CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 2
CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE: Method and Title
D. Method
Sample Description
The sample is evidently described based on size, selection, assignment procedures, and
relevant characteristics (Bell, Bryman, & Harley, 2018). No enticements were utilized to beseech
participants. The researcher used purposive sampling strategies. In selection, the researcher
applied the inclusion criteria for family members. For the family member group, one would only
be included if he is a member of the family of a person already witnessed a stroke in the past 2
years and with sufficient spoken English for the completion of both questionnaire and consent
form.
The researchers invited several members from the same family to take part using flyers
dispatched in clinical areas at local hospitals and local stroke foundation support groups or
straight via intermediaries. In selecting the practitioners, they were only invited if they presently
worked with individuals post-stroke, within community or hospital by posting information in
flyers in clinical areas. In terms of staff selections, they were invited during presentation
regarding the study and no active inclusion; however, their contact particulars stood available.
The intermediaries were used for a direct approach to subjects. The researchers also gave
information sheets to all potential participants, and consent stood obtained before the collection
of data (Hunter, McCallum & Howes, 2018).
In terms of sample size, for the family members, 19 individuals from 13 families
volunteered to partake, and the demographic characteristics were given as shown in the table
below:

+13062052269

info@desklib.com

Article about Critique 2022

Contribute Materials