Evaluating Research Article Quality

This assignment focuses on evaluating the quality of research articles. Students are tasked with analyzing a provided text, specifically identifying how well the authors adhere to established guidelines for instrument validation and measure accuracy. The evaluation draws upon the works of prominent researchers like Girden & Kabacoff (2010) and Rochon et al. (1994), emphasizing the importance of rigorous methodology in research.

Research Article Appraisal
Article
Appraisal
Questions
Student Answers
Question #9: Sample. (For help with these questions, refer to chapters 3, 15, & 18)
a) What
sampling
method was
used
by the
authors in this
study?
The study used stratified sampling technique by stratifying by SCT or SCD
conditions and obtained a simple random sample from each stratum. This was
done by randomly assigning participants in permuted blocks.
b) What are
the potential
biases of this
sampling
method?
The stratified sampling technique has the highest potential of minimizing the
selection bias of the sample and making sure that some segments of
population are never underrepresented or overrepresented but is cannot be
used where authors cant classify with confidence each population member into
a subgroup.
c) What was
the final
sample size
and what was
the
The final sample size was 234 out of the 242 eligible participants and the
acceptance rate was about 97%.

acceptance
rate?
d) Was a power
analysis
conducted?
If so,
describe it
here.
The power analysis was done in the study using the sample size, effect size
and P-level. The 234 participants showed either SCD (n=136) or the SCT
(n=98). Sixty-five percent were women while 94% were African Americans. The
CHOIECS stratum’s mean ages stood at 25.3 years with SD being 4.90 while
that of the e-Book stratum was 26.4 years with SD being 4.90 years. There
was no significant statistical difference between two strata with a p-value of
0.09.
e) Describe
the
inclusion
and
Exclusion
sample
criteria.
The inclusion criteria: The participants were only included if they fall under age
bracket of 18 to 35 years and must have reported SCT or SCD. They must
have been able to understand spoken English as well as read English. They
must had the ability as well as desire to have kids in the future. Exclusion
Criteria: People who were legally blind, unable physically to have kids, or
unable to complete study stood excluded. People who had reported knowing or
even being a friend/relative to an already enrolled subject in study were also
excluded to decrease the potential for contamination.
f) Calculate
the refusal
rate.
Recruited eligible subjects were 242 and those who completed the
questionnaire were 234; thus the difference was 8; hence the refusal rate is
(8/242) multiplied by 100%= 3.30%
g) Calculate The number of participants who left during the study were 8 while the number

the attrition
rate.
of the participants who recruited once the sample had been chosen was zero,
thus; attrition rate is got by dividing 8 by 0 and multiplying by 100% to get
(8/0)100. This indicates that there was no attrition rate.
h) Is the
sampling
method
going to
produce a
sample
that is
representat
ive of the
study
population
? Explain
your
answer.
The sample is representative of the population. This is because of the 242 who
were recruited, 234 completed the study. This indicates about 97% completion
rate. Thus, the final sample size is representative of the population and can
help the authors generalize the finding as this a big enough sample. Moreover,
the stratified sampling technique used here highly reduced the potential of
selection bias thereby giving a representative sample. Further, the setting were
effective in that the author used a range of settings for the identification of the
subjects, including sickle cell clinic at 2 healthcare institutions, public settings
like university students centres/grocery/drug stores, and community
organizations as well as online networks. The data was also gathered at
convenient sites to subjects which included clinical settings, subject homes and
coffee shops.
i) Briefly
discuss the
institutional
review board
approval
and informed
The protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at the
University of Illinois, Chicago alongside the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s
Hospital, Chicago. The well-trained Research Specialists (RSs) obtained the
signed informed consents alongside pretests measures utilizing a pen tablet
computer. The subjects were given $25 in cash by the research specialists for
the travel and time.

consent
obtained
for this study.
j) Briefly
describe the
setting and
indicate
whether it was
appropriate
for conducting
this
study.
The setting were effective in that the author used a range of settings for the
identification of the subjects, including sickle cell clinic at 2 healthcare
institutions, public settings like university students centres/grocery/drug stores,
and community organizations as well as online networks. The data was also
gathered at convenient sites to subjects which included clinical settings,
subject homes and coffee shops.
Question #10: Measurement Methods: (For help with these questions, refer to chapters
16, 17, 18)
a) List and
briefly
describe
the
measures /
instrument
s / tools
used in the
study.
The SCKnowIQ instrument (based on Cronbach’s alpha and test-retest
reliability) was developed and used under the guidance of TRA. Other existing
tools like Kaslow et al., 2000, helped select or modify items or even created for
measuring 4 outcomes (parenting plan, knowledge, reproductive health
intention, and demographics (age, gender, education, ethnicity, genetic status,
marital status, income and race as well as experience with a family member
with SCD).

b) Who
administers
each
measurem
ent /
instrument
/ tool?
These were administered by the well-trained research specialist, RSs.
c) How do
the
subjects
complete
each
measurem
ent /
instrument
tool?
The subjects responded to each instrument/measurement by choosing the
responses options that indicated different scores.
d) How is
each
measureme
nt /
instrument /
tool scored?
Parenting Plan: Derived from 2 items directed to importance of having a kid
without SCT or SCD. The response options are scored by 0 to mean not all
important; 1 to mean not very important; 2 to mean somewhat important; 3 to
mean very important and 4 to mean extremely important.
Knowledge: 18 knowledge items for outcomes stressed on SCT or SCD
genetic transmission. Responses are scored by multiple options for individual
with SCT or SCD with 1 correct response scored by 0 to mean not correct and

1 to mean correct.
Reproductive Health Intention: Has 8 items stressed on intention of avoiding
having kids to bar having SCD or SCT to give birth to a kid unaffected (without
SCD) or affected by SCD, to do abortion due to health concern/ to bar
SCD/SCT, to utilize a range of advanced reproductive technologies as well as
to pursue other non-childbearing alternatives; adopt/foster. It is scored by five
responses ranging from 0 that means not at all likely to 4 which means
extremely likely.
Reproductive Health Behavior: Has ten items directed towards behavior of
implementing parenting plan involved in each and in the course of previous six
months (pre-test)/planned in next six months (posttest). It is scored by coded
response options on the basis of consistency with plan for parenting. The
scores were 0 for inconsistent with plan and 1 consistent with plan and 5
somewhat consistent.
Demographics: Scored by items focusing on marital status, experience with
the family member with SCD, ethnicity, gender, genetic status or partner and
subject, race, income, education, age
e) How do the
authors
describe the
PAST
reliability of
each
The past reliability have been described based on test-retest reliability in e-
Book and the Cronbach’s alpha.

measureme
nt /
instrument /
tool?
f) How do the
authors
describe the
reliability of
each
measureme
nt /
instrument /
tool for
THIS
STUDY?
The reliability have been described by both Cronbach’s alpha and test-retest
reliability
g) How do the
authors
describe the
PAST
validity of
each
measureme
nt /
The authors describe the past validity of SCKnowIQ scales based on the
published or those in press as described by Gallo et al., 2010.

instrument /
tool?
h) How do the
authors
describe the
validity of
each
measureme
nt /
instrument /
tool for
THIS
STUDY?
The current study’s reliabilities for SCKnowIQ scales have been described in
the table format (table 2) based on both Cronbach’s alpha and Test-retest
reliability:
i) Did the
authors
develop a
measureme
nt /
instrument /
tool for this
study? If
so, describe
the
The authors developed the SCKnowIQ instrument under the guidance of the
TRA. They then selected or even modified the items from the prevailing tools.

developmen
t process.
j) Did the
authors use
any
physiologic
al
measureme
nts in this
study? If
so, how did
they
describe the
methods for
collecting
and
recording
the data?
The authors did not use any physiological measurements.
Question #11: Collection and Managing Data. (For help with these questions, refer to
chapters 18 & 20.)
a) Briefly
describe the
data
The primary data collection method was used to gather data from the subjects
using the developed SCKnowIQ instruments. The authors selected the items or
modified them and then gave them to the subjects to responses based on the

collection
process
used in this
study.
different scores on the scales. The authors specifically focused on four
outcomes and demographics which then were responded to by the subjects to
get the required data for the study.
b) Is there
more than
one data
collector for
the study?
If so,
describe
what the
authors did
to train the
data
collectors.
Do you
think there
was
adequate
training to
ensure
inter-rater
There were more than data collectors. The authors hired well-trained research
specialists (RSs.) to help in the collection of data. I think there was adequate
training to guarantee IRR (inter-rater reliability) because the authors hired
already well-trained research specialists.

reliability
(IRR)?
Question #12: Data Analysis. (For help with these questions, refer to chapters 18, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25)
a) What
descriptive
statistics
are used in
this study?
The authors used the measures of central tendency and variability. These
include the mean, standard deviation and the range in this study.
b) What
inferential
statistics
are used to
examine the
data
obtained
from the
subjects?
**Hint: for
help
recognizing
names of
statistical
The authors used Student’s t test for continuous variables alongside chi-
square/Fisher’s exact test for the categorical ones to compare the
demographic features of CHOICEs and e-Book strata. Cumulative logit link
model for 3-level ordinal parenting plan outcome was utilized to control the pre-
test p-values alongside status of sickle cell while knowledge, behavior and
intention were analyzed with linear regression to examine the effects of
intervention on the posttest values.

tests, look
at Figure
21-7.
c) What is the
level of
significanc
e set at for
this study?
The authors set the statistical significance level at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.
d) Are tables
or figures used
to
present the
results of the
data
analysis?
List and briefly
explain
the content
of each table
or
figure.
The authors have used only tables to present the results:
Table 3: showed descriptive outcomes for parenting plan. Here, a great
percentage of subjects expressed their preference for evading having kids with
SCT or SCD.
Table 4: This showed descriptive results for intention, knowledge, and behavior
at the current both posttest and pretests by CHOICES and e-Book.
The average scores (pretest) stood identical in both strata.

Table 5: Showed the inferential analysis for all the four outcomes.
Question #13. Researchers Interpretation of the Findings. (For help with these questions,

refer to chapters 18 & 26)
a) What are
the key
findings
from this
study (as
stated by
the
authors)?
In
parenthese
s next to
each
finding,
indicate
whether
the finding
is
significant,
non-
significant,
or
unpredicte
The authors discovered that odds of CHOICES stratum participant parenting
plan to evade having a kid with SCD or a kid with either SCT or SCD stood at
2.30 times the e-Book stratum subjects. This was significant
The authors also discovered that as opposed to e-Book stratum, the CHOICES
stratum showed a significantly significant enhancement in knowledge instantly
following a one-hour Web-oriented, multimedia educational scheme/program.
This was significant
The authors also discovered that intervention stratum differences in behavior
and intention outcomes remained insignificant statistically, however, trends
stayed in direction hypothesized. This was significant

d /
serendipity.
b) Which of
the key
findings
that you
listed in
13a were
consistent
with what
the authors
were
expecting?
The authors also discovered that as opposed to e-Book stratum, the CHOICES
stratum showed a significantly significant enhancement in knowledge instantly
following a one-hour Web-oriented, multimedia educational scheme/program.
c) Which of
the key
findings
from this
study were
identified
by the
authors as
being
clinically
All the findings by the authors were identified as being significant/important
clinically. This is because they gave insights for the authors to optimize
reproductive behavior change based on the instant posttest findings as this
supported their pans of delivering intervention boosters as well as conducting
recurrent posttest over two years ( Wilkie et al., 2013). Moreover, CHOICES
presents opportunity for young individuals with SCD or SCT to taken into
account their reproductive alternatives, to converse with partners regarding
status of sickle cell, and hence plan for coming pregnancies. Thus, this study
has a potential for positive influence linked to Healthy People 2020 goals. This
study remains relevance since Healthy People 2020 entails a developmental

significant /
clinically
important?
aim of increasing the share of hemoglobinopathy carrier that know their
individual carrier status
d) List the
study’s
limitations
as
described
by the
authors.
Did you
find any
other
limitations
not
mentioned
by the
authors?
1. It was carried out in 1 geographical location in the United State yet it is
feasible that intervention effects shall differ in other destinations with varying
cultural norms.
2. The study also entailed primarily people of African origin, albeit other ethnic
populace could have SCD and additional hemoglobinopathy straits.
3. Authors never included a cognitive ability’s measure alongside participants
with SCD might have had cognitive impairment from previous silent strokes/low
hemoglobin that could affect learning.
4. The authors were not able to conclude what long-run effects of CHOICES
intervention shall be until they have finished 12, 18 and 24 months of data
gathering and analysis ( Timonera et al., 2017).
Another limitation: The single one-hour educational session used in this study
could not have been adequate dose for studying complexities of genetic
inheritance knowledge (Uy et al., 2017).
e) Do the
authors
generalize
the findings
to other
The authors don’t generalize the findings as the CHOICES stratum intervention
offered info in manner solely acceptable to subjects.

populations
? If so,
who are
they? Is
this
appropriate
?
f) What
implication
s do the
findings
have for
nursing
practice?
The study has an implication of showing efficacy for intervention to assist
young adults with SCT or SCD to implement respective personal parenting
plan in the informed manner.
g) What
suggestion
s have the
authors
made for
future
studies?
The authors have suggested to determine in the future if 1 or 2 extra sessions
will be adequate for participants to retain knowledge essential for implementing
behavior consistent with parenting plans (Gallo et al., 2016).
Question #14 Strengths and Weaknesses *Hint* use guidelines in Chapter 18 on page 438-
442 in Step II

a) Identify one
strength of the
study
related to the
content in
this
assignment
(find the
strengths in
the sample,
measurement
methods, data
collection,
or data
analysis)
One strength was in the analysis of data whereby authors effectively performed
all statistical analyses based on statistical software package R and effectively
identified themes of qualitative data based on content analysis.
b) Identify one
weakness of
the study
related to the
content
in this (find
the
The one weakness in the finding is that actual behavior change was never
determined in the study ( Rosenfeld, 2017).

weaknesses in
the sample,
measurement
methods,
data collection,
or
data
analysis)
Question #15 Evaluation
Pick two of the
guidelines and
provide an
answer (your
choice).
In respect of the design guideline; the design remains effective and has helped
the authors effectively answer the research questions ( Rochon et al., 1994)
With respect to validation of instruments and measures guideline, the authors
used instruments as well as measures that were tested thereby guaranteeing
accuracy and reliability (Girden & Kabacoff, 2010).

References
Chair: Danielle Jansen, Netherlands, & Organised by: MOCHA Project. (2017). 10. N.
Workshop: Appraising Primary Care for children and adolescents in Europe–are
we measuring the right things?. The European Journal of Public
Health, 27(suppl_3), ckx187-799.
Gallo, A. M., Wilkie, D. J., Yao, Y., Molokie, R. E., Stahl, C., Hershberger, P. E., ... &
Carrasco, J. (2016). Reproductive health CHOICES for young adults with sickle
cell disease or trait: randomized controlled trial outcomes over two years. Journal
of genetic counseling, 25(2), 325-336.
Girden, E. R., & Kabacoff, R. (Eds.). (2010). Evaluating research articles from start to
finish. Sage.
Rochon, P. A., Gurwitz, J. H., Cheung, C. M., Hayes, J. A., & Chalmers, T. C. (1994).
Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with
the quality of those published in the parent journal. Jama, 272(2), 108-113.
Rosenfeld, P. (2017). How strong is the evidence? A primer on appraising the evidence