Example Of The Critique Of A Quantitative Article Review

In response to the question set, I will go into detail of the study, consisting of the background, main hypotheses, as well the aims, procedure and results gathered from the study; explaining the four research methods chosen to investigate,

This paper is an academic critique of an article written by Lautrette, et al. (2007) titled: “A Communication Strategy and Brochure for Relatives of Patients Dying in the ICU” and accurately reflected the content of the article and the research study itself. The abstract explained the article in more detail, while remaining concise. The type of research study, sample size, variables, intervention, measurement method, findings, and conclusion were all mentioned in the abstract.

In this paper I will analyze two articles, one is quantitative and the other is qualitative. I will describe the quantitative methods used including the research question addressed, the hypothesis, and variables. I will identify the population and sample. I will discuss the reliability and validity of the instruments used. I will then discuss the design of the article and how the findings were analyzed. For the qualitative article, I will identify the design of the article, the methods used and the strategies used for analyzing the data. Lastly, I will look at the implications for practice in the qualitative article, discuss other journals that might be interested in publishing the article and discuss how this article might

The data from this research study is clearly expressed, consistent and reflective of the data. There are primary sources cited in the article, and relevant landmark studies were described and used in this

The article “Effects of a Comprehensive Educational Group Intervention in Older Women with Cognitive Complaints: A Randomized Controlled Trial” provides an overview of a new educational group intervention that focuses primarily on psychological education in healthy older women with cognitive complaints related to aging. This randomized control trial study sought to investigate the negative perceptions women faced when cognitive

In this chapter the results obtained from the analysis of data collected (previous chapter) are discussed in relation to the aims and objectives of the study. The study attempts to answer the following research questions:

Ge Li, MD, PhD; Lucy Y. Wang, MD; Jane B. Shofer, MS; Mary Lou Thompson, PhD; Elaine R. Peskind, MD; Wayne McCormick, MD, MPH; James D. Bowen, MD; Paul K. Crane, MD, MPH; Eric B. Larson, MD, MPH

The author’s development of explaining the theory and validity of the research had minimum thorough explanation. The results were provided through quantitative means instead of qualitative. This is not an issue; however, this could have been studied

The discussion briefly describes the results, but it failed to restate the purpose of the study. It discusses the results with many new citations that had not been provided in the introduction. It discussed future research implications but not in great detail. One of the greater strengths of the discussion was that it discussed multiple implications for professionals to consider. Additionally, the limitations and strengths of the study were discussed in detail.

One-fourth of American citizens have 2 or extra chronic disease, and this population accounts for greater than half of of overall healthcare costs (Giovannetti, Dy, Leff, Weston, Adams, Valuck, … Boyd, 2013). Having multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) can negatively affect quality of life, ability to work, disability, and mortality. No matter the high incidence of MCCs and corresponding terrible results, the care for individuals with MCCs is often fragmented, incomplete, inefficient, and useless, resulting in doubtlessly avoidable inpatient admissions, negative consequences of therapeutic interactions, and postoperative complications (Giovannetti, et al., 2013). A Strategic Framework for improving health outcomes and quality of life developed

When comparing this article to a good literature review, it successfully provides an adequate overview of previous research done and uses it to enhance the project at hand. When evaluating the quality and relevance of this article, Martins and Jensen do an admirable job communicating the purpose of research to the reader and organizing its literature review. The data from other studies is in chronological order and are structured from broader studies to more specific ones which is seen when the sources are cited. An analysis was provided after presenting the findings from previous studies and the authors were able to communicate how those studies influenced their own research. As a whole, the literature review was well organized by key ideas and topics that logically lead to the research Martins and Jensen were

Dawn E. Alley, Ph.D., Chisara N. Asomugha, M.D., Patrick H. Conway, M.D., and Darshak M. Sanghavi, M.D.

The purpose of this paper will be to present the contrasts in the type of information that was gained while reviewing two studies. The studies reviewed were a qualitative study and a quantitative study. The general advantages and disadvantages of the two types of studies will also be presented. Qualitative and quantitative studies both have a place in research, even though the two study designs take a very different approach to research. Lastly, a response will be given in support of the qualitative research being beneficial to the world of science.

Secondly, the investigation was based on data from small sample. Eight participants are from the same university and all of them are postgraduate students. Therefore, the size and the variety of sample may limit the possibility of generalization.

The quantitative research method is being used in this research study. Quantitative research methods are a number of statistical and mathematical tools that can be used to capture and analyze information on quantitative