PNR400: Journal Article Appraisal—Evidence Informed Practice:…

PNR400: Journal Article Appraisal—Evidence Informed Practice: Rubric
Title
Is the title clear and accurate i.e. does it describe the research?
/1
Author
What are the author’s qualifications and current position?
/1
Date
When was the research undertaken?
When was it published?
Is it a recent piece of work?
Is it relevant to present practice?
NB. This is not always easy to establish with online articles.
/1
Journal
Does the journal deal in nursing research?
Who is the target audience for the Journal? Broad or specific?
/1
Abstract/Summary
Does the abstract clearly outline the problem, the hypothesis/research question, aims and objectives, methodology, results, conclusions and recommendations?
/1
Identifying the problem
Is the problem and/or purpose of the study clearly identified?
If yes, what is the purpose of the study in the paper?
Is there a rationale for the study?
/1
Formulation of research questions (qualitative design) or hypotheses (experimental design)
Are the aims and objectives clearly stated?
What issue/problem has led to the development of this hypothesis?
Is there equipoise? (Look this up)
/1
Literature search
Is there an unbiased discussion of related research?
Does the researcher demonstrate insight into the subject under study?
Are cites references timely and relevant?
Is the search a collection of quotes or does it critically appraise previous studies?
/1
Methodology: Design
Is the study described adequately? Can you identify what type of study is used, e.g. descriptive, experimental,
quasi‑experimental?
/ 0.5
Methodology: Sample
Is the sample representative of the population under study?
Have the characteristics of the sample been considered e.g. size, culture, gender?
How appropriate is the method of sample selection?
/ 0.5
Methodology: Ethics
Has informed consent been given?
Is confidentiality and anonymity assured?
Was the right not to participate explained?
Was dignity upheld?
Were the subjects free from harm?
Was ethics committee approval sought?
/ 0.5
Methodology: Reliability & validity
Does the study considered the issue of reliability and validity?
Is the research methodology biased?
/ 0.5
Main study Results
Are the raw figures and percentages or dialogue provided in the text?
Are they visually presented e.g. graphs, bar charts, scatter‑grams, extracts of dialogue?
Is the rationale provided for the inclusion or omission of statistical testing?
Do the results support the objective of the study?
/1
Discussion/
Recommendations
Is the discussion of the results understandable?
Are the recommendations linked to the purpose of the study??
Are the recommendations able to be implemented?
Has the researcher acknowledged their limitations?
Are there suggestions for further research?
/1
Conclusions
Do the conclusions relate logically to the results?
Are there any distortions attempted to ‘fit’ preconceived ideas?
Are the aims, questions or hypothesis posed earlier addressed?
What omissions have been made and has the researcher referred to these?
/1