purpose of critiquing a research article

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to content

The Ultimate Guide to Critiquing Research Articles

The ultimate guide to critiquing research articles. Learn how to evaluate validity and reliability, identify biases, and contribute to knowledge. Enhance your critique skills and join the intellectual adventure now!

Critiquing research articles is a fundamental skill for any scientist or researcher. It allows us to evaluate the validity and reliability of the findings, identify potential biases or limitations, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in our respective fields. But why is critiquing research articles so important?

The Importance of Critiquing Research Articles

There are several reasons why critiquing research articles is crucial:

Ensuring Accuracy and Integrity: By critically analyzing the methods, results, and conclusions of a study, we can identify any flaws or inconsistencies that may undermine the credibility of the research. This helps maintain the high standards of scientific inquiry and prevents the dissemination of misleading or erroneous information.

Facilitating Scientific Progress: By identifying gaps in existing knowledge or weaknesses in previous studies, we can propose new research questions and design more robust experiments. This iterative process of critique and improvement is essential for advancing our understanding of the world and finding solutions to complex problems.

Nurturing a Culture of Intellectual Rigor: Critiquing research articles encourages researchers to question assumptions, challenge established theories, and explore alternative explanations. This fosters healthy debate, drives innovation, and pushes the boundaries of scientific inquiry.

In this blog post, we will delve deeper into the importance and relevance of critiquing research articles. We will explore effective strategies and provide valuable insights to help you enhance your critique skills. So, whether you’re a seasoned researcher or just starting your scientific journey, join us as we embark on this intellectual adventure of critiquing research articles.

Stay tuned for our next section, where we’ll discuss how to capture the reader’s attention with a clear hook.

Understanding Research Articles

Research articles are a fundamental component of the academic and scientific community. They serve as a means for researchers to communicate their findings, share knowledge, and contribute to the advancement of their respective fields. In this section, we will delve into the purpose and structure of research articles, as well as explore the different types of research articles that exist.

Purpose and Structure of Research Articles

The purpose of a research article is to present the results of a study or experiment in a clear and organized manner. These articles typically follow a specific structure, which allows readers to navigate through the information easily. Understanding this structure is crucial for researchers who want to effectively communicate their work.

The structure of a research article usually consists of several sections, each serving a specific purpose. The most common sections include:

• Introduction: Sets the stage for the research, providing background information and stating the research question or hypothesis. This section helps readers understand the context and significance of the study.
• Methods: Outlines the procedures and techniques used in the research, including the sample size, data collection methods, and statistical analyses. This section allows other researchers to replicate the study and verify the results.
• Results: Presents the findings of the research in a concise and objective manner. It often includes tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data. This section should be focused on presenting the facts without interpretation or bias.
• Discussion: Analyzes and interprets the results of the study. Researchers may compare their findings to previous research, discuss limitations, and propose future directions. This section demonstrates their understanding of the implications of their work.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the study and reiterates their significance. It may also include recommendations for further research or practical applications of the findings.

Different Types of Research Articles

Research articles can take various forms depending on the nature of the study and the intended audience. The three main types of research articles are:

• Empirical Research Articles: Present the results of original studies or experiments. These articles follow the structure we discussed earlier, with a focus on presenting data and analysis. They are the most common type in scientific and academic journals.
• Review Articles: Provide a comprehensive analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. They summarize the findings of multiple studies and offer a broader perspective on the subject. Review articles are valuable resources for researchers looking to gain a deeper understanding of a specific field or topic.
• Theoretical Research Articles: Focus on developing new theories or frameworks. They propose conceptual models, hypotheses, or theoretical explanations for phenomena. These articles are often found in disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, and psychology.

Research articles play a critical role in the dissemination of knowledge within the academic and scientific communities. Understanding the purpose and structure of these articles is essential for researchers to effectively communicate their findings. By following a clear and organized structure, researchers can ensure that their work is accessible and impactful to their peers and the broader scientific community.

Importance of Critiquing Research Articles

Critiquing research articles plays a vital role in the academic and research community. It not only benefits researchers and academics but also contributes to the overall advancement of knowledge. In this section, we will explore the benefits of critiquing research articles, how it improves critical thinking skills and enhances research abilities, and the importance of identifying strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in existing research.

Benefits of Critiquing Research Articles for Researchers and Academics

Critiquing research articles provides researchers and academics with several important benefits:

• Staying up-to-date: By critically analyzing existing research, researchers can identify gaps in the literature and areas that require further exploration. This helps them shape their own research questions and contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
• Improving research methodologies: By closely examining the methods and techniques used in published studies, researchers can gain insights into best practices and avoid potential pitfalls. This enhances the quality and rigor of their own research, leading to more accurate and reliable results.
• Fostering collaboration and intellectual discussion: By engaging in critical analysis and providing constructive feedback, researchers can contribute to the ongoing dialogue and debate surrounding a particular topic. This not only enriches the academic discourse but also promotes the refinement and advancement of ideas.

Improving Critical Thinking Skills and Enhancing Research Abilities through Critiquing

Critiquing research articles is an excellent way to develop and improve critical thinking skills. By evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of published studies, researchers are challenged to think critically and objectively. This process cultivates a critical mindset that is essential for conducting high-quality research.

Moreover, critiquing research articles enhances researchers’ research abilities. Through the analysis of existing research, researchers gain a deeper understanding of the methodologies and approaches that have been used successfully in the past. This knowledge can be applied to their own research, allowing them to make informed decisions and design studies that are more likely to yield meaningful results.

Identifying Strengths, Weaknesses, and Gaps in Existing Research

One of the key benefits of critiquing research articles is the ability to identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in existing research. By critically evaluating published studies, researchers can:

• Assess the strengths of the research design, the validity of the findings, and the relevance of the conclusions.
• Avoid repeating mistakes in their own work by recognizing limitations in methodology, sample size, or data analysis.
• Identify areas that have not been adequately explored or where conflicting results exist, providing opportunities for further research and the potential to make significant contributions to the field.

The Key Elements of Critiquing Research Articles

When critiquing research articles, it is important to consider several key elements. These elements can help you analyze and evaluate the quality and validity of the research. In this section, we will explore some of these key components and provide tips for effectively critiquing each one.

• The Abstract: The abstract is a concise summary of the entire research article, providing an overview of the study’s purpose, methodology, results, and conclusions. When critiquing the abstract, pay attention to whether it accurately reflects the content of the article and effectively conveys the main points. Look for clarity, coherence, and relevance in the abstract.
• The Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for the research by providing background information, stating the research problem, and outlining the objectives and hypotheses of the study. When evaluating the introduction, consider whether it effectively contextualizes the research and justifies its significance. Look for logical progression of ideas and clear articulation of the research question or problem.
• The Methodology: The methodology section describes the research design, sample size, data collection methods, and statistical analysis used in the study. This section is crucial for assessing the quality and rigor of the research. When critiquing the methodology, consider whether the chosen research design is appropriate for the research question and objectives. Evaluate the sample size and whether it is representative of the target population. Assess the data collection methods for reliability and validity. Finally, examine the statistical analysis to determine if it is appropriate and accurately reflects the data.
• The Results: The results section presents the findings of the study, often using tables, graphs, or statistical analyses. When evaluating the results, look for clarity and coherence in the presentation of the data. Consider whether the results are relevant to the research question and objectives. Assess the statistical significance of the findings and whether they support or contradict previous research in the field.
• The Discussion: The discussion section is where the researchers interpret the results, relate them to previous research, and discuss the implications of the findings. When critiquing the discussion, consider whether the interpretation of the results is supported by the data presented. Look for logical connections between the results and the research question. Assess whether the authors acknowledge any limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.
• The References: The references section provides a list of the sources cited in the research article. When critiquing the references, consider whether they are relevant, reputable, and up-to-date. Look for a variety of sources to support the research claims and ensure that proper citation formats are used.

To effectively critique research articles, it is essential to analyze each component thoroughly and consider their individual strengths and weaknesses. By paying attention to the key elements, such as the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and references, you can develop a comprehensive understanding of the research and evaluate its quality. Remember to use the tips provided in this section to guide your analysis and critique.

Enhance Your Research Skills with Avidnote

If you want to learn more about research article critique and other valuable insights for academics and researchers, be sure to check out the Avidnote Blog. It offers a wealth of information and tips to enhance your research writing, reading, and analysis processes. Additionally, Avidnote, an AI platform recommended by universities, provides features tailored for researchers, such as summarizing text, analyzing research data, and organizing reading lists. Don’t forget to explore the Avidnote Premium options, including a free plan for Karlstad Studentkår members. Start improving your research workflow with Avidnote today!

The Pitfalls of Critiquing Research Articles

In the world of research, critiquing research articles is an essential skill. It allows researchers to evaluate the quality and validity of published studies, identify potential biases, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. However, there are common pitfalls that researchers should avoid when critiquing research articles. Let’s explore some of these pitfalls and how to overcome them.

Failing to Understand the Study Design and Methodology

One common mistake researchers make when critiquing research articles is failing to fully understand the study design and methodology. It is crucial to have a thorough understanding of the research design, including the sampling methods, data collection procedures, and statistical analyses employed. Without this understanding, it becomes challenging to assess the study’s strengths and weaknesses accurately.

To overcome this pitfall, researchers can start by carefully reading the methods section of the article. This section provides details about the study’s design, participants, data collection instruments, and analysis methods. By familiarizing themselves with the study’s methodology, researchers can better evaluate its appropriateness for addressing the research question and drawing valid conclusions.

Biases in the Critique Process

Another common pitfall is the presence of biases in the critique process. Biases can manifest in various ways, such as personal beliefs, professional affiliations, or even unconscious biases. These biases can influence the interpretation of the research findings and compromise the objectivity of the critique.

To mitigate biases, researchers should strive to maintain objectivity and impartiality throughout the critique process. One way to achieve this is by critically evaluating the evidence presented in the research article and considering alternative explanations for the findings. It is also essential to be aware of one’s own biases and consciously challenge them to ensure a fair and balanced evaluation.

Emotional Reactions

Researchers should be cautious of their emotional reactions when critiquing research articles. It is natural to have preferences or opinions, but it is crucial to separate personal beliefs from the evaluation of the study’s scientific merit. By focusing on the evidence and logical reasoning, researchers can avoid being swayed by emotional biases and provide a more objective critique.

Maintaining objectivity also involves being open to different perspectives and interpretations. It is essential to consider the limitations of the study and acknowledge areas where further research is needed. Constructive criticism can contribute to the development of robust scientific knowledge, and researchers should approach the critique process with a mindset of continuous improvement.

Critiquing research articles is a valuable skill for researchers, but it is not without its pitfalls. To avoid these pitfalls, researchers should strive to understand the study design and methodology thoroughly, overcome biases, and maintain objectivity and impartiality throughout the critique process. By doing so, researchers can provide insightful and constructive critiques that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. So, let’s continue honing our critiquing skills and fostering a culture of rigorous and objective research evaluation.

Tools and Resources to Aid in Critiquing Research Articles

When it comes to critiquing research articles, having the right tools and resources can make the process more efficient and effective. In this section, we will explore some helpful tools and online platforms that can assist you in your critique. Additionally, we will discuss Avidnote, an AI-powered platform specifically designed to enhance the research critique process.

Online Platforms, Software, and AI Tools for Effective Critiquing

The internet has opened up a world of possibilities for researchers, providing access to a wealth of information and resources. When it comes to critiquing research articles, there are several online platforms and software tools available that can streamline the process and help you uncover the strengths and weaknesses of a study.

One online platform worth mentioning is Avidnote . Designed with researchers in mind, Avidnote offers a range of AI-powered features that can enhance your research writing, reading, and analysis processes. With Avidnote, you can write research papers faster, summarize text, analyze research data, transcribe interviews, and more. It’s like having a virtual research assistant at your fingertips.

Avidnote is highly recommended by universities and offers AI functionalities specifically tailored for researchers. Whether you’re a student or a seasoned academic, Avidnote can help you save time and improve the quality of your critique. Plus, Avidnote offers different pricing plans to suit your needs, ranging from a free plan to professional and premium plans with additional AI usage, storage, and features.

One of the standout features of Avidnote is its commitment to data privacy. As a user, you own all the data you produce on the platform, and Avidnote ensures that your information is kept secure. This is particularly important when critiquing research articles, as you may be dealing with sensitive or confidential data.

In addition to its powerful AI capabilities, Avidnote also promotes ethical writing practices. The platform encourages users to use its features responsibly and provides valuable insights and tips for academics and researchers on its blog. Whether you’re looking for guidance on critiquing research articles or other aspects of the research process, Avidnote’s blog is a valuable resource.

Avidnote also offers features to help you organize your reading lists and prepare for critiques. With its seamless integration with reference management software, you can easily annotate and mark papers, store secure and searchable notes, and take quick notes on the go. The platform also allows you to work in groups and create shared projects, making collaboration with colleagues a breeze.

If you’re a member of Karlstad Studentkår, you’ll be pleased to know that you can access Avidnote Premium for free by registering with the code KAU. This is a fantastic opportunity to take advantage of Avidnote’s premium features without breaking the bank. Additionally, PhD students who are members of the student association can also access Avidnote for free, further demonstrating the platform’s commitment to supporting academic research.

When it comes to critiquing research articles, having the right tools and resources can make all the difference. Online platforms, software tools, and AI-powered platforms like Avidnote can streamline the critique process, saving you time and improving the quality of your analysis. With its range of features tailored for researchers, Avidnote is a valuable tool that can enhance your research writing, reading, and analysis processes. So why not give it a try and see how it can transform your critique?

The Importance of Constructive Feedback in Research

In the research community, providing constructive feedback on research articles plays a crucial role in promoting growth and improvement. Constructive feedback not only helps researchers refine their work but also contributes to the overall advancement of knowledge in their field.

Constructive feedback is invaluable in the research community because it allows researchers to identify areas for improvement and refine their work. By offering insights and suggestions, reviewers can help authors strengthen their arguments, enhance the clarity of their writing, and address any potential weaknesses. This collaborative process fosters a culture of continuous improvement and drives the advancement of research.

Guidelines for Offering Helpful and Respectful Feedback

When providing feedback, it is essential to follow guidelines that ensure the feedback is helpful, respectful, and constructive. One important guideline is to focus on the content rather than the person behind it. By separating the work from the individual, feedback can be given in a way that is less personal and more objective. This approach helps maintain a positive and supportive environment for researchers.

Another guideline is to be specific and provide concrete examples. Vague statements like “this section needs improvement” are not helpful. Instead, pointing out specific areas that could benefit from clarification or providing alternative approaches can guide authors in making meaningful revisions. Additionally, offering examples or referring to relevant research can strengthen the feedback and provide authors with a clearer understanding of how to improve their work.

It is also important to be respectful and considerate when giving feedback. Recognize the effort and time that went into the research and acknowledge the strengths of the work. By starting with positive feedback, reviewers can create a more receptive atmosphere and help authors feel encouraged to make necessary revisions. Additionally, using a constructive and supportive tone throughout the feedback can help foster a collaborative relationship between reviewers and authors.

The Role of Feedback in Research Development

Feedback plays a crucial role in promoting growth and improvement in research. It helps researchers identify blind spots and encourages them to explore different perspectives. By engaging in a constructive dialogue, researchers can refine their ideas, challenge assumptions, and broaden the impact of their work. Constructive feedback also contributes to the overall quality of research publications, ensuring that they meet the rigorous standards of the scientific community.

Research is a dynamic and evolving process, and feedback is a key component in driving progress. By offering constructive feedback, researchers contribute to the continuous development of their field and help elevate the quality of research outcomes. It is through this collaborative effort that researchers can collectively push the boundaries of knowledge and make meaningful contributions to their respective disciplines.

In Conclusion

Providing constructive feedback on research articles is crucial for the growth and improvement of the research community. By adhering to guidelines that promote helpful, respectful, and constructive feedback, researchers can actively contribute to the advancement of their field. The feedback process fosters a culture of continuous improvement, encourages collaboration, and drives the overall progress of research. So, let us embrace the power of constructive feedback and work together to push the boundaries of knowledge.

Why Critiquing Research Articles is Crucial

Critiquing research articles is a crucial skill for researchers to develop for their personal and professional growth. It allows them to:

Evaluate the quality and validity of research

Identify gaps in knowledge

Contribute to the advancement of their field

Avidnote: Enhancing Research Processes

Avidnote is an AI platform designed for researchers that offers a range of features to enhance the research writing, reading, and analysis processes. With Avidnote, researchers can:

Write research papers faster

Summarize text

Analyze research data

Transcribe interviews

Avidnote provides researchers with the tools they need to streamline their work. It has recommendations from universities and offers a range of pricing plans to cater to researchers at every level. The platform ensures data privacy and promotes ethical writing practices.

Avidnote Blog: Valuable Resource for Researchers

The Avidnote blog is a valuable resource for academics and researchers. It provides insights and tips on various topics, including critiquing research articles. Avidnote also offers features to help users organize their reading lists and prepare for critiques, making the process more efficient and effective.

Avidnote’s Integration with OpenAI

Avidnote integrates with OpenAI’s private beta, staying at the forefront of research and academic work. This integration offers cutting-edge tools for users.

Members of Karlstad Studentkår can even access Avidnote Premium for free by registering with the code KAU. This further enhances their research capabilities.

Avidnote: Simplifying the Research Process

Avidnote is the ultimate companion for researchers, providing them with the necessary tools and resources to excel in their work. Whether it’s writing, organizing studies, or collaborating with others, Avidnote simplifies the research process and allows researchers to focus on making impactful contributions to their field. Try it out by clicking here .

Remember, your research has the power to shape the future. Let Avidnote be your ally on this journey.

You may also like

How to Enhance Productivity in Academia

Enhance productivity in academia with time management and efficiency strategies. Achieve academic goals by optimizing your workflow and finding a balance between work and self-care. Boost your productivity now!

10 Tips for Writing an Effective Scientific Abstract

10 Tips for Writing an Effective Scientific Abstract – Learn how to capture readers’ attention with concise summaries. Improve your abstract writing skills and create impactful research. Click here for more guidance and personalized assistance from A

Privacy Overview

Adding {{itemName}} to cart

Added {{itemName}} to cart

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Perspect Clin Res
• v.12(2); Apr-Jun 2021

Critical appraisal of published research papers – A reinforcing tool for research methodology: Questionnaire-based study

Snehalata gajbhiye.

Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Raakhi Tripathi

Urwashi parmar, nishtha khatri, anirudha potey.

1 Department of Clinical Trials, Serum Institute of India, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Background and Objectives:

Critical appraisal of published research papers is routinely conducted as a journal club (JC) activity in pharmacology departments of various medical colleges across Maharashtra, and it forms an important part of their postgraduate curriculum. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perception of pharmacology postgraduate students and teachers toward use of critical appraisal as a reinforcing tool for research methodology. Evaluation of performance of the in-house pharmacology postgraduate students in the critical appraisal activity constituted secondary objective of the study.

Materials and Methods:

The study was conducted in two parts. In Part I, a cross-sectional questionnaire-based evaluation on perception toward critical appraisal activity was carried out among pharmacology postgraduate students and teachers. In Part II of the study, JC score sheets of 2 nd - and 3 rd -year pharmacology students over the past 4 years were evaluated.

One hundred and twenty-seven postgraduate students and 32 teachers participated in Part I of the study. About 118 (92.9%) students and 28 (87.5%) faculties considered the critical appraisal activity to be beneficial for the students. JC score sheet assessments suggested that there was a statistically significant improvement in overall scores obtained by postgraduate students ( n = 25) in their last JC as compared to the first JC.

Conclusion:

Journal article criticism is a crucial tool to develop a research attitude among postgraduate students. Participation in the JC activity led to the improvement in the skill of critical appraisal of published research articles, but this improvement was not educationally relevant.

INTRODUCTION

Critical appraisal of a research paper is defined as “The process of carefully and systematically examining research to judge its trustworthiness, value and relevance in a particular context.”[ 1 ] Since scientific literature is rapidly expanding with more than 12,000 articles being added to the MEDLINE database per week,[ 2 ] critical appraisal is very important to distinguish scientifically useful and well-written articles from imprecise articles.

Educational authorities like the Medical Council of India (MCI) and Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) have stated in pharmacology postgraduate curriculum that students must critically appraise research papers. To impart training toward these skills, MCI and MUHS have emphasized on the introduction of journal club (JC) activity for postgraduate (PG) students, wherein students review a published original research paper and state the merits and demerits of the paper. Abiding by this, pharmacology departments across various medical colleges in Maharashtra organize JC at frequent intervals[ 3 , 4 ] and students discuss varied aspects of the article with teaching faculty of the department.[ 5 ] Moreover, this activity carries a significant weightage of marks in the pharmacology university examination. As postgraduate students attend this activity throughout their 3-year tenure, it was perceived by the authors that this activity of critical appraisal of research papers could emerge as a tool for reinforcing the knowledge of research methodology. Hence, a questionnaire-based study was designed to find out the perceptions from PG students and teachers.

There have been studies that have laid emphasis on the procedure of conducting critical appraisal of research papers and its application into clinical practice.[ 6 , 7 ] However, there are no studies that have evaluated how well students are able to critically appraise a research paper. The Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at Seth GS Medical College has developed an evaluation method to score the PG students on this skill and this tool has been implemented for the last 5 years. Since there are no research data available on the performance of PG Pharmacology students in JC, capturing the critical appraisal activity evaluation scores of in-house PG students was chosen as another objective of the study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of the journal club activity.

JC is conducted in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at Seth GS Medical College once in every 2 weeks. During the JC activity, postgraduate students critically appraise published original research articles on their completeness and aptness in terms of the following: study title, rationale, objectives, study design, methodology-study population, inclusion/exclusion criteria, duration, intervention and safety/efficacy variables, randomization, blinding, statistical analysis, results, discussion, conclusion, references, and abstract. All postgraduate students attend this activity, while one of them critically appraises the article (who has received the research paper given by one of the faculty members 5 days before the day of JC). Other faculties also attend these sessions and facilitate the discussions. As the student comments on various sections of the paper, the same predecided faculty who gave the article (single assessor) evaluates the student on a total score of 100 which is split per section as follows: Introduction –20 marks, Methodology –20 marks, Discussion – 20 marks, Results and Conclusion –20 marks, References –10 marks, and Title, Abstract, and Keywords – 10 marks. However, there are no standard operating procedures to assess the performance of students at JC.

Methodology

After seeking permission from the Institutional Ethics Committee, the study was conducted in two parts. Part I consisted of a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey that was conducted from October 2016 to September 2017. A questionnaire to evaluate perception towards the activity of critical appraisal of published papers as research methodology reinforcing tool was developed by the study investigators. The questionnaire consisted of 20 questions: 14 questions [refer Figure 1 ] graded on a 3-point Likert scale (agree, neutral, and disagree), 1 multiple choice selection question, 2 dichotomous questions, 1 semi-open-ended questions, and 2 open-ended questions. Content validation for this questionnaire was carried out with the help of eight pharmacology teachers. The content validity ratio per item was calculated and each item in the questionnaire had a CVR ratio (CVR) of >0.75.[ 8 ] The perception questionnaire was either E-mailed or sent through WhatsApp to PG pharmacology students and teaching faculty in pharmacology departments at various medical colleges across Maharashtra. Informed consent was obtained on E-mail from all the participants.

Graphical representation of the percentage of students/teachers who agreed that critical appraisal of research helped them improve their knowledge on various aspects of research, perceived that faculty participation is important in this activity, and considered critical appraisal activity beneficial for students. The numbers adjacent to the bar diagrams indicate the raw number of students/faculty who agreed, while brackets indicate %

Part II of the study consisted of evaluating the performance of postgraduate students toward skills of critical appraisal of published papers. For this purpose, marks obtained by 2 nd - and 3 rd -year residents during JC sessions conducted over a period of 4 years from October 2013 to September 2017 were recorded and analyzed. No data on personal identifiers of the students were captured.

Statistical analysis

Marks obtained by postgraduate students in their first and last JC were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, while marks obtained by 2 nd - and 3 rd -year postgraduate students were compared using Mann–Whitney test since the data were nonparametric. These statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism statistical software, San Diego, Calfornia, USA, Version 7.0d. Data obtained from the perception questionnaire were entered in Microsoft Excel sheet and were expressed as frequencies (percentages) using descriptive statistics.

Participants who answered all items of the questionnaire were considered as complete responders and only completed questionnaires were analyzed. The questionnaire was sent through an E-mail to 100 students and through WhatsApp to 68 students. Out of the 100 students who received the questionnaire through E-mail, 79 responded completely and 8 were incomplete responders, while 13 students did not revert back. Out of the 68 students who received the questionnaire through WhatsApp, 48 responded completely, 6 gave an incomplete response, and 14 students did not revert back. Hence, of the 168 postgraduate students who received the questionnaire, 127 responded completely (student response rate for analysis = 75.6%). The questionnaire was E-mailed to 33 faculties and was sent through WhatsApp to 25 faculties. Out of the 33 faculties who received the questionnaire through E-mail, 19 responded completely, 5 responded incompletely, and 9 did not respond at all. Out of the 25 faculties who received the questionnaire through WhatsApp, 13 responded completely, 3 were incomplete responders, and 9 did not respond at all. Hence, of a total of 58 faculties who were contacted, 32 responded completely (faculty response rate for analysis = 55%). For Part I of the study, responses on the perception questionnaire from 127 postgraduate students and 32 postgraduate teachers were recorded and analyzed. None of the faculty who participated in the validation of the questionnaire participated in the survey. Number of responses obtained region wise (Mumbai region and rest of Maharashtra region) have been depicted in Table 1 .

Region-wise distribution of responses

Number of responses obtained from students/faculty belonging to Mumbai colleges and rest of Maharashtra colleges. Brackets indicate percentages

As per the data obtained on the Likert scale questions, 102 (80.3%) students and 29 (90.6%) teachers agreed that critical appraisal trains the students in doing a review of literature before selecting a particular research topic. Majority of the participants, i.e., 104 (81.9%) students and 29 (90.6%) teachers also believed that the activity increases student's knowledge regarding various experimental evaluation techniques. Moreover, 112 (88.2%) students and 27 (84.4%) faculty considered that critical appraisal activity results in improved skills of writing and understanding methodology section of research articles in terms of inclusion/exclusion criteria, endpoints, and safety/efficacy variables. About 103 (81.1%) students and 24 (75%) teachers perceived that this activity results in refinement of the student's research work. About 118 (92.9%) students and 28 (87.5%) faculty considered the critical appraisal activity to be beneficial for the students. Responses to 14 individual Likert scale items of the questionnaire have been depicted in Figure 1 .

With respect to the multiple choice selection question, 66 (52%) students and 16 (50%) teachers opined that faculty should select the paper, 53 (41.7%) students and 9 (28.1%) teachers stated that the papers should be selected by the presenting student himself/herself, while 8 (6.3%) students and 7 (21.9%) teachers expressed that some other student should select the paper to be presented at the JC.

The responses to dichotomous questions were as follows: majority of the students, that is, 109 (85.8%) and 23 (71.9%) teachers perceived that a standard checklist for article review should be given to the students before critical appraisal of journal article. Open-ended questions of the questionnaire invited suggestions from the participants regarding ways of getting trained on critical appraisal skills and of improving JC activity. Some of the suggestions given by faculty were as follows: increasing the frequency of JC activity, discussion of cited articles and new guidelines related to it, selecting all types of articles for criticism rather than only randomized controlled trials, and regular yearly exams on article criticism. Students stated that regular and frequent article criticism activity, practice of writing letter to the editor after criticism, active participation by peers and faculty, increasing weightage of marks for critical appraisal of papers in university examinations (at present marks are 50 out of 400), and a formal training for research criticism from 1 st year of postgraduation could improve critical appraisal program.

In Part II of this study, performance of the students on the skill of critical appraisal of papers was evaluated. Complete data of the first and last JC scores of a total of 25 students of the department were available, and when these scores were compared, it was seen that there was a statistically significant improvement in the overall scores ( P = 0.04), as well as in the scores obtained in methodology ( P = 0.03) and results section ( P = 0.02). This is depicted in Table 2 . Although statistically significant, the differences in scores in the methodology section, results section, and overall scores were 1.28/20, 1.28/20, and 4.36/100, respectively, amounting to 5.4%, 5.4%, and 4.36% higher scores in the last JC, which may not be considered educationally relevant (practically significant). The quantum of difference that would be considered practically significant was not decided a priori .

Comparison of marks obtained by pharmacology residents in their first and last journal club

Marks have been represented as mean±SD. The maximum marks that can be obtained in each section have been stated as maximum. *Indicates statistically significant ( P <0.05). IQR=Interquartile range, SD=Standard deviation

Scores of two groups, one group consisting of 2 nd -year postgraduate students ( n = 44) and second group consisting of 3 rd -year postgraduate students ( n = 32) were compared and revealed no statistically significant difference in overall score ( P = 0.84). This is depicted in Table 3 . Since the quantum of difference in the overall scores was meager 0.84/100 (0.84%), it cannot be considered practically significant.

Comparison of marks obtained by 2 nd - and 3 rd -year pharmacology residents in the activity of critical appraisal of research articles

Marks have been represented as mean±SD. The maximum marks that can be obtained in each section have been stated as maximum. P <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. IQR=Interquartile range, SD=Standard deviation

The present study gauged the perception of the pharmacology postgraduate students and teachers toward the use of critical appraisal activity as a reinforcing tool for research methodology. Both students and faculties (>50%) believed that critical appraisal activity increases student's knowledge on principles of ethics, experimental evaluation techniques, CONSORT guidelines, statistical analysis, concept of conflict of interest, current trends and recent advances in Pharmacology and trains on doing a review of literature, and improves skills on protocol writing and referencing. In the study conducted by Crank-Patton et al ., a survey on 278 general surgery program directors was carried out and more than 50% indicated that JC was important to their training program.[ 9 ]

The grading template used in Part II of the study was based on the IMRaD structure. Hence, equal weightage was given to the Introduction, Methodology, Results, and Discussion sections and lesser weightage was given to the references and title, abstract, and keywords sections.[ 10 ] While evaluating the scores obtained by 25 students in their first and last JC, it was seen that there was a statistically significant improvement in the overall scores of the students in their last JC. However, the meager improvement in scores cannot be considered educationally relevant, as the authors expected the students to score >90% for the upgrade to be considered educationally impactful. The above findings suggest that even though participation in the JC activity led to a steady increase in student's performance (~4%), the increment was not as expected. In addition, the students did not portray an excellent performance (>90%), with average scores being around 72% even in the last JC. This can be probably explained by the fact that students perform this activity in a routine setting and not in an examination setting. Unlike the scenario in an examination, students were aware that even if they performed at a mediocre level, there would be no repercussions.

A separate comparison of scores obtained by 44 students in their 2 nd year and 32 students in their 3 rd year of postgraduation students was also done. The number of student evaluation sheets reviewed for this analysis was greater than the number of student evaluation sheets reviewed to compare first and last JC scores. This can be spelled out by the fact that many students were still in 2 nd year when this analysis was done and the score data for their last JC, which would take place in 3 rd year, was not available. In addition, few students were asked to present at JC multiple times during the 2 nd /3 rd year of their postgraduation.

While evaluating the critical appraisal scores obtained by 2 nd - and 3 rd -year postgraduate students, it was found that although the 3 rd -year students had a mean overall score greater than the 2 nd -year students, this difference was not statistically significant. During the 1 st year of MD Pharmacology course, students at the study center attend JC once in every 2 weeks. Even though the 1 st -year students do not themselves present in JC, they listen and observe the criticism points stated by senior peers presenting at the JC, and thereby, incur substantial amount of knowledge required to critically appraise papers. By the time, they become 2 nd -year students, they are already well versed with the program and this could have led to similar overall mean scores between the 2 nd -year students (71.50 ± 10.71) and 3 rd -year students (72.34 ± 10.85). This finding suggests that attentive listening is as important as active participation in the JC. Moreover, although students are well acquainted with the process of criticism when they are in their 3 rd year, there is certainly a scope for improvement in terms of the mean overall scores.

Similar results were obtained in a study conducted by Stern et al ., in which 62 students in the internal medicine program at the New England Medical Center were asked to respond to a questionnaire, evaluate a sample article, and complete a self-assessment of competence in evaluation of research. Twenty-eight residents returned the questionnaire and the composite score for the resident's objective assessment was not significantly correlated with the postgraduate year or self-assessed critical appraisal skill.[ 11 ]

Article criticism activity provides the students with practical experience of techniques taught in research methodology workshop. However, this should be supplemented with activities that assess the improvement of designing and presenting studies, such as protocol and paper writing. Thus, critical appraisal plays a significant role in reinforcing good research practices among the new generation of physicians. Moreover, critical appraisal is an integral part of PG assessment, and although the current format of conducting JCs did not portray a clinically meaningful improvement, the authors believe that it is important to continue this activity with certain modifications suggested by students who participated in this study. Students suggested that an increase in the frequency of critical appraisal activity accompanied by the display of active participation by peers and faculty could help in the betterment of this activity. This should be brought to attention of the faculty, as students seem to be interested to learn. Critical appraisal should be a two-way teaching–learning process between the students and faculty and not a dire need for satisfying the students' eligibility criteria for postgraduate university examinations. This activity is not only for the trainee doctors but also a part of the overall faculty development program.[ 12 ]

In the present era, JCs have been used as a tool to not only teach critical appraisal skills but also to teach other necessary aspects such as research design, medical statistics, clinical epidemiology, and clinical decision-making.[ 13 , 14 ] A study conducted by Khan in 2013 suggested that success of JC program can be ensured if institutes develop a defined JC objective for the development of learning capability of students and also if they cultivate more skilled faculties.[ 15 ] A good JC is believed to facilitate relevant, meaningful scientific discussion, and evaluation of the research updates that will eventually benefit the patient care.[ 12 ]

Although there is a lot of literature emphasizing the importance of JC, there is a lack of studies that have evaluated the outcome of such activity. One such study conducted by Ibrahim et al . assessed the importance of critical appraisal as an activity in surgical trainees in Nigeria. They reported that 92.42% trainees considered the activity to be important or very important and 48% trainees stated that the activity helped in improving literature search.[ 16 ]

This study is unique since it is the first of its kind to evaluate how well students are able to critically appraise a research paper. Moreover, the study has taken into consideration the due opinions of the students as well as faculties, unlike the previous literature which has laid emphasis on only student's perception. A limitation of this study is that sample size for faculties was smaller than the students, as it was not possible to convince the distant faculty in other cities to fill the survey. Besides, there may be a variation in the manner of conduct of the critical appraisal activity in pharmacology departments across the various medical colleges in the country. Another limitation of this study was that a single assessor graded a single student during one particular JC. Nevertheless, each student presented at multiple JC and thereby came across multiple assessors. Since the articles addressed at different JC were disparate, interobserver variability was not taken into account in this study. Furthermore, the authors did not make an a priori decision on the quantum of increase in scores that would be considered educationally meaningful.

Pharmacology students and teachers acknowledge the role of critical appraisal in improving the ability to understand the crucial concepts of research methodology and research conduct. In our institute, participation in the JC activity led to an improvement in the skill of critical appraisal of published research articles among the pharmacology postgraduate students. However, this improvement was not educationally relevant. The scores obtained by final-year postgraduate students in this activity were nearly 72% indicating that there is still scope of betterment in this skill.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support rendered by the entire Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at Seth GS Medical College.

Reading and critiquing a research article

Nurses use research to answer questions about their practice, solve problems, improve the quality of patient care, generate new research questions, and shape health policy. Nurses who confront questions about practice and policy need strong, high-quality, evidence-based research. Research articles in peer-reviewed journals typically undergo a rigorous review process to ensure scholarly standards are met. Nonetheless, standards vary among reviewers and journals. This article presents a framework nurses can use to read and critique a research article.

When deciding to read an article, determine if it’s about a question you have an interest in or if it can be of use in your practice. You may want to have a research article available to read and critique as you consider the following questions.

Does the title accurately describe the article?

A good title will pique your interest but typically you will not know until you are done reading the article if the title is an accurate description. An informative title conveys the article’s key concepts, methods, and variables.

Is the abstract representative of the article?

The abstract provides a brief overview of the purpose of the study, research questions, methods, results, and conclusions. This helps you decide if it’s an article you want to read. Some people use the abstract to discuss a study and never read further. This is unwise because the abstract is just a preview of the article and may be misleading.

Does the introduction make the purpose of the article clear?

A good introduction provides the basis for the article. It includes a statement of the problem, a rationale for the study, and the research questions. When a hypothesis is being tested, it should be clearly stated and include the expected results.

Is a theoretical framework described?

When a theoretical framework is used, it should inform the study and provide a rationale. The concepts of the theoretical framework should relate to the topic and serve as a basis for interpreting the results. Some research doesn’t use a theoretical framework, such as health services research, which examines issues such as access to care, healthcare costs, and healthcare delivery. Clinical research such as comparing the effectiveness of two drugs won’t include a theoretical framework.

Is the literature review relevant to the study and comprehensive? Does it include recent research?

The literature review provides a context for the study. It establishes what is, and is not known about the research problem. Publication dates are important but there are caveats. Most literature reviews include articles published within the last 3 to 5 years. It can take more than a year for an article to be reviewed, revised, accepted, and published, causing some references to seem outdated.

Literature reviews may include older studies to demonstrate important changes in knowledge over time. In an area of study where little or no research has been conducted, there may be only a few relevant articles that are a decade or more old. In an emerging area of study there may be no published research, in which case related research should be referenced. If you are familiar with the area of research, review the references to determine if well-known and highly regarded studies are included.

Does the methods section explain how a research question was addressed?

The methods section provides enough information to allow the study to be replicated. Components of this section indicate if the design is appropriate to answer the research question(s).

• Did the researcher select the correct sample to answer the research questions and was the size sufficient to obtain valid results?
• If a data collection instrument was used, how was it created and validated?
• If any materials were used, such as written guides or equipment, were they described?
• How were data collected?
• Was reliability and validity accounted for?
• Were the procedures listed in a step-by-step manner?

Independent and dependent variables should be described and terms defined. For example, if patient falls in the hospital are considered the dependent variable, or outcome, what are the independent variables, or factors, being investigated that may influence the rate at which patient falls occur? In this example, independent variables might include nurse staffing, registered nurse composition (such as education and certification), and hospital Magnet &#174 status.

Is the analytical approach consistent with the study questions and research design?

The analytical approach relates to the study questions and research design. A quantitative study may use descriptive statistics to summarize the data and other tests, such as chi squares, t-tests, or regression analysis, to compare or evaluate the data. A qualitative study may use such approaches as coding, content analysis, or grounded theory analysis. A reader who is unfamiliar with the analytical approach may choose to rely on the expertise of the journal’s peer reviewers who assessed whether the analytical approach was correct.

Are the results presented clearly in the text and in tables and figures?

Results should be clearly summarized in the text, tables, and figures. Tables and figures are only a partial representation of the results and critical information may be only in the text. In a quantitative study, the significance of the statistical tests is important. The presentation of qualitative results should avoid interpretation, which is reserved for the discussion.

Are the limitations presented and their implications discussed?

It is essential that the limitations of the study be presented. These are the factors that explain why the results may need to be carefully interpreted, may only be generalized to certain situations, or may provide less robust results than anticipated. Examples of limitations include a low response rate to a survey, not being able to establish causality when a cross-sectional study design was used, and having key stakeholders refuse to be interviewed.

Does the discussion explain the results in relation to the theoretical framework, research questions, and significance of the study?

The discussion serves as an opportunity to explain the results in respect to the research questions and the theoretical framework. Authors use the discussion to interpret the results and explain the meaning and significance of the study. It’s also important to distinguish the study from others that preceded it and provide recommendations for future research.

Depending on the research, it may be equally important for the investigators to present the clinical and/or practical significance of the results. Relevant policy recommendations are also important. Evaluate if the recommendations are supported by the data or seem to be more of an opinion. A succinct conclusion typically completes the article.

Once you’re done reading the article, how do you decide if the research is something you want to use?

Determine the scientific merit of the study by evaluating the level and quality of the evidence. There are many scales to use, several of which can be found in the Research Toolkit on the American Nurses Association’s website http://www.nursingworld.org/research-toolkit.aspx . Consider what you learned and decide if the study is relevant to your practice or answered your question as well as whether you can implement the findings.

A new skill

A systematic approach to reading and critiquing a research article serves as a foundation for translating evidence into practice and policy. Every nurse can acquire this skill.

Louise Kaplan is director of the nursing program at Saint Martin’s University in Lacey, Washington. At the end of this article is a checklist for evaluating an article.

Selected references

Hudson-Barr D. How to read a research article. J Spec Pediatr Nurs . 2004;9(2):70-2.

King’s College D. Leonard Corgan Library. Reading a research article. http://www.lib.jmu.edu/ilworkshop08/materials/studyguide3.pdf . Accessed September 5, 2012.

Oliver D, Mahon SM. Reading a research article part I: Types of variables. Clin J Oncol Nurs . 2005;9(1):110-12.

Oliver D, Mahon SM. Reading a research article part II: Parametric and nonparametric statistics. Clin J Oncol Nurs . 2005;9(2):238-240.

Oliver D, Mahon SM. Reading a research article part III: The data collection instrument. Clin J Oncol Nurs . 2006;10(3):423-26.

Rumrill P, Fitzgerald S, Ware, M. Guidelines for evaluating research articles. Work . 2000;14(3):257-63.

15 Comments .

very helpful resource to critique any research article

I like it helped me a lot in my critical appraisal. thank you very much.

This article will help me with my understanding of how to read and critique a research article. This article was helpful in breaking down this information very basic to get a clear, concise understanding. Now I can take this information and go to the next level in my discussions

Great information and I will use this article for future reference.

This checklist and explanation for a literature review and/or reading and critiquing a research article was very helpful. As I only have 2 more classes to get my degree, I wish I knew this info 2 semesters ago! I will also pass this along to coworkers that will be going back to school in the near future.

Great article, I enjoyed the information. Thank You for this resource. Carolyn Martinez

Fantastic guide to the interpretation of clinical trials. Found this so helpful!

Great information and article. Thank you for the information.

well explained. its sometimes hard for P.G students to understand the concept but these guidelines are helpful to learn for novice.

This is great,am looking for guilgline on how to do research critique and this is just the solution.Thnks weldone

Unsure how to appropriately critique an article, thank you for your infomation

I am currently taking a Health Service Research course and was not sure how to sturcture my assignment. Thanks for posting this article!

very informative…very helpful to students doing research work.

Great timing; have just been asked to review and article and you provide the guide! Will share with colleagues.

I will be passing this article on to a friend who is taking a nursing research class. This article is a great reference for nursing students.

Comments are closed.

NurseLine Newsletter

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Hidden Referrer

*By submitting your e-mail, you are opting in to receiving information from Healthcom Media and Affiliates. The details, including your email address/mobile number, may be used to keep you informed about future products and services.

Test Your Knowledge

Recent posts.

Effective clinical learning for nursing students

Nursing professional development at night

Engaging nurses in scholarly work

Mentorship matters

2023 nursing trends and salary survey results

NCLEX vs Next Generation

Patient care assistant training

Re-imagining nursing’s social contract with the public

Is there a nurse in the House? Or the Senate?

Prevent compassion fatigue through self-compassion

Implementing trauma-informed care 

Addressing transgender myths

Motivate Gen Z nursing students

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome

Pulmonary hypertension: Consider the “zebra”

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.1: What’s a Critique and Why Does it Matter?

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 6510

• Steven D. Krause
• Eastern Michigan University

Critiques evaluate and analyze a wide variety of things (texts, images, performances, etc.) based on reasons or criteria. Sometimes, people equate the notion of “critique” to “criticism,” which usually suggests a negative interpretation. These terms are easy to confuse, but I want to be clear that critique and criticize don’t mean the same thing. A negative critique might be said to be “criticism” in the way we often understand the term “to criticize,” but critiques can be positive too.

We’re all familiar with one of the most basic forms of critique: reviews (film reviews, music reviews, art reviews, book reviews, etc.). Critiques in the form of reviews tend to have a fairly simple and particular point: whether or not something is “good” or “bad.”

Academic critiques are similar to the reviews we see in popular sources in that critique writers are trying to make a particular point about whatever it is that they are critiquing. But there are some differences between the sorts of critiques we read in academic sources versus the ones we read in popular sources.

• The subjects of academic critiques tend to be other academic writings and they frequently appear in scholarly journals.
• Academic critiques frequently go further in making an argument beyond a simple assessment of the quality of a particular book, film, performance, or work of art. Academic critique writers will often compare and discuss several works that are similar to each other to make some larger point. In other words, instead of simply commenting on whether something was good or bad, academic critiques tend to explore issues and ideas in ways that are more complicated than merely “good” or “bad.”

The main focus of this chapter is the value of writing critiques as a part of the research writing process. Critiquing writing is important because in order to write a good critique you need to critically read : that is, you need to closely read and understand whatever it is you are critiquing, you need to apply appropriate criteria in order evaluate it, you need to summarize it, and to ultimately make some sort of point about the text you are critiquing.

These skills-- critically and closely reading, summarizing, creating and applying criteria, and then making an evaluation-- are key to The Process of Research Writing, and they should help you as you work through the process of research writing.

In this chapter, I’ve provided a “step-by-step” process for making a critique. I would encourage you to quickly read or skim through this chapter first, and then go back and work through the steps and exercises describe.

Selecting the right text to critique

The first step in writing a critique is selecting a text to critique. For the purposes of this writing exercise, you should check with your teacher for guidelines on what text to pick. If you are doing an annotated bibliography as part of your research project (see chapter 6, “The Annotated Bibliography Exercise”), then you are might find more materials that will work well for this project as you continuously research.

Short and simple newspaper articles, while useful as part of the research process, can be difficult to critique since they don’t have the sort of detail that easily allows for a critical reading. On the other hand, critiquing an entire book is probably a more ambitious task than you are likely to have time or energy for with this exercise. Instead, consider critiquing one of the more fully developed texts you’ve come across in your research: an in-depth examination from a news magazine, a chapter from a scholarly book, a report on a research study or experiment, or an analysis published in an academic journal. These more complex essays usually present more opportunities for issues to critique.

Depending on your teacher’s assignment, the “text” you critique might include something that isn’t in writing: a movie, a music CD, a multimedia presentation, a computer game, a painting, etc. As is the case with more traditional writings, you want to select a text that has enough substance to it so that it stands up to a critical reading.

Exercise 7.1

Pick out at least three different possibilities for texts that you could critique for this exercise. If you’ve already started work on your research and an annotated bibliography for your research topic, you should consider those pieces of research as possibilities. Working alone or in small groups, consider the potential of each text. Here are some questions to think about:

• Does the text provide in-depth information? How long is it? Does it include a “works cited” or bibliography section?
• What is the source of the text? Does it come from an academic, professional, or scholarly publication?
• Does the text advocate a particular position? What is it, and do you agree or disagree with the text?

SPH Writing Support Services

• Appointment System
• ESL Conversation Group
• Mini-Courses
• Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group
• Career Writing
• Citing Sources
• Critiquing Research Articles
• Project Planning for the Beginner This link opens in a new window
• Grant Writing
• Publishing in the Sciences
• Systematic Review Overview
• Systematic Review Resources This link opens in a new window
• Writing Across Borders / Writing Across the Curriculum
• Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.)
• Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon)
• The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research (Coughlan et al.)

Guidelines:

• Critiquing Research Articles (Flinders University)
• Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study (American Nurses Association)
• How to Critique a Journal Article (UIS)
• How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan)
• How to Write an Article Critique
• Research Article Critique Form
• Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article (University of Calgary)

Presentations:

• The Critique Process: Reviewing and Critiquing Research
• Writing a Critique
• << Previous: Citing Sources
• Next: Project Planning for the Beginner >>
• Last Updated: Apr 5, 2024 9:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services

Reading and Critiquing Research

Resources for critiquing.

• Structure of a Research Article
• Tips for Reading a Journal Article
• At a loss for words?

Books/eBooks

A practical introduction to the skills of critical appraisal and writing in healthcare.

This popular book demystifies literature reviewing and answers the questions students have about how to tackle the process. ( Read  Chapter 5  - How do I critically appraise the literature?)

A Critique (or Review) is a judgment about how good the article is according to some standard criteria. It can include interpretation and comparison but it's not a reflection or emotional reaction to the article.

• A beginner's guide to appraising a qualitative research paper
• Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study [pdf] One page list, in pdf form, of things to look for in a research article. From American Nurses Association
• How to read a paper: getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about)
• Mixed methods studies: a guide to critical appraisal.
• Reading and critiquing a research article American Nurses Association article on how to evaluate a research article

Evaluating information is an important part of the research process. While searching for information you will gather a large amount of materials from many different sources. It is particularly useful when your search retrieves lots of different articles and is a good way of distinguishing which are more relevant to your research question. It is also a useful way of assessing whether the information is at an appropriate level for academic work.

Many health research articles are written following the IMRAD structure. IMRAD is an acronym for I ntroduction M ethod R esearch A nd D iscussion. Questions to consider when appraising/ critiquing articles are:

Introduction : Why was the study undertaken? What was the research question or the purpose of the research? The aims of the research should be clearly identifiable and the introduction should ideally contain evidence of a literature review along with keywords used to find information. 

Method : When, where and how was the study done? Who or which patient groups were included in the research? Was a pilot study conducted beforehand to identify potential problems? The idea behind the methods section is that any researcher can replicate the study elsewhere. It should include precise technical specifications of equipment used and the selection criteria of the participants. You may also wish to consider whether a qualitative or quantitative approach is appropriate. If the researcher is trying to discover how people feel then a qualitative approach is suitable. However, if looking at the cause and effect of a particular treatment then a quantitative approach may be preferable. 

Also consider:

• Sample size .  This will affect how reliable and valid the research is. Is the sample big enough? How has it been selected and has the researcher attempted to control any issues which may affect the validity and reliability of the research? Is there any evidence of bias e.g. sponsorship? Has the sample population been randomized?
• Response rate .  What proportion of the sample responded?
• Setting .  Do the socioeconomic conditions of a particular geographical area mean that the research is not transferable to other areas? Can the results be generalised to the wider population?

Research : What are the results and do they answer the original research question? Have the results been analysed by more than one person? Are the results clearly presented?

Discussion: What are the implications for the research and is it applicable to your practice and day to day working role?  The researcher should also include a discussion about how their research could be improved and any limitations of the research. 

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Structure of a Research Article >>
• Last Updated: Nov 15, 2022 2:43 PM
• URL: https://goodwin.libguides.com/critiquing

A guide for critique of research articles

Following is the list of criteria to evaluate (critique) a research article. Please note that you should first summarize the paper and then evaluate different parts of it.

Most of the evaluation section should be devoted to evaluation of internal validity of the conclusions. Please add at the end a section entitled ''changes in the design/procedures if I want to replicate this study." Attach a copy of the original article to your paper.

Click here to see a an example (this is how you start) of a research critique.

Click here to see the original article.

The following list is a guide for you to organize your evaluation. It is recommended to organize your evaluation in this order. This is a long list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions . Some questions may not be relevant to your article.

Introduction

1.     Is there a statement of the problem?

2.     Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?

3.     Is background information on the problem presented?

4.     Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?

5.     Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

Review of Related Literature

1.     Is the review comprehensive?

2.     Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?

3.     Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?

4.     Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?

5.     Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?

6.     Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?

1.     Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?

2.     Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?

3.     If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

4.     Is each hypothesis testable?

Method          Subjects

1.     Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described?

2.     If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?

3.      Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?

4.     Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?

5.     Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?

6.     Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?      

Instruments

1.     Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?

2.     Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?

3.     Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?

4.     Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?

5.     Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?

6.     Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?

7.     If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?

8.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?

9.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?

Design and Procedure

1.     Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the   study?

2.     Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?

3.     If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?

4.     Are the control procedures described?

5.     Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was unable to control for?

1.     Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?

2.     Was the probability level, α, at which the results of the tests of significance were evaluated,

       specified in advance of the data analyses?

3.     If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the

       required assumptions for parametric tests?

4.     Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the

       study?

5.     Was every hypothesis tested?

6.     Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?

7.     Are the results clearly presented?

8.     Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?

9.     Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?

Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)

1.     Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?

2.     Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results

        obtained by other researchers in other studies?

3.     Are generalizations consistent with the results?

4.     Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?

5.     Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?

6.     Are recommendations for future action made?

7.     Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical

       significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical

       significance?

8.     Are recommendations for future research made?

Additional general questions to be answered in your critique.

1. What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?

2. Describe the sample used in this study.

3. Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.

4. What type of research is this?  Explain.

5. How was the data analyzed?

6. What is (are) the major finding(s)?

Basics of critiquing a research article

• PMID: 8110895
• DOI: 10.1097/00152192-199311000-00008

Critiquing research papers helps a nurse remain current in the scientific literature. The critic examines the paper for components of the research process, i.e., literature review, methodology, results, and discussions. Nurses can enhance their reading of research by reading more research papers, participating in group critique sessions, participating in the research process, and contacting the researcher with questions as necessary.

• Nursing Research* / methods
• Nursing Research* / standards
• Publishing*