Critical Appraisal of Research Methodology

Running head: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1
Critical appraisal of research methodology
Name of Student
Institutional Affiliation
Name of Professor
Date

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2
Critical appraisal of research methodology
Introduction
Critical appraisal is a systematic process of assessing the outcomes of a scientific
research study based on evidence to determine the relevance, value, and its trustworthiness in a
particular field of study (Zeng et al., 2015, pp.2-10). Additionally, it seeks to evaluate the way
studies are conducted against the factors like the internal validity and the generalizability of the
results to the entire population. This appraisal aims at critically examining two articles whereby
one is based on the quantitative research while the other is based on the qualitative research
study in the field of health and human services management. In this study, the first section will
highlight the tools selected while the precedent parts will critically review the research methods
used in the research articles’ case studies. The ethical issues and the summary of the strengths
and weaknesses of the implied methodologies will also be outlined.
Selection of the critical appraisal tools
The critical appraisal tools selected for the research articles’ methodology are the
decision analysis and the qualitative research appraisal tools. According to (Greco, Salvatore,
and Ehrgott, 2016), the decision analysis is an objective critical appraisal method that uses vital
models that represent the particular medical scenario and allows the application of the Evidence-
Based Medicine (EBM). In this tool, the factors involved in the selection of a certain strategy
from a given set of decisions are quantitatively evaluated. Moreover, this tool was suitable for
the (Liang and Wollersheim, 2017, pp.16-23) article on assessing the competence of Evidence-
Informed Decision-Making amongst the service managers since it was the best in evaluating the
steps in this study. However, the qualitative critical appraisal tool was selected for evaluating the
methodology used in the article on separation of families of Sudanese refugees that live in
Australia (Savic, Chur-Hansen, and Mahmood, 2018, pp.383-387). This is due to the nature of
the methodology used in collection and analysis of data, which were based on qualitative
methods.

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3
Critical appraisal
Research article 1: (Liang and Wollersheim, 2017, pp.16-23)
This is a quantitative research study aimed at determining the competency in the use of
Evidence-Informed Decision-Making by the mid-level managers in health services. The case
study research also aims to demonstrate the behaviour of mid-level health managers that requires
improvement both at the organizational and individual level. The decision analysis questions are
varied against the methods of selection of participants, collection of data, and the data analysis
methods to determine the critical issues, both the strengths and the weaknesses of the study.
Critical appraisal checklist based on decision analysis tool
The tool seeks to examine whether the following was clearly stated, the patient group
over which the decision analysis should be applied? The patients’ health problem, the setting for
the care, and who is providing the care? These questions in the analysis tool all answered in the
abstract part of the research article on page 16 except the patient group is unspecified but rather
the study applies to all groups in the two Victorian hospitals.
The tool further evaluates the results of the study using the following set of questions.
Were all the strategies and outcomes included in the study? Does the model illustrate the
decision tree diagram? Were all the clinical realistic strategies compared? From the research
article, these questions cannot be determined since the decision tree diagram that could guide the
consumers of the study results from determining these factors was not included in the research
(Gokgoz and Ercan, 2015, pp.138-144). However, the tool further questions whether the relevant
outcomes were considered. These are, does the study include outcomes that matter to patients?
Does it address both the quantity and quality of life? From the article, these matters are covered
using the assessment of the managers on a Likert scale found on page 18 of the article. Such
aspects include the competence to guide the medical stuff, proficient, and superior expertise for
coaching and directing the staff in the effort of caring for the patients.
Another critic from appraisal tool is whether the sensible process was explicitly used to
identify, combine, and select the evidence into probabilities. Did the researcher give enough
information about how they searched for the literature to identify the studies they included? Do

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4
they give enough information on how the probability values were assigned? From the research
report, the author has shown enough information used to obtain the quantitative data used. The
research used a 3600 subjective assessment method and an effective case study that is based on
the objective assessment. The analysis methods such as the use of SPSS software used for the
raw data downloaded has been identified in the study as explained on page 18 (Green and
Samuel, 2016). However, the research did not explain how the probability figures displayed from
the statistical competency calculation for the EIDM were arrived at on page 19 of the article.
The next section for critical appraisal was to determine whether the report has shown the
credible sources for the utilities. Are the source of utility rating indicated? Are the individuals
making the ratings a representative of the group the decision analysis is aimed at? The article has
cleared covered the sections whereby the mean score rating of different behavioural activities of
the mid-level managers at the Victorian hospitals is presented in a table format on page 19.
These ratings are for the target managers at the hospitals who are the core determinant of the
quality of services offered to the patients. Additionally, the researcher has outlined all the
sources applied in the article, which are summarized in the reference section on page 23. The
source is also well referenced according to the required standards.
Another important critique to be examined are the results. This intent to investigate the
baseline analysis of the research concerning the research questions. In this section, does the
strategy result in a clinical importance gain for the patients? In addition, if not, is the result a
toss-up? From the article, the results indicate that most managers in the Victorian hospitals are
competent in ensuring that the patients have access to a quality medical care at the hospitals.
(Meys et al., 2016, pp.17-29) deduces that by application of the 3600 subjective assessment
method, the results obtained are shown to be viable and implies the method can be applied to
another particular hospital. Moreover, the results from the article are not a toss-up since they
state the implications to the organisations while addressing the key barriers to the Evidence-
Informed Decision-Making factors that should be addressed to all medical facilities. This is
shown on page 21 through page 22 in the article. Therefore, the results can be projected to other
medical facilities to improve the medical care to the respective patients.