Title

Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the
study population?

Comments

Abstract

Did the abstract clearly and concisely
summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results,
conclusions)?

Comments

Introduction

Statement of the
problem

Was the problem stated unambiguously,
and was it easy to identify?

Is the problem significant for nursing?

Did the problem statement build a
persuasive argument for the new study?

Was there a good match between the research
problem and the methods used—that is, was a quantitative approach
appropriate?

Comments

Hypotheses or research questions

Were research questions and/or
hypotheses explicitly stated?  If not,
was their absence justified?

Were questions and hypotheses
appropriately worded, with clear specification of key variables and the study
population?

Were the questions/hypotheses consistent
with existing knowledge?

Comments

Literature review

Was the literature review up-to-date and
based mainly on primary sources?

Did the review provide a
state-of-the-art synthesis of evidence on the problem?

Did the literature review provide a
strong basis for the new study?

Comments

Conceptual/

theoretical framework

Were key concepts adequately defined
conceptually?

Was a conceptual/theoretical framework
articulated—and, if so, was it appropriate? 

If not, is the absence of a framework
justified?

Were the questions/hypotheses consistent
with the framework?

Comments

Method

Protection of human rights

Were appropriate procedures used to
safeguard the rights of study participants?

Was the study externally reviewed by an
IRB/ethics review board?

Was the study designed to minimize risks
and maximize benefits to participants? ?

Comments

Research design

Was the most rigorous design used, given
the study purpose?

Were appropriate comparisons made to
enhance interpretability of the findings?

Was the number of data collection points
appropriate?

Did the design minimize biases and
threats to the internal, construct, and external validity of the study (e.g.,
was blinding used, was attrition minimized)?

Comments

Population and sample

Was the population identified? 

Was the sample described in sufficient
detail?

Was the best possible sampling design
used to enhance the sample’s representativeness?

Were sampling biases minimized?

Was the sample size adequate?

Was the sample size based on a power
analysis?

Comments

Data collection and measurement

Were the operational and conceptual
definitions congruent?

Were key variables measured using an
appropriate method (e. g., interviews, observations, and so on)?

Were specific instruments adequately
described and were they good choices, given the study population and the
variables being studied?

Did the report provide evidence that the
data collection methods yielded data that were reliable, valid, and
responsive?

Comments

Procedures

If there was an intervention, was it
adequately described, and was it rigorously developed and implemented? 

Did most participants allocated to the
intervention group actually receive it? 

Was there evidence of intervention
fidelity?

Were data collected in a manner that
minimized bias? 

Were the staff who collected data
appropriately trained?

Comments

Results

Data analysis

Were analyses undertaken to address each
research question or test each hypothesis?

Were appropriate statistical methods
used, given the level of measurement of the variables, number of groups being
compared, and assumptions of the tests?

Was a powerful analytic method used?
(e.g., did the analysis help to control for confounding variables)?

Were Type I and Type II errors avoided
or minimized?

In intervention studies, was an
intention-to-treat analysis performed?

Were problems of missing values
evaluated and adequately addressed?

Comments

Findings

Was information about statistical
significance presented? 

Was information about effect size and
precision of estimates (confidence intervals) presented?

Were findings reported in a manner that
facilitates a meta-analysis, and with sufficient information needed for EBP?

Comments

Discussion
Interpretation
of the findings

Were all major findings interpreted and
discussed within the context of prior research and/or the study’s conceptual
framework?

Were causal inferences, if any,
justified?

Was the issue of clinical significance
discussed?

Were interpretations well-founded and
consistent with the study’s limitations?

 Did the report address the issue of the
generalizability of the findings? 

Comments

Implications/

recommendations

Did the researchers discuss the
implications of the study for clinical practice or further research—and were
those implications reasonable and complete?

Comments

General
Issues

Presentation

Was the report well-written, organized,
and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis?

In intervention studies, was a CONSORT
flowchart provided to show the flow of participants in the study?

Was the report written in a manner that
makes the findings accessible to practicing nurses?

Comments

Researcher credibility

Do the researchers’ clinical,
substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence
in the findings and their interpretation?

Comments

Summary assessment

Despite any limitations, do the study
findings appear to be valid—do you have confidence in the truth value of the
results?

Does the study contribute any meaningful
evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the
nursing discipline? 

Comments

Title

Is the title a good one, suggesting the key phenomenon and the group or
community under study?

Comments

Abstract

Did
the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report?

Comments

Research
questions

Were
research questions explicitly stated? 
If not, was their absence justified?

Were
the questions consistent with the study’s philosophical basis, underlying
tradition, or ideologic orientation?

Comments

Conceptual
underpinnings

Were
key concepts adequately defined conceptually?

Was
the philosophical basis, underlying tradition, conceptual framework or
ideologic orientation made explicit and was it appropriate for the problem?

Comments

Research
design and research tradition 

Was
the identified research tradition (if any) congruent with the methods used to
collect and analyze data?

Was
an adequate amount of time spent with study participants?

Did
the design unfold during data collection, giving researchers opportunities to
capitalize on early understandings?

Was
there an adequate number of contacts with study participants?

Comments

Data
collection 

Were
the methods of gathering data appropriate? 

Were
data gathered through two or more methods to achieve triangulation:

Did
the researcher ask the right questions or make the right observations, and
were they recorded in an appropriate fashion?

Was
a sufficient amount of data gathered? 
Were the data of sufficient depth and richness?

Comments

Enhancement
of trustworthliness

Did
the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the
trustworthiness/integrity of the study, and was there a good description of
those strategies?

Were
the methods used to enhance trustworthiness adequate?

Did
the researcher document research procedures and decision processes
sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable?

Was
there evidence of researcher reflexivity?

Was
there “thick description” of the context, participants, and findings, and was
it at a sufficient level to support transferability?

Comments

Findings

Were
the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting
arguments?

Did
the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data?  Does it appear that the researcher
satisfactorily conceptualized the themes or patterns in the data?

Did
the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic, and meaningful
picture of the phenomenon under investigation?

Comments

Discussion Interpretation
of the findings

Were
the findings interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context?

Were
major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies?

Were
the interpretations consistent with the study’s limitations?  

Implications/

recommendations

Did
the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice
or further research—and were those implications reasonable and complete?

Comments

Researcher
credibility

Do
the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and
experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?

Comments