A Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research Essay -- Article Analysis

Described below is a critical appraisal of a qualitative article by Lisa Booth using the frame-work suggested by Ryan, Coughlan and Cronin 2007 to establish its believability, robustness, credibility and integrity (Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin, 2007). Qualitative research is regarded as an inductive process, which within natural settings attempts to produce insights on the subjective experiences, meanings, practices and point of views of those involved (Craig & Smyth, 2007). The aim here was to investigate factors influencing the communication styles used by the radiographers, therefore, allowing a better understanding to patient-centred care within diagnostic radiography. The title was well formulated and unambiguous, however, why a more precise title of "diagnostic radiographer-patient relationship" was not selected is unclear as the study incorporated diagnostic radiographers only (Dawson, 2002). The article had appropriate citations except the researcher's qualification and designation, which otherwise indicate the degree of knowledge in the field (Ryan et al, 2007). Included was the 'Keyword' section facilitating retrieving of the search by those interested (Hart, 2001). Its publication in a peer-reviewed journal allowed scrutiny from suitable experts, thus making more valid and original. In contrast, to a non peer-reviewed journal where high chances of information being flawed cannot be denied (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002)? Losing the relevance of the information was not a threat as it was published within the optimum time (Hart, 2001). Abstract is a condensed version of the full report; this was well formulated by using headings instead of single paragraph style, thus looked uncluttered (Macnee, 2004). The purpose had c... ...the data did not involve member checking thus reducing its robustness and enable to exclude researcher’s bias. Although a constant comparative method was evident in the discussion which improved the plausibility of the final findings. Themes identified were well corroborated but not declared was anytime a point of theoretical saturation ï‚ ¯Thus, the published report was found to be particularly strong in the area of believability and dependability; less strong in the area of transferability; and is weak in the area of credibility and confirmability, although, editorial limitations can be a barrier in providing a detailed account (Craig & Smyth, 2007; Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2007). Works Cited Ryan, F., Couglan, M. & Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12), 738-744.