Queensway
Enfield,
EN3 4SA
UK.
Tel: +44 (0)208 411 5383
Email: g.taylor@mdx.ac.uk
54
Developing a framework for critiquing health research