CHOSEN ARTICLE TO COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT IS: Chiao, L.-H., Wu, C.-F., Tzeng, I.-S., Teng, A.-N., Lian, R.-W., Yu, L. Y., Huang, C. M., Pan, W.-H., Chen, C.-Y., & Su, T.-T. (2021). Exploring factors influencing the retention of nurses in a religious hospital in Taiwan: A cross-sectional quantitative study. BMC Nursing, 20(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00558-
Attached below is the research critique grid that must be completed and attached to assignment as an “appendix”. Refer to items # 4&5 below.
Select a research article provided in the Week 4 Module.
Critique the article using the appropriate research grid (found in Week 4)
Copy and paste the appropriate research critique grid found in Week 4 into a new Word document.
Research Critique Framework: Qualitative
Aspect of the Report
Critiquing Questions
Title
Is the title a good one,
suggesting the phenomena and the
group or community understudy?
Did the abstract clearly and concisely
summarize the main features of the report
(problem, methods, results, conclusion)?
Was the problem stated unambiguously, and
was it easy to identify?
Is the problem significant for nursing?
Did the problem statement build a
persuasive argument for the new study?
Was there a good match between the
research problem and
the methods used that is, was a qualitative
approach appropriate?
Were research questions explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified?
Were questions consistent with the studys philosophical basis, underlying tradition, or ideological orientation?
Did the report adequately summarize the existing body of knowledge related to
the problem?
Abstract
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Research Questions
Literature Review
Answer
Yes/No
Comment(s)
Conceptual/Theoretical
Underpinnings
Method
Protection of Human Rights
Research Design
Did the literature review provide a strong basis for the new study?
Were key concepts adequately defined
conceptually?
Was the philosophical basis, underlying
tradition, conceptual framework, r ideological orientation made explicit and was it appropriate for the problem?
Were appropriate procedures used to
safeguard the rights of study participants?
Was the study externally reviewed by
an IRB/ethics review board?
Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants?
Was the identified research tradition
congruent with the methods used to collect
and analyze data?
Was an adequate amount of time spent
with study participants?
Did the design unfold during the data
collection, giving researchers opportunities to capitalize on early understandings?
Was there an adequate number of contacts
with study participants?
minimized? Sample and Setting
Data Collection
Procedures
Enhancement oftrustworthiness
Was the population adequately identified?
Was the sample described in sufficient
detail?
Was the approach used.to recruit participants or gain access to the
site productive and appropriate?
Was the best possible method of sampling
used to enhance information richness
and address the needs of the study?
Were the methods of data gathering
appropriate?
Were data collected through two or more
methods to achieve triangulation?
Did the researcher ask the right questions or
make the right observations, and were
they recorded in the appropriate fashion?
Was a sufficient amount of data gathered?
Were data collection.and recording
procedures adequately.described and do they appear appropriate?
Were data collected in a manner that
minimized bias? Were the staff who collected data appropriated trained?
Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness and
integrity of the study?
Were the methods for trustworthiness
adequate?
Did the researcher document research
procedures and decision processes
sufficiently that findings are auditable
and confirmable?
Results
Data Analysis
Findings
Theoretical integration
Were the data management and data
analysis methods adequately described?
Did the analysis yield an appropriate
product (a theory, taxonomy, thematic
pattern)?
Did the analytic procedures suggest the
possibility of bias?
Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments?
Did the themes adequately capture the
meaning of the data?
Did the analysis yield an insightful,
provocative, authentic, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation?
Were the themes or patterns logically
connected to each other to form a convincing and integrated whole?
Were figures, maps, or models used effectively to summarize conceptualizations?
If a conceptual framework or ideological orientation guided the study, were the themes or patterns linked to it in a cogent
manner?
Discussion
Were the findings Interpretation of the findings interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context?
Were major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies?
Were the interpretations consistent with the
studys limitations?
Implications/recommendations Did the researchers discuss the implications
of the study for clinical practice or further
research-and were those implications
reasonable and complete?
General Issues
Was the report wellPresentation
written, organized, and sufficiently detailed forcritical analysis?
Was the description of the methods, findings,
and interpretations sufficiently rich and
vivid?
Researcher credibility
Do the researchers clinical, substantive, or
methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their
interpretation?
Summary Assessment
Do the study findings appear to be
trustworthy-do you confidence in the truth
value of the results?
Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline?
Note. Adapted from Guide to an Overall Critique of a Qualitative Research Report, by D. F.
Polit and C. T. Beck, 2017, Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing
Practice (10th ed.), pp. 106-109.