Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use appraisal tools to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
To Prepare:
Review the Resources and consider the importance of critically appraising research evidence.
Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tools document provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tools document. Be sure to include:
An evaluation table
Levels of evidence table
An outcomes synthesis table
Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with Help write my thesis – APA citations of the research. Using four new references. All references need doi or http not less than five years.
Free Sample Essay
Evaluation Table
Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Full citation of selected article Article #1 Article #2 Article #3 Article #4
Aslam, S., & Emmanuel, P. (2010). Formulating a researchable question: A critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AIDS, 31(1), 47. doi:10.4103/0253718469003 Center AlphaPlus Centre. (2004). Tips for Conducting a Literature Search. Center AlphaPlus Centre.
Retrieved from: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauter/literatur-search-tips-2004.pdf Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658-663. doi:10.12968/bjon.2007.16.11.23681
Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the Evidence Based Practice Question: A Review of the Framework. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75. doi:10.18438/bws5n
Conceptual Framework
Describe the theoretical basis for the study
A systematic review and meta-analysis design was used in the study. A cross-sectional design was used in the study. A cross-sectional correlational design was used in the study A cross-sectional design was used.
Design/Method Describe the design
and how the study
was carried out
The research study was carried out using systematic and meta-analysis methods. It involved analyzing 15 articles among the many which were found in the 5 databases used.
A cross-sectional study was used in the study and involved different articles to find the appropriate methods of conducting a research.
A cross-sectional approach was used in the study thus it involved 34 different articles in finding the appropriate critique for research work. The study used a cross-sectional design. It also employed 22 articles in formulating a clinical question.
Sample/Setting
The number and
characteristics of
patients,
attrition rate, etc. 132 articles were identified in the search but only 15 were included in the research. There were no attrition rate.
172 medical articles were identified but only 18 were included. There were no attrition rate.
The study involved 34 articles which formed the sample for the research. There were no attrition rate.
98 respondents were involved but only 22 were selected as sample size. There were no attrition rate.
Major Variables Studied
List and define dependent and independent variables The independent variables were the various methods of formulating a researchable question whereas the dependent variables was a research question. The independent variables were the various tips for literature search whereas the dependent variables was a literature search The independent variables were the steps in critiquing research whereas the dependent variables was a research studies. The independent variable is the framework whereas the dependent variables was a research question is the clinical question.
Measurement
Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions 132 articles were identified in the search from 5 databases. They comprises of 451 patients. 172 medical articles were drawn from 5 databases. 341 articles were identified during the search. 1012 respondents were approached but not all of them who met the inclusion criteria.
Data Analysis
Statistical or
qualitative
findings Data analysis shows that 88 percent of research articles reviewed emphasize on formulating a researchable question in clinical research. The findings indicated that 75 percent of all articles involved in the study utilized various tips in conducting literature search. Statistics indicate that critiquing a study improves its credibility by 83 percent. The study shows that 91 percent studies reviewed utilized a framework in designing a clinical question.
Findings and Recommendations
General findings and recommendations of the research report writing help The study shows that it is important to formulate a researchable question to enhance clinical research. It is thus important to generate the right research question. The research shows that various tips can be used in conducting literature research. The study recommends that researchers should be careful in selecting the tips to enhance credibility. The findings indicate that there is need to utilize a guide in critiquing a research. The various steps are thus crucial to every research. The review on the framework indicated that clinical questions were essential in research. Therefore, they should be designed professionally to produce the best results.
Appraisal
Describe the general worth of this research to practice. What are the strengths and limitations of study? What are the risks associated with implementation of the suggested practices or processes detailed in the research? What is the feasibility of
use in your practice? The research is worth since it utilized a systematic review method which is bias free and thus the findings and recommendations are reliable. The study did not establish any weaknesses or limitations which could hinder the applicability of the paper. The research is essential since it employed cross-sectional design in developing tips for literature research, which is crucial to every researcher especially in the medical world. The research had limited weaknesses which cannot affect the findings. The research has been highly rated since it provides credible steps in critiquing a research. Therefore, it can be used in assessing the worth of other articles. The essay had limited weaknesses in the inclusion of articles since few met the set criteria. The article is crucial in the design of clinical questions which are central in the nursing world. It is thus essential to mention that the framework is valid and reliable. The article has no weaknesses and the only limitation was lack of sufficient research papers to rely on.
General Notes/Comments The study is effective and reliable since it has used systematic review design.
The study provides methods of conducting literature review writing help search, but more research is needed. The study has outlined methods of critiquing research and thus it can be applied in a healthcare settings. The study requires more research to validate the framework designed.
Levels of Evidence Table
Use this document to complete the levels of evidence table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Author and year of selected article Article #1 Article #2 Article #3 Article #4
Aslam & Emmanuel (2010)
Center AlphaPlus Centre (2004) Coughlan, Cronin & Ryan (2007) Davies (2011).
Study Design
Theoretical basis for the study
A systematic review and meta-analysis design was used in the study. A cross-sectional design was used in the study. A cross-sectional correlational design was used in the study A cross-sectional design was used.
Sample/Setting
The number and
characteristics of
patients 10 articles were used. 18 articles. 172 respondents were involved 312 respondents
Evidence Level *
(I, II, or III)
Level I
Level III
Level III
Level III
Outcomes
An efficient way of formulating a research question in the clinical settings. Methods of conducting literature search. Methods of critiquing research. A framework for formulating evidence-based practice question.
General Notes/Comments The study presents systematic reviews which are essential since they take the first place in evidence levels.
The study utilizes a cross-sectional design which is also used to present strong evidence in nursing. The article is essential in the nursing field since it shows a researcher how to critique which is a basic task in research. Clinical questions are common in nursing and thus the article is crucial in the field of nursing.
* Evidence Levels:
• Level I
Experimental, randomized controlled trial (RCT), systematic review RTCs with or without meta-analysis
• Level II
Quasi-experimental studies, systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis
• Level III
Nonexperimental, systematic review of RCTs, quasi-experimental with/without meta-analysis, qualitative, qualitative systematic review with/without meta-synthesis
• Level IV
Respected authorities’ opinions, nationally recognized expert committee/consensus panel reports based on scientific evidence
• Level V
Literature reviews, quality improvement, program evaluation, financial evaluation, case reports, nationally recognized expert(s) opinion based on experiential evidence
Outcomes Synthesis Table
Use this document to complete the outcomes synthesis table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Author and year of selected article Article #1 Article #2 Article #3 Article #4
Aslam & Emmanuel (2010)
Center AlphaPlus Centre (2004) Coughlan, Cronin & Ryan (2007) Davies (2011).
Sample/Setting
The number and
characteristics of
patients 15 articles were used. 18 articles. 34 articles were involved 22 respondents
Outcomes
An efficient way of formulating a research question in the clinical settings. Methods of conducting literature search. Methods of critiquing research. A framework for formulating evidence-based practice question.
Key Findings
The study found that there are various method of formulating a research question but due care should be taken in the clinical settings. The study found different ways of conducting literature research. It was crucial to find specific methods of critiquing research. A framework for formulating evidence-based practice question is essential.
Appraisal and Study Quality
The used systematic reviews thus making the study bias-free. It is thus relevant in healthcare sector. The study used different articles making it all-inclusive.
The findings are relevant to health issues since they are geared towards finding solutions. The findings of the study provide a framework that can be relied on while designing a clinical question for research.
General Notes/Comments The study is effective and reliable since it has used systematic review design.
The study provides methods of conducting literature search, but more research is needed. The study has outlined methods of critiquing research and thus it can be applied in a healthcare settings. The study requires more research to validate the framework designed.
Critical Appraisal of Research
Research studies require a critical appraisal to establish their credibility and trustworthiness. The process of carrying out a critical appraisal in research is thus essential in establishing the value of an article in the nursing field (Latifnejad, 2019). It focuses on the internal validity of the article to establish if the research findings can be relied on or not. Critical appraisal is used to establish if a paper can be used in the generalization of findings or application in general medical settings. The best practice that was established in the current research studies was the use of systematic reviews while carrying out research (Aslam & Emmanuel, 2010). The reason is that it establishes the use of current and relevant studies that can produce the best evidence for use in clinical settings. Systematic reviews are described as best practice since they have no bias (Center AlphaPlus Centre, 2004). They combine various articles or research papers thus they produce aggregate findings of other research papers. They provide current and best evidence since they do not rely on opinions, but facts from other findings.
Aslam and Emmanuel (2010) carried out a study using systematic reviews. The focus of the systematic review was to find out how other research studies had been carried out. It thus summarized the findings to make a concrete finding on the best researchable clinical questions. It is important to note that 132 articles were identified in the search, but only 15 were included in the research (Aslam & Emmanuel, 2010). The elimination was on the basis of the inclusion criteria. The reason is that some studies did not match the requirements of a systematic review. The study involved a search for the best articles from five databases including Google Scholar, PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, Cochrane, and Embase. The study shows that it is important to formulate a researchable question to enhance clinical research. It is thus important to generate the right research question (Aslam & Emmanuel, 2010). It is thus clear from the systematic review study that it is a method that can be relied on to produce reliable findings. The findings are applicable to practical healthcare settings in a medical facility.
Systematic reviews have also been selected as the best practice since they take the first position in the levels of research evidence. In the case of findings the best researchable question, systematic reviews were the best methods to have been used (Davies, 2011). The reason is that the systematic review process tends to analyze various studies before coming up with a conclusion. It thus considered other research studies that had been carried out on formulating a research question (Latifnejad, 2019). Therefore, the findings present a summary of all the available literature directly related to the issue of formulating research questions.
However, the other four studies relied on the cross-sectional method which takes the third place in evidence levels. Therefore, they cannot be justified to be the practice in the current task. One of the reasons was that they involved single studies which cannot be relied on in the formulation of strategies or conclusions to be used in clinical practice (Latifnejad, 2019). The single researches had a bias since they did not consult other studies. Therefore, the internal validity of the studies could not be confirmed compared to the systematic review. Additionally, they cannot be generalized to any practice in the nursing field.
References
Aslam, S., & Emmanuel, P. (2010). Formulating a researchable question: A critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AIDS, 31(1), 47. doi:10.4103/0253718469003
Center AlphaPlus Centre. (2004). Tips for Conducting a Literature Search. Center AlphaPlus Centre. Retrieved from: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauter/literatur-search-tips-2004.pdf
Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the Evidence-Based Practice Question: A Review of the Framework. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75. doi:10.18438/bws5n
Latifnejad, R. (2019). Critical appraisal of research evidence at a glance. Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, 7(3), 1716-1717.
