Critique of Two Research Papers: Evidence-Based Practice Sample

For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.

This extract shows how a 5,000-word critique of two research papers can be organised for a health and social care module on evaluating research for evidence-based practice. It is a condensed model, not a full essay. Similar briefs are listed on our recently solved questions hub, and our guide on how to critique qualitative and quantitative research papers explains the method step by step.

Planning table

The two papers used here are a qualitative interview study of nurse leaders’ remote leadership (Hurmekoski et al., 2023) and a cross-sectional survey of nurses’ well-being (Ibrahim et al., 2023). Only features stated in their published reports are discussed.

Introduction

Evidence-based practice is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in decisions about the care of individual patients, integrated with clinical expertise (Sackett et al., 1996). In health and social care it also means weighing service-user preferences and local context, so that research is applied rather than merely admired. Not every published study deserves equal weight. High-quality evidence is produced by a design that suits the question, a transparent and defensible method, ethical conduct, and conclusions that stay within what the data can support (Polit and Beck, 2021).

Quality is checked in two ways. First, sources are chosen from peer-reviewed journals, searched through recognised databases and read in full rather than through abstracts. Second, each study is appraised against a published checklist so that judgements are systematic rather than impressionistic. This essay critiques one qualitative and one quantitative paper, using a different instrument for each because the two traditions define rigour differently: qualitative work is judged on trustworthiness, quantitative work on validity and reliability. The first draws on constructivist assumptions about multiple, context-bound realities; the second on a positivist assumption that phenomena can be measured objectively (Polit and Beck, 2021). Appraisal therefore asks whether each study is internally coherent with its own philosophy, as well as whether it is well executed.

Critique of the qualitative paper

Choice of framework

The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Studies Checklist was selected because it is widely used in UK health education, works through clear questions on aims, design, recruitment, data collection, reflexivity, ethics, analysis and value, and gives a transparent audit trail (CASP, no date a). Its limitation is that it prompts judgement rather than producing a score, so conclusions depend on the reviewer’s reasoning. For this reason trustworthiness was examined using the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

Aims, design and population

Hurmekoski et al. (2023) set out to describe nurse leaders’ experiences of remote leadership, and a qualitative design is appropriate because the aim concerns lived experience rather than measurable quantities. The participants were twelve nurse leaders in Finnish health care organisations, all women, drawn from immediate and middle-management posts and all with at least two years of remote leadership experience. The inclusion criterion strengthens the relevance of their accounts, but the all-female group and single national setting limit the range of perspectives.

Sampling and recruitment

Participants were recruited by email through convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is practical, yet it risks recruiting people who are already interested in the topic, and purposive variation by organisation type or leadership experience would have justified the sample more convincingly. Because qualitative studies seek depth rather than statistical representation, a small sample is not a flaw in itself (Polit and Beck, 2021); the weakness lies in the limited explanation of how sufficiency was judged.

Ethics, consent and anonymity

Ethical review was not required under Finnish legislation, but the authors followed national research integrity guidance, obtained research permits from the organisations and secured informed consent. Judged against the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice (Beauchamp and Childress, 2019), this is acceptable. A critical reader would still ask how anonymity was protected in a small professional group, particularly where focus groups were used, because participants can identify one another and confidentiality within the group cannot be guaranteed by the researchers.

Data collection

Data came from semi-structured interviews held online through Microsoft Teams between January and March 2022, comprising a mix of individual and focus group sessions of roughly one to two hours. Online interviewing suits a topic about remote work and widens access, but it may reduce rapport and conceal non-verbal cues. Mixing individual and group formats is a further point for discussion: group dynamics can generate richer talk, yet some participants may hold back views in front of peers.

Analysis, trustworthiness and bias

Inductive content analysis was carried out by two researchers who coded original expressions into categories and resolved differences through discussion. Inductive content analysis is a recognised approach in nursing research, and analyst triangulation supports credibility and confirmability (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). It differs from reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) in how closely it stays with manifest content, so the reader should expect descriptive categories rather than deeply interpretive themes. Evidence of reflexivity about the researchers’ own positions, and of participant checking, would have strengthened the account.

Transferability

Findings from twelve Finnish nurse leaders cannot be generalised statistically. They may be transferable to similar systems if the context is richly described, which is the standard set by Lincoln and Guba (1985). UK readers should apply the findings cautiously, since NHS structures, workforce pressures and digital infrastructure differ.

Critique of the quantitative paper

Choice of framework

The CASP Cross-Sectional Studies Checklist was used because it addresses the clarity of the research question, recruitment, measurement of exposures and outcomes, confounding, results and applicability (CASP, no date b). Reporting completeness was also considered against the STROBE statement for observational studies (von Elm et al., 2007), which the study authors state they followed.

Design, sampling and bias

Ibrahim et al. (2023) used a cross-sectional survey to examine relationships between transformational leadership, organisational justice and quality of nursing work life among nurses in one general hospital in Egypt. A cross-sectional design suits an exploratory question about association and is quick and inexpensive, but it measures every variable at one point in time and so cannot show cause and effect. Participants were a convenience sample of registered full-time nurses in direct patient care, with interns, managers and shift leaders excluded. The response rate was high (527 of 566 invited nurses, 93.1 per cent), which reduces non-response bias. However, convenience sampling in a single hospital introduces selection bias, and self-reported questionnaires are open to social desirability bias, especially when nurses rate their own managers. The authors themselves acknowledge the limits to causality and generalisability.

Ethics

The study was approved by a university nursing ethics committee. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, with the right to withdraw without consequence for employment, and participants gave verbal consent followed by a signed form. These safeguards address autonomy and non-maleficence (Beauchamp and Childress, 2019). Because the respondents were employees rating their own leaders, the explicit assurance that employment would not be affected is particularly important.

Tools, validity and reliability

Three established scales measured transformational leadership, organisational justice and quality of nursing work life. Reliability was reported using Cronbach’s alpha, with internal consistency reported as acceptable to high across the overall scales and subscales. The scales were translated into Arabic through back-translation, reviewed by experts for content validity, and one scale was adjusted from a six-point to a five-point format after piloting. These steps support content validity, yet altering a validated scale can affect comparability with earlier studies, and construct validity in the new setting is better demonstrated by factor analysis than by expert review alone (Polit and Beck, 2021).

Statistical presentation and hypothesis testing

Data were analysed in SPSS using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation and hierarchical linear regression. These tests suit continuous scale scores and the aim of examining relationships while controlling for other variables. A strong critique would check whether assumptions such as linearity and normality were reported, whether significance levels were paired with effect sizes and confidence intervals, and whether tables allow readers to judge the practical, not merely statistical, importance of results. Statistical significance in a large sample can reflect small effects, so the discussion should be read with that in mind (Polit and Beck, 2021).

Generalisability

Because the sample came from one Egyptian public hospital and was not randomly selected, results cannot be generalised to all nurses or health systems. The study is best treated as a useful indicator of associations worth testing in more varied, preferably longitudinal, designs.

Reflective conclusion

Appraising these papers showed that rigour is not a single standard. The qualitative study earned trust through its clear aim, relevant sample and analyst triangulation, while the quantitative study offered a strong response rate and documented scale reliability; both were limited by convenience sampling and single-country settings. I learnt to ask first whether the design matches the question, and only then whether the method was carried out well. In my own practice I will check ethics statements, sampling logic and the strength of claims before using research to change care, and I will use a named checklist so that my reasoning is visible to colleagues. I will also treat findings from other health systems as prompts for local evaluation rather than ready-made answers, and I will share appraisal notes with my team so that decisions are made on a common reading of the evidence.

References

Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2019) Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th edn. New York: Oxford University Press.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (no date a) CASP Qualitative Studies Checklist. Available at: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ (Accessed: 3 November 2026).

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (no date b) CASP Cross-Sectional Studies Checklist. Available at: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ (Accessed: 3 November 2026).

Graneheim, U.H. and Lundman, B. (2004) ‘Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness’, Nurse Education Today, 24(2), pp. 105–112.

Hurmekoski, M., Häggman-Laitila, A., Lammintakanen, J. and Terkamo-Moisio, A. (2023) ‘Nurse leaders’ experiences of remote leadership in health care’, Leadership in Health Services, 36(4), pp. 579–594. doi:10.1108/LHS-01-2023-0003.

Ibrahim, I.A., El-Monshed, A.H., El-Sehrawy, M.G., Elamir, H. and Abdelrahim, S.M. (2023) ‘Enhancing nurses’ well-being: exploring the relationship between transformational leadership, organizational justice, and quality of nursing work life’, Journal of Nursing Management, 2023, Article 2337975. doi:10.1155/2023/2337975.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Polit, D.F. and Beck, C.T. (2021) Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 11th edn. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.

Sackett, D.L., Rosenberg, W.M.C., Gray, J.A.M., Haynes, R.B. and Richardson, W.S. (1996) ‘Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t’, BMJ, 312(7023), pp. 71–72.

von Elm, E., Altman, D.G., Egger, M., Pocock, S.J., Gøtzsche, P.C. and Vandenbroucke, J.P. (2007) ‘The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies’, The Lancet, 370(9596), pp. 1453–1457.

Prepared by

Students Assignment Help UK Editorial Team

This model answer was prepared by our editorial team in response to a real assignment brief we received. It shows one way to approach the task and is meant as a study guide, not for submission.