Peer Assessment of Critical Appraisal in Research Foundations NSM5RFN

This document presents a peer assessment of a critical appraisal of a research article titled "Towards a new orientation: a qualitative longitudinal study of an intensive care recovery programme." The assessment, conducted by a student, evaluates the summarization of the article, the appropriateness of the critique, and areas for improvement. The peer's summary of the article was considered satisfactory, though it could be more concise. The critique was generally appropriate, covering study design, data analysis, and theoretical connections. Areas needing improvement include the purpose of the study's explanation and the inclusion of recommendations in the conclusion. The assessor learned about patient consultations concerning the narrative of illness, different themes of ICU, and the importance of avoiding bias and pre-judgement. The assessment offers recommendations for the peer to enhance their critical review skills, emphasizing the need for multiple readings, avoiding bias, and refraining from premature conclusions.

NSM5RFN Research Foundations
Student ID: (insert your student no. only)
Peer Assessment of Critical Appraisal (500 words)
Title of article reviewed:
Please provide student ID of person who you are reviewing so we can forward your comments to
them
Student ID: 15258112
Please use the following questions to guide your narrative feedback on your fellow student’s critical
appraisal.
 To what extent did your peer summarise the article appropriately?
My peer actually tried his best to summarise the article or rather the journal. According to my
personal judgement or opinion, the summary or the critical review was quite satisfactory. The only
portion that he needs to work on is to be as brief as possible. An example is the first question
concerning the purpose of the study. He was just to give a yes or no answer followed by a brief
justification. However, instead of my peer doing this, he had a lot of irrelevant explanations
thereafter. The other parts were however appropriate.
 Was the critique appropriate?
Actually, the overall critique by my peer was very appropriate. My peer did actually stick to the
required format of the paper .Besides, all the necessary aspects of the critique were well covered
and summarised. The areas that were appropriately covered included the study design that did
include data collection, data analysis, rigor and finally theoretical connections. The only part that
needs improvement from my peer is the purpose of the study.
 Were there parts of the appraisal that could have been improved, and if so how?
As explained earlier, one of the areas that are in need of improvement is the purpose of the study. In
this section, the peer was required to give either a yes or no answer followed by the justification.
The peer however did the opposite. There was a lot of explanation which were not summarised
effectively. A good critical review should be as summarised as possible but with all the necessary
elements. The other parts that need improvement is the conclusion, my peer failed to succitingly
capture the conclusion part as he did not outline some of the recommendations that were explained
in the article. In most cases or research, the conclusion should always accompany the
recommendations.
 What did you learn from the critical appraisal?
In this critical appraisal, I learnt some new aspects from my peer. Besides learning the practical
aspects of conducting a critical appraisal, I learnt that when a patient conducts a series of
consultations concerning the narrative of illness, then patients will have better knowledge on the
overall process of recovery. I also learnt of the different themes of ICU that my peer did mention as
chaos, flashes of insight, coping and finally the theme of revisiting.
 Please provide any additional comments to assist your peer in developing his/her research
knowledge.
1

NSM5RFN Research Foundations
Student ID: (insert your student no. only)
What I could advice or comment on my peers critical review is just to make sure that before he or
she starts the critical appraisal process, he is to make sure that he reads the article several times.
Reading an article several times will enable him carry out the critical review properly and clear the
air on some issues or points that he might be having difficulties initially. Secondly, for my peer to
have a perfect critical appraisal, he is to avoid biasness. I realised that some of my peer have an
interest or preferences in certain lines of research. This might also affect the nature or the outcome
of the appraisal. Finally, my peer should always learn on how to avoid pre-judgement or premature
conclusions. He is to be very patient enough and grasp the whole aspects of the article before
embarking on the appraisal.
2