Homework answers / question archive / HSCI 270 Module 6 Critical Appraisal Assignment: Qualitative Study Rationale: The ability to evaluate the quality of research is an essential skill for the health scientist

HSCI 270 Module 6 Critical Appraisal Assignment: Qualitative Study Rationale: The ability to evaluate the quality of research is an essential skill for the health scientist

Health Science

Share With

---

HSCI 270 Module 6 Critical Appraisal Assignment: Qualitative Study

Rationale: The ability to evaluate the quality of research is an essential skill for the health scientist. As a consumer of health research literature, it is important to be able to critically appraise the reports you read. You must be able to judge the value of the research in creating knowledge. Critical appraisal skills are expected of health researchers, clinicians and policy makers.

What you have to do:

Students will individually complete the CASP-Qualitative Study checklist for their chosen article (both downloadable from onQ). Students will then write a formal report which summarizes the study’s purpose, main design features, main results, credibility, dependability and

confirmability, and transferability of findings. Note that not all of these headings appear in the checklist – students must pick out the components that apply to a discussion on credibility, dependability, and confirmability. Be sure to include what you consider to be the important information yielded from the article. Note that students are not required to submit the checklist; rather, use students should use this as a guide to write their report. Remember to consider and include not only weaknesses but strengths of the study, and include an overall conclusion regarding the quality of the study.

Specifications:

• This assessment is worth 10% of your final grade and should be completed individually.

• The report must include a title page including assignment title, your name and the date.

• The report must include the following five section headings in this order: Study Purpose and Design, Summary of the Results,

Credibility, Dependability and Confirmability, and Transferability of Findings.

• 1.5 line spacing and Calibri or Times New Roman 11- or 12-point font must be used.

• The word limit for this assignment is 1200 words.

• The article you are appraising should be included as a reference in a reference list at the end of your report. In-text citations are not required for the article you are appraising. While external references are not required, you are welcome to use them (in-text citations for external resources should be used). References and in-text citations should be completed using APA format. If you are using a direct quote from a source, the in-text citation must include a page number.

Submission Instructions:

• Students should individually submit their written report to the appropriate dropbox on onQ.

• Remember that the checklist does not need to be included with your submission.

CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Qualitative research
How to use this appraisal tool: Three broad issues need to be considered when appraising a
qualitative study:
Are the results of the study valid? (Section A)
What are the results? (Section B)
Will the results help locally? (Section C)
The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you think about these issues
systematically. The first two questions are screening questions and can be answered quickly.
If the answer to both is “yes”, it is worth proceeding with the remaining questions. There is
some degree of overlap between the questions, you are asked to record a “yes”, “no” or
“can’t tell” to most of the questions. A number of italicised prompts are given after each
question. These are designed to remind you why the question is important. Record your
reasons for your answers in the spaces provided.
About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational pedagogic tools, as part of a
workshop setting, therefore we do not suggest a scoring system. The core CASP checklists
(randomised controlled trial & systematic review) were based on JAMA 'Users’ guides to the
medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, and Cook DJ), and piloted with
health care practitioners.
For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to develop and pilot the checklist
and the workshop format with which it would be used. Over the years overall adjustments
have been made to the format, but a recent survey of checklist users reiterated that the basic
format continues to be useful and appropriate.
Referencing: we recommend using the Harvard style citation, i.e.: Critical Appraisal Skills
Programme (2018). CASP (insert name of checklist i.e. Qualitative) Checklist. [online] Available
at: URL. Accessed: Date Accessed.
©CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-CommercialShare A like. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncsa/3.0/ www.casp-uk.net
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of Oxford Centre for Triple Value Healthcare www.casp-uk.net
2

Section A: Are the results valid?
1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?	Yes	HINT: Consider • what was the goal of the research • why it was thought important • its relevance
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?	Yes	HINT: Consider • If the research seeks to interpret or illuminate the actions and/or subjective experiences of research participants • Is qualitative research the right methodology for addressing the research goal
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
Is it worth continuing?
3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?	Yes	HINT: Consider • if the researcher has justified the research design (e.g. have they discussed how they decided which method to use)
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:

Paper for appraisal and reference:
3

4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?	Yes	HINT: Consider • If the researcher has explained how the participants were selected • If they explained why the participants they selected were the most appropriate to provide access to the type of knowledge sought by the study • If there are any discussions around recruitment (e.g. why some people chose not to take part)
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?	Yes	HINT: Consider • If the setting for the data collection was justified • If it is clear how data were collected (e.g. focus group, semi-structured interview etc.) • If the researcher has justified the methods chosen • If the researcher has made the methods explicit (e.g. for interview method, is there an indication of how interviews are conducted, or did they use a topic guide) • If methods were modified during the study. If so, has the researcher explained how and why • If the form of data is clear (e.g. tape recordings, video material, notes etc.) • If the researcher has discussed saturation of data
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:

4

6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?	Yes	HINT: Consider • If the researcher critically examined their own role, potential bias and influence during (a) formulation of the research questions (b) data collection, including sample recruitment and choice of location • How the researcher responded to events during the study and whether they considered the implications of any changes in the research design
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
Section B: What are the results?
7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?	Yes	HINT: Consider • If there are sufficient details of how the research was explained to participants for the reader to assess whether ethical standards were maintained • If the researcher has discussed issues raised by the study (e.g. issues around informed consent or confidentiality or how they have handled the effects of the study on the participants during and after the study) • If approval has been sought from the ethics committee
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:

5

8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?	Yes	HINT: Consider • If there is an in-depth description of the analysis process • If thematic analysis is used. If so, is it clear how the categories/themes were derived from the data • Whether the researcher explains how the data presented were selected from the original sample to demonstrate the analysis process • If sufficient data are presented to support the findings • To what extent contradictory data are taken into account • Whether the researcher critically examined their own role, potential bias and influence during analysis and selection of data for presentation
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:
9. Is there a clear statement of findings?	Yes	HINT: Consider whether • If the findings are explicit • If there is adequate discussion of the evidence both for and against the researcher’s arguments • If the researcher has discussed the credibility of their findings (e.g. triangulation, respondent validation, more than one analyst) • If the findings are discussed in relation to the original research question
Can’t Tell
No
Comments:

6

Section C: Will the results help locally?
10. How valuable is the research?	HINT: Consider • If the researcher discusses the contribution the study makes to existing knowledge or understanding (e.g. do they consider the findings in relation to current practice or policy, or relevant research based literature • If they identify new areas where research is necessary • If the researchers have discussed whether or how the findings can be transferred to other populations or considered other ways the research may be used
Comments: