Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research: CNA672 Assessment 1

This assignment is a critical appraisal of a qualitative research article focusing on interprofessional clinicians' definitions of moral resilience. The student analyzes the research design, recruitment strategy, data collection methods, and data analysis rigor using the CASP checklist. The appraisal evaluates whether the research design was appropriate, the recruitment strategy effective, and the data collection addressed the research issue. The student assesses the rigor of the data analysis, clarity of findings, and the overall value of the research to clinical practice, particularly regarding how moral resilience can help healthcare professionals address moral distress. The analysis highlights the research's strengths and limitations, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the study's validity and implications for the healthcare field. The student concludes that the research is valuable as it emphasizes the concept of moral resilience and how it can help healthcare professionals address moral distress.

Running head: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Assessment Task 1: Question and Answer
Critical appraisal of qualitative research
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
A: Are the results of the study valid?
3. Is it worth continuing?
Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?
Yes Can’t tell No
The researchers wanted to explore the common themes and characteristics related to
the concept of moral resilience, in relation to interprofessional clinicians who work in the
health and social care sector (Holtz, Heinze and Rushton 2018). The research design was
qualitative in nature and was based on descriptive methods for analysing the definitions that
had been shared by interprofessional clinicians. This can be accredited to the fact that the
scientific method of qualitative research predominantly depends on collection of non-
numerical data through the study of personal experiences, interviews, life story, introspection,
artefacts or interaction. Qualitative research primarily draws answers to research question
related to how or why a particular phenomenon might occur, rather than determining how
often the phenomenon occurs (Silverman 2016).
Appropriateness of the research design can also be associated to the fact that
qualitative research helps in capturing the altering attitudes within a particular research
group, and the research is are not merely restricted by the limitations of quantitative research.
Apart from offering a flexible approach for gaining useful insight, the researchers are also
able to quickly adapt their questions or alter the setting, in addition to variables with the aim
of enhancing the responses (Flick 2018).
Moral resilience typically refers to the capability to easily adjust or recover from
change or misfortune. In addition, it also encompasses the willingness and ability to take
good action, in relation to adversities that are ethical or model in nature (Rushton 2016).
Considering the fact that the researchers wanted to gain a sound understanding of the

2QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
perception and views of interprofessional clinicians, using a qualitative method was correct.
Since qualitative capture of data tends to be speculative about the regions that the researchers
select to investigate, the data collection is often prompted by their instinct (Hennink, Hutter
and Bailey 2020). Not only does the process allow collection of detail oriented information,
but also offers predictive qualities. Though the researchers justified selection of a qualitative
design for the purpose of exploring definitions of moral resilience from the perspective of
interprofessional clinicians, they did not provide an overview of the reason why they selected
this method for conducting the study.
However, qualitative research is not statistically representative therefore the data
duplication might occur over time. Taking into consideration the fact that this type of
research entirely depends on experience of the researcher, absence of appropriate
interviewing skills or the capacity to develop professional bond with the participants
frequently fails to guarantee the accuracy of the collected information. Besides requiring
multiple sessions for collecting information, qualitative research can also lead to misleading
conclusions, and it might be problematic to replicate the findings. Despite fact that this type
of research can also be influenced by researcher bias, and that there was a possibility of the
research findings of being misrepresented, it can be suggested that the research design was
appropriate in addressing the aims.
4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?
Yes Can’t tell No
The researchers did not discuss the steps that were used in selection of the 184
interprofessional clinicians, nor did they elaborate on the approaches by which they
established contact with the participants. The researchers performed purposive sampling and
recruited 184 interprofessional clinicians who attended educational programs in different

3QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
regions in the United States, in addition to a small group of 23 individuals who had
backgrounds like non-clinical healthcare workers and chaplaincy (Holtz, Heinze and Rushton
2018). The recruitment strategy of purposive sampling was based on the aims of the research
since the non-probability samples were selected depending on characteristics present in a
particular population. Also referred to as subjective or selective sampling, this method
allowed the researchers to draw upon an array of qualitative research designs, besides
providing them an opportunity to generalize the data. Although information cannot be
extracted from the target group with the aim of making generic claims, generalisation of data
helped in providing a wider overview of the phenomenon that was being investigated (Etikan,
Musa and Alkassim 2016).
Since the researchers wanted to explore the perception and description of model
resilience as viewed by the interprofessional clinicians, purposive sampling provided
flexibility, thereby saving adequate money and time. The researchers mentioned that
previously no studies had been conducted with the use of open descriptions of
interprofessional clinicians. Hence, they selected this sample, in order to obtain a better
understanding of the healthcare personnel describing characteristics related to the concept of
moral resilience. Inclusion and exclusion criteria help in identifying the characteristics based
on which prospective samples were selected for a particular study. Nonetheless, in this
particular qualitative research, the researchers did not explain any eligibility criteria, based on
which the 184 participants had been selected. Nor did they provide an explanation for the
characters, due to which several participants were excluded from the study that eventually
resulted in this sample size.
Although the information obtained during the sampling procedure had low margin of
error, the findings were tremendously prone to researcher bias, since the sample is reliant on
the personal interpretation and judgment of the researchers (Ames, Glenton and Lewin 2019).

4QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Furthermore, it might often be difficult for the researchers to defend the samples’
representative nature and the interprofessional clinicians might select to act in a manner that
allowed the researchers to draw conclusions that they anticipated.
5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?
Yes Can’t tell No
Data collection comprised of descriptive responses to interviews that comprised of
open ended question investigating how the interprofessional clinicians defined model
resilience (Holtz, Heinze and Rushton 2018). Before an educational program all respondents
had to write down their response. Interview procedure in qualitative research refers to
conversations or questions that are asked to the research participants for eliciting information.
Probably the greatest advantage of this data collection procedure was the detail or depth of
responses that could be obtained from the participants (King, Horrocks and Brooks
2018). While asking them open ended questions, they were provided the opportunity to paint
a picture of their views, perception, opinion, and approach towards the concept of model
resilience, by this means providing a sound understanding and awareness of their
perspectives. In addition, social cues success like intonation, body language, and voice of the
respondents also provided the interviewer extra information that could be incorporated to
their verbal answers, while analysing them (Castillo-Montoya 2016). There was no
information about the setting of data collection, in relation to this research. Though they
clearly mentioned that an open ended question was asked to the participants, there was no
will formulated semi-structured interview. There is a clear mention that the participants had
to write down their response to the open ended question on a note, following which it was
evaluated from a member of the team. Focus groups refer to demographically diverse, small
group of individuals, whose reactions are extensively studied, in an open or written

5QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
discussion that helps in determining the approach and perspectives anticipated from the
population. Therefore, the participants were neither individually interviewed, nor asked to
participate in any focus group.
Detailed description to the question also provided an overview of the hidden
interrelatedness between people, objects, and emotions, unlike different types of data
collection in quantitative research. Not only did the open ended question allow the
participants to give infinite number of probable answers, but also helped the researchers gain
unexpected insights about the phenomenon they were investigating, in addition to
understanding how the participants thought about the topic (Rosenthal 2016). However, the
researchers did not mention about modifying any method at the time of the study. There was
no information about data saturation, as all 184 participants were asked to provide their
response.
B: What are the results?
8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
Yes Can’t tell No
An in-depth analysis of the response procedure has been given. The researchers
clearly examined how they developed the information from different themes are
categories. However, there was no mention of taking into consideration any contradictory
data from the responses of the participants. The data analysis was based on identification of
common themes from the responses obtained. Following transcription of the responses,
sentences, words, and paragraphs that were pertinent to the research aim and objectives were
categorised based on codes, with the phrases capturing the meaning of each (Holtz, Heinze
and Rushton 2018). Performing this thematic analysis was advantageous provided vast

6QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
amount of flexibility to the researchers, in addition to allowing them to interpret the themes
that were backed up by evidences from already existing research (Tracy 2019).
However, reliability of the answers were a matter of major concern taking into
consideration the countless potential data interpretations that were possible, and the
probability for the researchers being subjected to bias (Vaismoradi et al. 2016). On
evaluating the discussion section it can be stated that adequate data was utilised by the
researchers for supporting the findings. They clearly mentioned that results of this research
extend and support findings from previous conceptual scholarships that have investigated the
notion of moral resilience. The findings were consistent with the definition related to moral
resilience that was fundamentally related with integrity. The researchers stated that a sample
of attendees that was self-selected from professional educational programs provided a
reflection of an extent of bias that failed to capture the characteristics outside the sample
population, by this means restricting the generalizability.
9. Is there a clear statement of findings?
Yes Can’t tell No
The findings were explicit and adequate discussion has been given, particularly in
favour of the arguments. Nonetheless, no information has been shared regarding credibility of
the findings like respondent validation, triangulation, or numerous analysts. The researchers
provided a clear statement of the findings that had been obtained, and mentioned that the
primary themes identified after analysing the responses were integrity-relational and
personal, and buoyancy. The secondary themes were self-stewardship, self-regulation and
moral efficacy (Holtz, Heinze and Rushton 2018). The findings of the research suggested that
interprofessional clinicians having model resilience are not only able to foster and build their

7QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
capacity of navigating ethical and model adversities, but are also able to work and develop in
a system that supports and environment for ethical healthcare practice.
C: Will the results help locally?
10. How valuable is the research?
The research is valuable to clinical practice since it emphasizes on the concept of
moral resilience, and highlights that presence of model resilience helps healthcare personnel
to address their suffering such as, model distress. The findings of the research also suggest
that individual healthcare providers can utilise moral resilience for restoring or sustaining
their integrity, in relation to confusion, distress, moral complexity, or setbacks that are
commonly encountered in health and social care practice. Healthcare professionals have to
often come across situations or emotional states when they feel that the responsibility they are
entitled with is strikingly different from the ethically correct action.
When such procedures or policies prevent healthcare professionals from doing what
they considered as correct, a moral distress or dilemma originates. Therefore, by utilising
findings of this research the health care professionals will be able to build moral recipients
during adversities, and all such providers who have the innate capacity of moral resilience
will be able to address their distress. Not only will it enhances the capacity of the providers to
encounter the myriad of ethical dilemmas that day face in the rapid pace healthcare
environment, but will also help them function responsibly and independently in their own
practice.

8QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
References
Ames, H., Glenton, C. and Lewin, S., 2019. Purposive sampling in a qualitative evidence
synthesis: a worked example from a synthesis on parental perceptions of vaccination
communication. BMC medical research methodology, 19(1), p.26.
Castillo-Montoya, M., 2016. Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol
Refinement Framework. Qualitative Report, 21(5).
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S., 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), pp.1-4.
Flick, U., 2018. Designing qualitative research. Sage.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I. and Bailey, A., 2020. Qualitative research methods. SAGE
Publications Limited.
Holtz, H., Heinze, K. and Rushton, C., 2018. Interprofessionals’ definitions of moral
resilience. Journal of clinical nursing, 27(3-4), pp.e488-e494.
King, N., Horrocks, C. and Brooks, J., 2018. Interviews in qualitative research. SAGE
Publications Limited.
Rosenthal, M., 2016. Qualitative research methods: Why, when, and how to conduct
interviews and focus groups in pharmacy research. Currents in pharmacy teaching and
learning, 8(4), pp.509-516.
Rushton, C.H., 2016. Moral resilience: a capacity for navigating moral distress in critical
care. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 27(1), pp.111-119.
Silverman, D. ed., 2016. Qualitative research. Sage.

9QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Tracy, S.J., 2019. Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H. and Snelgrove, S., 2016. Theme development in
qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis.