Select one current, qualitative or mixed methods scholarly nursing article related to your PICOT question and determine its strengths, limitations, and potential application. PICOT question: In elderl
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Evidence level and quality rating: | |
Article title: | Number: |
Author(s): | Publication date: |
Journal: | |
Setting: | Sample (composition and size): |
Does this evidence address my EBP question? Yes No-Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence | |
Is this study: QuaNtitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of numerical data) Go to Section I: QuaNtitative QuaLitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of narrative data) Go to Section II: QuaLitative Mixed methods (results reported both numerically and narratively) Go to Section III: Mixed Methods |
Section I: QuaNtitative | |||
Level of Evidence (Study Design) | |||
Is this a report of a single research study? A |
|
| |
1. Was there manipulation of an independent variable? |
|
| |
2. Was there a control group? |
|
| |
3. Were study participants randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups? |
|
| |
If Yes to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or experimental study. | LEVEL I | ||
If Yes to questions 1 and 2 and No to question 3 or Yes to question 1 and No to questions 2 and 3, this is quasi-experimental. | LEVEL II | ||
If No to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is nonexperimental. | LEVEL III | ||
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question | |||
Skip to the Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies section |
Section I: QuaNtitative (continued) | ||
Is this a summary of multiple sources of research evidence? |
|
|
1. Does it employ a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method? If this study includes research, nonresearch, and experiential evidence, it is an integrative review (see Appendix F). |
|
|
2. For systematic reviews and systematic reviews with meta-analysis B | ||
| LEVEL I | |
| LEVEL II | |
| LEVEL III | |
A systematic review employs a search strategy and a rigorous appraisal method, but does not generate an effect size. A meta-analysis, or systematic review with meta-analysis, combines and analyzes results from studies to generate a new statistic: the effect size. | ||
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question | ||
Skip to the Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without a Meta-Analysis) section |
Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies | |||
Does the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how the study will address any gaps in knowledge? |
|
| |
Was the purpose of the study clearly presented? |
|
| |
Was the literature review current (most sources within the past five years or a seminal study)? |
|
| |
Was sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale? |
|
| |
If there is a control group:
|
|
| N/A |
|
|
| N/A |
|
|
| N/A |
Are data collection methods described clearly? |
|
| |
Were the instruments reliable (Cronbach’s [alpha] > 0.70)? |
|
| N/A |
Was instrument validity discussed? |
|
| N/A |
If surveys or questionnaires were used, was the response |
|
| N/A |
Were the results presented clearly? |
|
| |
If tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content? |
|
| N/A |
Were study limitations identified and addressed? |
|
| |
Were conclusions based on results? |
|
| |
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies section |
Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without Meta-Analysis) | ||
Were the variables of interest clearly identified? |
|
|
Was the search comprehensive and reproducible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was there a flow diagram that included the number of studies eliminated at each level of review? |
|
|
Were details of included studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths, and limitations)? |
|
|
Were methods for appraising the strength of evidence (level and quality) described? |
|
|
Were conclusions based on results? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did the systematic review include a section addressing limitations and how they were addressed? |
|
|
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies section (below) |
Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies |
Circle the appropriate quality rating below: A High quality: Consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence. B Good quality: Reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control, and fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence. C Low quality or major flaws: Little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn. |
Section II: QuaLitative | ||
Level of Evidence (Study Design) | ||
A Is this a report of a single research study? |
|
|
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
| ||
Complete the Appraisal of Single QuaLitative Research Study section (below) |
Appraisal of a Single QuaLitative Research Study | ||
Was there a clearly identifiable and articulated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Were study sample participants representative? |
|
|
Did they have knowledge of or experience with the research area? |
|
|
Were participant characteristics described? |
|
|
Was sampling adequate, as evidenced by achieving saturation of data? |
|
|
Data analysis:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do findings support the narrative data (quotes)? |
|
|
Do findings flow from research question to data collected to analysis undertaken? |
|
|
Are conclusions clearly explained? |
|
|
Skip to the Quality Rating for QuaLitative Studies section |
For summaries of multiple quaLitative research studies (meta-synthesis), was a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method used? B |
|
|
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question | ||
Complete the Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies section (below) |
Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies | ||
Were the search strategy and criteria for selecting primary studies clearly defined? |
|
|
Were findings appropriate and convincing? |
|
|
Was a description of methods used to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did synthesis reflect: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was sufficient data presented to support the interpretations? |
|
|
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaLititative Studies section (below) |
Quality Rating for QuaLitative Studies |
Circle the appropriate quality rating below: No commonly agreed-on principles exist for judging the quality of quaLitative studies. It is a subjective process based on the extent to which study data contributes to synthesis and how much information is known about the researchers’ efforts to meet the appraisal criteria. For meta-synthesis, there is preliminary agreement that quality assessments should be made before synthesis to screen out poor-quality studies1. A/B High/Good quality is used for single studies and meta-syntheses2. The report discusses efforts to enhance or evaluate the quality of the data and the overall inquiry in sufficient detail; and it describes the specific techniques used to enhance the quality of the inquiry. Evidence of some or all of the following is found in the report:
C Lower-quality studies contribute little to the overall review of findings and have few, if any, of the features listed for High/Good quality. |
1 https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/6_4_ASSESSMENT_OF_QUALITATIVE_RESEARCH.htm
2 Adapted from Polit & Beck (2017).
Section III: Mixed Methods | ||
Level of Evidence (Study Design) | ||
You will need to appraise both the quaNtitative and quaLitative parts of the study independently, before appraising the study in its entirety. | ||
| Level | Quality |
Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part: | | |
| Level | Quality |
Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part: | | |
| ||
| ||
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question | ||
Complete the Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies section (below) |
Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies3 | |||
Was the mixed-methods research design relevant to address the quaNtitative and quaLitative research questions (or objectives)? |
|
|
|
Was the research design relevant to address the quaNtitative and quaLitative aspects of the mixed-methods question (or objective)? |
|
|
|
For convergent parallel designs, was the integration of quaNtitative and quaLitative data (or results) relevant to address the research question or objective? |
|
|
|
For convergent parallel designs, were the limitations associated with the integration (for example, the divergence of quaLitative and quaNtitative data or results) sufficiently addressed? |
|
|
|
Complete the Quality Rating for Mixed-Method Studies section (below) |
3 National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2015). Appraising Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Studies included in Mixed Studies Reviews: The MMAT. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. (Updated 20 July, 2015) Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/ resources/search/232
Quality Rating for Mixed-Methods Studies |
Circle the appropriate quality rating below A High quality: Contains high-quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; highly relevant study design; relevant integration of data or results; and careful consideration of the limitations of the chosen approach. B Good quality: Contains good-quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; relevant study design; moderately relevant integration of data or results; and some discussion of limitations of integration. C Low quality or major flaws: Contains low quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; study design not relevant to research questions or objectives; poorly integrated data or results; and no consideration of limits of integration. |
4