Critique a Research Article Oosterveld-Vlug M. G., Pasman H. R. W., van Gennip I. E., Muller M. T., Willems D. L., & Onwuteaka-Philipsen B. D. (2014) Dignity and the factors that influence it according to nursing home residents: a qualitative interview study. Journal of Advanced Nursing 70(1),97-106.
This article is a critique of above mentioned nursing research paper. It was done by six authors in the Netherlands with participating nursing home residents. The researchers have considered nursing home residents’ dignity.
The title of this research paper has sixteen words. General recommendation is five to ten words for the title (Fischer & Zigmond, 2004). Therefore this title can be defined as a lengthy title. This title has key words and can get idea about content of the paper to enable readers to find this paper when searching a relevant database (Bavdekar, 2016; Fischer & Zigmond, 2004).
This research paper has included the authors’ professional status, their educational qualifications and also their addresses (Ryan-Wenger, 1992). Therefore the readers of this article can specify responsible persons for the research and contact authors (Fischer & Zigmond, 2004).
The abstract of this research article has 258 words. Commonly an abstract has 150 to 300 words (Fischer & Zigmond, 2004). Therefore this abstract is in normal word range. These authors have written their work in past tense while they have written other researchers’ work in present tense in the abstract(Fischer & Zigmond, 2004). This abstract has the aim, background, design, methods, results, conclusions, recommendations and keywords. The abstract containsthe method, results, conclusions and recommendations for practice (Koopman, 1997; Parahoo &Reid, 1988). Therefore this can be defined as a sufficient abstract.
These researchers have reviewedmany literature in introduction and background of this research paper. These parts provide relevant information such as previous researches and discussion of the clinical importance of the topic, and justifies the need for the study (Burns & Grove, 2001; Polit & Hungler, 1997), with appropriate references (Fischer & Zigmond, 2004).Therefore literature, introduction and background can be defined as relevant for the research paper.
These authors have presented the research question in the “aim”. That question is well defined and clear. In the reporting of qualitative research, research question should be presented in a clear and detailed manner(Stiles, 1999). Therefore presenting the research question can be regarded as a good one.
The research design and also the methodology were included in the “design” of this paper. These authors have included a reference to justify their selected design. The paper has explained why the researchers have chosen this method to collect data (Ingham?Broomfield, 2008).
These researchers have selected four Nursing Homes in the Netherlands for their research. These authors have reasoned their selection of sample. This sampling was purposeful. The process used to select participants should be clearly described and sampling should bepurposeful in qualitative research (Polkinghorne, 2005). These authors have ensured transferability through adequate descriptions of sample (Letts et al., 2007). This study has presented characteristics of respondents (Low et al., 1998). It seems the authors have described this part thoroughly.
These researchers have used open-ended questions in interviews to collect data most of the times. A variety of open-ended questions are chosen to elicit many information possible in the time available (Low et al., 1998). Interviews have been conducted from May 2010 to June 2011 and lasted approximately 45 to 60 minutes. Collection of data over a prolonged period enhances the credibility (Letts et al., 2007). Data were collected by three methods. That methods are interviews, field notes and interviewer’s reflections on the interviews. Using multi-methods to data collection is called triangulation (Burns & Grove, 2001; Patton, 1999; Polit & Hungler, 1997; Williamson, 2005). Triangulation uses to confirmation and completeness of data (Jick, 1979; Shih, 1998; Streuburt & Carpenter, 1999), to test validity (Carter, Bryant-Lukosius, Dicenso, Blythe&Neville, 2014), and also to enhance credibility and trustworthiness (Letts et al., 2007). This data collection part seems to be written very clearly.
Ethical considerations have included in this paper, but these authors have not described them.The authors of the research paper should describe ethics procedures including how informed consent was obtained and recorded in the research paper (Letts et al, 2007). Therefore in this research paper, the authors may not clearly described ethical procedures.
After twenty interviews were carried out and analyzed, data saturation has been achieved (Oosterveld-Vlug et al., 2014). These authors have described how achieved the data saturation. The researcher should indicate how and when the decision was reached that there was sufficient depth of information to meet the purposes of the study (Low et al., 1998). Dependability of this research was enhanced, because of this paper has clearly explained the process of data analysis (Letts et al., 2007).
These authors have described about coding in the “rigour”.In this “rigour” these authors described how the researchers ensure reliability of the coding procedure and it ensures trustworthiness of study (Houghton, Casey, Shaw & Murphy, 2013; Letts et al., 2007). This study has described how the findings emerged from the data (Letts et al., 2007).
These authors have described results with participants’ ideas in interviews. This study interpreted results and their implications, instead of simply presenting them in a descriptive way (Bach, 2015). Results were written in past tense (Johnson, 2008). These authors included expected results and also unexpected results (Davidson & Delbridge, 2011). The results seems to be clearly described.
This research paper has a discussion. International comparison and limitations have included as sub-topics. These authors have explained major findings of the study, importance of results, clinical relevance, alternative explanations, limitations and suggestions including relevant references (Hess, 2004).Therefore this discussion can be regarded as a good one.
This conclusion has authors’ recommendations. It is considered as effective (Letts et al., 2007; Low et al., 1998; Shidham, Pitman & DeMay, 2012), but it is difficult to find key findings of the research.
These authors have included many references cited within the research paper in alphabetical order. Then the readers can follow it easily (Davidson & Delbridge, 2011;Fischer & Zigmond 2004), but most of them are outdated. The referencesimprove readability and validity of the article (Taylor, 2002).