Demystifying Quantitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide for Nurses

This article provides a comprehensive step-by-step guide to critiquing quantitative research, specifically tailored for nurses. It aims to demystify the research process and decode complex terminology, emphasizing the importance of critical appraisal in evidence-based practice. The authors, Michael Coughlan, Patricia Cronin, and Frances Ryan, discuss the significance of evaluating research to ensure the use of current best practices in patient care. The article differentiates between critiquing and criticism, highlighting the need for an objective evaluation of a study's strengths and limitations. It introduces credibility and integrity variables as key elements in the research process, providing a framework for nurses to assess the believability and robustness of quantitative studies. The guide covers essential aspects of research evaluation, including writing style, author qualifications, report titles, abstracts, purpose, logical consistency, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, aims, sample selection, ethical considerations, and data analysis. The article encourages a systematic approach to evaluating each step of the research process, emphasizing the implications of the researcher's decisions on the study's overall strength and applicability to nursing practice. The authors provide a table with research questions to guide nurses in critiquing a quantitative research study.

Step-by-step guide to critiq
research. Part 1: quantitative r
Abstract
When caring for patients it is essential that nurses are using the
current best practice. To determine what this is, nurses must be able
to read research critically. But for many qualified and student nurses
the terminology used in research can be difficult to understand
thus making critical reading even more daunting. It is imperative
in nursing that care has its foundations in sound research and it is
essential that all nurses have the ability to critically appraise research
to identify what is best practice. This article is a step-by step-approach
to critiquing quantitative research to help nurses demystify the
process and decode the terminology.
Key words: Quantitative researchn Review processn Research
methodologies
For many qualifiednursesand nursingstudents
research is research, and it is often quite difficult
to grasp what others are referring to when they
discussthe limitationsand or strengthswithin
a researchstudy.Researchtextsand journalsrefer to
critiquing the literature, critical analysis, reviewing the
literature, evaluation and appraisal of the literature which
are in essence the same thing (Bassett and Bassett, 2003).
Terminology in research can be confusing for the novice
research reader where a term like ‘random’ refers to an
organized manner of selecting items or participants, and the
word ‘significance’ is applied to a degree of chance. Thus
the aim of this article is to take a step-by-step approach to
critiquing research in an attempt to help nurses demystify
the process and decode the terminology.
When caring for patients it is essential that nurses are
using the current best practice. To determine what this is
nurses must be able to read research. The adage ‘All that
glitters is not gold’ is also true in research. Not all research
is of the same quality or of a high standard and therefore
nurses should not simply take research at face value simply
because it has been published (Cullum and Droogan, 1999;
Polit and Beck, 2006). Critiquing is a systematic method of
Michael Coughlan, Patricia Cronin, Frances R
appraising the strengths and limitations of a piece of res
in order to determine its credibility and/or its applicabilit
to practice (Valente, 2003). Seeking only limitations
study is criticism and critiquing and criticism are not the
same (Burns and Grove, 1997). A critique is an imperson
evaluation of the strengths and limitations of the researc
being reviewed and should not be seen as a disparagem
of the researchers ability. Neither should it be regarded a
a jousting match between the researcher and the review
Burns and Grove (1999) call this an ‘intellectual criti
in that it is not the creator but the creation that is being
evaluated. The reviewer maintains objectivity through
the critique.No personalviews are expressedby the
reviewer and the strengths and/or limitations of the stud
and the implications of these are highlighted with referen
to research texts or journals. It is also important to reme
that research works within the realms of probability whe
nothing is absolutely certain. It is therefore importan
refer to the apparent strengths, limitations and findi
of a piece of research (Burns and Grove, 1997). The
of personal pronouns is also avoided in order that a
appearance of objectivity can be maintained.
Credibility and integrity
There are numerous tools available to help both novice a
advanced reviewers to critique research studies (Tan
2003). These tools generally ask questions that can help
reviewer to determine the degree to which the steps in t
research process were followed. However, some step
more important than others and very few tools acknowle
this. Ryan-Wenger(1992)suggeststhat questionsin a
critiquing tool can be subdivided in those that are u
for getting a feel for the study being presented which she
calls ‘credibility variables’ and those that are essenti
evaluating the research process called ‘integrity variable
Credibility variables concentrate on how believable
work appears and focus on the researcher’s qualification
ability to undertake and accurately present the stud
answers to these questions are important when criti
a piece of research as they can offer the reader an
into what to expectin the remainderof the study.
However, the reader should be aware that identified stre
and limitationswithin this sectionwill not necessarily
correspond with what will be found in the rest of the wor
Integrity questions, on the other hand, are interested in t
robustness of the research method, seeking to identify h
appropriately and accurately the researcher followed
steps in the research process. The answers to these ques
658 British Journal of Nursing, 2007, Vol 16, No 11
Michael Coughlan, Patricia Cronin and Frances Ryan are Lecturers,
School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dublin, Trinity
College, Dublin
Accepted for publication: March 2007

Author(s)
The author(s’) qualifications and job title can be a useful
indicator into the researcher(s’) knowledge of the area
under investigation and ability to ask the appropriate
questions(Conkin Dale, 2005).Converselya research
study should be evaluated on its own merits and not
assumed to be valid and reliable simply based on the
author(s’) qualifications.
Report title
The title should be between 10 and 15 words long and
should clearly identify for the reader the purpose of the
study (Connell Meehan, 1999). Titles that are too long or
too short can be confusing or misleading (Parahoo, 2006).
Abstract
The abstract should provide a succinct overview of the
research and should include information regarding the
purpose of the study, method, sample size and selection,
will help to identify the trustworthiness of the study and its
applicability to nursing practice.
Critiquing the research steps
In critiquing the steps in the research process a number
of questions need to be asked. However, these questions
are seeking more than a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. The
questions are posed to stimulate the reviewer to consider
the implications of what the researcher has done. Does the
way a step has been applied appear to add to the strength
of the study or does it appear as a possible limitation to
implementation of the study’s findings? (Table 1).
Elements influencing believability of the study
Writing style
Research reports should be well written, grammatically
correct, concise and well organized. The use of jargon should
be avoided where possible. The style should be such that it
attracts the reader to read on (Polit and Beck, 2006).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
British Journal of Nursing, 2007, Vol 16, No 11 659
Table 1. Research questions - guidelines for critiquing a quantitative research study
Elements Questions
Writing style Is the report well written – concise, grammatically correct, avoid the use of jargon? Is it well laid out and
organized?
Author Do the researcher(s’) qualifications/position indicate a degree of knowledge in this particular field?
Report title Is the title clear, accurate and unambiguous?
Abstract Does the abstract offer a clear overview of the study including the research problem, sample,
methodology, finding and recommendations?
Elements Questions
Purpose/research Is the purpose of the study/research problem clearly identified?
Problem
Logical consistency Does the research report follow the steps of the research process in a logical manner? Do these steps
naturally flow and are the links clear?
Literature review Is the review logically organized? Does it offer a balanced critical analysis of the literature? Is the majority
of the literature of recent origin? Is it mainly from primary sources and of an empirical nature?
Theoretical frameworkHas a conceptual or theoretical framework been identified? Is the framework adequately described?
Is the framework appropriate?
Aims/objectives/ Have aims and objectives, a research question or hypothesis been identified? If so are they clearly
research question/ stated? Do they reflect the information presented in the literature review?
hypotheses
Sample Has the target population been clearly identified? How were the sample selected? Was it a probability
or non-probability sample? Is it of adequate size? Are the inclusion/exclusion criteria clearly identified?
Ethical considerations Were the participants fully informed about the nature of the research? Was the autonomy/
confidentiality of the participants guaranteed? Were the participants protected from harm? Was ethical
permission granted for the study?
Operational definitionsAre all the terms, theories and concepts mentioned in the study clearly defined?
Methodology Is the research design clearly identified? Has the data gathering instrument been described? Is the
instrument appropriate? How was it developed? Were reliability and validity testing undertaken and the
results discussed? Was a pilot study undertaken?
Data Analysis / resultsWhat type of data and statistical analysis was undertaken? Was it appropriate? How many of the sample
participated? Significance of the findings?
Discussion Are the findings linked back to the literature review? If a hypothesis was identified was it supported?
Were the strengths and limitations of the study including generalizability discussed? Was a
recommendation for further research made?
References Were all the books, journals and other media alluded to in the study accurately referenced?
Elements influencing the believability of the research
Elements influencing the robustness of the research

the main findings and conclusions and recommendations
(Conkin Dale, 2005). From the abstract the reader should
be able to determine if the study is of interest and whether
or not to continue reading (Parahoo, 2006).
Elements influencing robustness
Purpose of the study/research problem
A research problem is often first presented to the reader in
the introduction to the study (Bassett and Bassett, 2003).
Depending on what is to be investigated some authors will
refer to it as the purpose of the study. In either case the
statement should at least broadly indicate to the reader what
is to be studied (Polit and Beck, 2006). Broad problems are
often multi-faceted and will need to become narrower and
more focused before they can be researched. In this the
literature review can play a major role (Parahoo, 2006).
Logical consistency
A research study needs to follow the steps in the process in a
logical manner. There should also be a clear link between the
steps beginning with the purpose of the study and following
through the literature review, the theoretical framework, the
research question, the methodology section, the data analysis,
and the findings (Ryan-Wenger, 1992).
Literature review
The primary purpose of the literature review is to define
or develop the research question while also identifying
an appropriatemethodof data collection(Burns and
Grove, 1997). It should also help to identify any gaps in
the literature relating to the problem and to suggest how
those gaps might be filled. The literature review should
demonstrate an appropriate depth and breadth of reading
around the topic in question. The majority of studies
included should be of recent origin and ideally less than
five years old. However, there may be exceptions to this,
for example, in areas where there is a lack of research, or a
seminal or all-important piece of work that is still relevant to
current practice. It is important also that the review should
include some historical as well as contemporary material
in order to put the subject being studied into context. The
depth of coverage will depend on the nature of the subject,
for example, for a subject with a vast range of literature then
the review will need to concentrate on a very specific area
(Carnwell, 1997). Another important consideration is the
type and source of literature presented. Primary empirical
data from the original source is more favourable than a
secondarysourceor anecdotalinformationwhere the
author relies on personal evidence or opinion that is not
founded on research.
A good review usually begins with an introduction which
identifies the key words used to conduct the search and
information about which databases were used. The themes
that emerged from the literature should then be presented
and discussed(Carnwell,1997).In presentingprevious
work it is important that the data is reviewed critically,
highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the study.
It should also be compared and contrasted with the findings
of other studies (Burns and Grove, 1997).
Theoretical framework
Following the identificationof the researchproblem
and the review of the literature the researcher shou
present the theoretical framework (Bassett and Bass
2003). Theoretical frameworks are a concept that no
and experienced researchers find confusing. It is init
important to note that not all research studies use a defi
theoreticalframework(Robson, 2002).A theoretical
framework can be a conceptual model that is used
guide for the study (Conkin Dale, 2005) or themes from
the literature that are conceptually mapped and used to
boundaries for the research (Miles and Huberman, 1994)
A sound framework also identifies the various conce
being studied and the relationship between those concep
(Burns and Grove, 1997). Such relationships should h
been identified in the literature. The research study shou
then build on this theory through empirical observat
Some theoretical frameworks may include a hypothe
Theoretical frameworks tend to be better developed
experimental and quasi-experimental studies and ofte
poorly developed or non-existent in descriptive studi
(Burns and Grove, 1999). The theoretical framework sho
be clearly identified and explained to the reader.
Aims and objectives/research question/
research hypothesis
The purpose of the aims and objectives of a study, the re
question and the research hypothesis is to form a link be
the initially stated purpose of the study or research prob
and how the study will be undertaken (Burns and G
1999). They should be clearly stated and be congruent w
the data presented in the literature review. The use of th
items is dependent on the type of research being perform
Some descriptive studies may not identify any of these it
but simply refer to the purpose of the study or the resea
problem, others will include either aims and objectiv
research questions (Burns and Grove, 1999). Correla
designs, study the relationships that exist between t
more variables and accordingly use either a research que
or hypothesis. Experimental and quasi-experimental s
should clearly state a hypothesis identifying the vari
be manipulated, the population that is being studied and
predicted outcome (Burns and Grove, 1999).
Sample and sample size
The degree to which a sample reflects the populatio
was drawn from is known as representativeness and
quantitative research this is a decisive factor in determin
the adequacy of a study (Polit and Beck, 2006). In
to select a sample that is likely to be representative
thus identify findings that are probably generalizable
the target population a probability sample should be use
(Parahoo, 2006). The size of the sample is also important
quantitative research as small samples are at risk o
overly representative of small subgroups within the targe
population. For example, if, in a sample of general nurse
was noticed that 40% of the respondents were males, th
males would appear to be over represented in the sampl
thereby creating a sampling error. The risk of sampli
660 British Journal of Nursing, 2007, Vol 16, No 11

Methodology: research design
Methodologyrefersto the nuts and bolts of how a
researchstudy is undertaken. Thereare a numberof
important elements that need to be referred to here and
the first of these is the research design. There are several
types of quantitative studies that can be structured under
the headingsof true experimental,quasi–experimental
and non–experimental designs (Robson, 2002) (Table 2).
Although it is outside the remit of this article, within each
of these categories there are a range of designs that will
impact on how the data collection and data analysis phases
of the study are undertaken. However, Robson (2002)
states these designs are similar in many respects as most
are concerned with patterns of group behaviour, averages,
tendencies and properties.
Methodology: data collection
The next element to consider after the research design
is the data collection method. In a quantitative study any
number of strategies can be adopted when collecting data
and these can include interviews, questionnaires, attitude
scales or observational tools. Questionnaires are the most
commonly used data gathering instruments and consist
mainly of closed questions with a choice of fixed answers.
Postal questionnaires are administered via the mail and have
the value of perceived anonymity. Questionnaires can also be
administered in face-to-face interviews or in some instances
over the telephone (Polit and Beck, 2006).
Methodology: instrument design
After identifying the appropriate data gathering method
the next step that needs to be considered is the design
of the instrument. Researchers have the choice of using
a previously designed instrument or developing one for
the study and this choice should be clearly declared for
the reader. Designing an instrument is a protracted and
sometimes difficult process (Burns and Grove, 1997) but the
overall aim is that the final questions will be clearly linked
to the research questions and will elicit accurate information
and will help achieve the goals of the research. This, however,
needs to be demonstrated by the researcher.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
British Journal of Nursing, 2007, Vol 16, No 11 661
errors decrease as larger sample sizes are used (Burns and
Grove, 1997). In selecting the sample the researcher should
clearly identify who the target population are and what
criteria were used to include or exclude participants. It
should also be evident how the sample was selected and
how many were invited to participate (Russell, 2005).
Ethical considerations
Beauchamp and Childress (2001) identify four fundamental
moral principles: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence
and justice. Autonomy infers that an individual has the right
to freely decide to participate in a research study without
fear of coercion and with a full knowledge of what is being
investigated. Non-maleficence implies an intention of not
harming and preventing harm occurring to participants
both of a physicaland psychologicalnature(Parahoo,
2006). Beneficence is interpreted as the research benefiting
the participant and society as a whole (Beauchamp and
Childress, 2001). Justice is concerned with all participants
being treated as equals and no one group of individuals
receiving preferential treatment because, for example, of
their position in society (Parahoo, 2006). Beauchamp and
Childress (2001) also identify four moral rules that are both
closely connected to each other and with the principle of
autonomy. They are veracity (truthfulness), fidelity (loyalty
and trust), confidentiality and privacy. The latter pair are often
linked and imply that the researcher has a duty to respect the
confidentiality and/or the anonymity of participants and
non-participating subjects.
Ethical committees or institutional review boards have to
give approval before research can be undertaken. Their role
is to determine that ethical principles are being applied and
that the rights of the individual are being adhered to (Burns
and Grove, 1999).
Operational definitions
In a research study the researcher needs to ensure that
the reader understands what is meant by the terms and
concepts that are used in the research. To ensure this any
concepts or terms referred to should be clearly defined
(Parahoo, 2006).
Table 2. Research designs
Experimental 2 or more groups Random • Groups get • Cause and effect relationship
different treatments
Quasi-experimental One or more groups Random • One variable has not • Cause and effect relationship
been manipulated or but less powerful than
controlled (usually experimental
because it cannot be)
Non-experimental, One or more groups Not applicable • Discover new meaning• Possible hypothesis for
e.g. descriptive and • Describe what alreadyfuture research
includes: cross-sectional, exists • Tentative explanations
correlational, • Measure the relationship
comparative, between two or more
longitudinal studies variables
Sample
Design Sample allocation Features Outcome

If a previously designed instrument is selected the researcher
should clearly establish that chosen instrument is the most
appropriate. This is achieved by outlining how the instrument
has measured the concepts under study. Previously designed
instruments are often in the form of standardized tests
or scales that have been developed for the purpose of
measuring a range of views, perceptions, attitudes, opinions
or even abilities. There are a multitude of tests and scales
available, therefore the researcher is expected to provide the
appropriate evidence in relation to the validity and reliability
of the instrument (Polit and Beck, 2006).
Methodology: validity and reliability
One of the most important features of any instrument is
that it measures the concept being studied in an unwavering
and consistent way. These are addressed under the broad
headings of validity and reliability respectively. In general,
validity is described as the ability of the instrument to
measure what it is supposed to measure and reliability the
instrument’s ability to consistently and accurately measure
the concept under study (Wood et al, 2006). For the most
part, if a well established ‘off the shelf’ instrument has been
used and not adapted in any way, the validity and reliability
will havebeen determinedalreadyand the researcher
should outline what this is. However, if the instrument
has been adapted in any way or is being used for a new
population then previous validity and reliability will not
apply. In these circumstances the researcher should indicate
how the reliability and validity of the adapted instrument
was established (Polit and Beck, 2006).
To establishif the choseninstrumentis clear and
unambiguous and to ensure that the proposed study has
been conceptually well planned a mini-version of the main
study, referred to as a pilot study, should be undertaken before
the main study. Samples used in the pilot study are generally
omitted from the main study. Following the pilot study the
researcher may adjust definitions, alter the research question,
address changes to the measuring instrument or even alter
the sampling strategy.
Having described the research design, the researcher should
outline in clear, logical steps the process by which the data
was collected. All steps should be fully described and easy to
follow (Russell, 2005).
Analysis and results
Data analysis in quantitative research studies is often seen
as a daunting process. Much of this is associated with
apparently complex language and the notion of statistical
tests. The researcher should clearly identify what statistical
testswere undertaken,why thesetestswere used and
what were the results. A rule of thumb is that studies that
are descriptive in design only use descriptive statistics,
correlational studies, quasi-experimental and experimental
studies use inferential statistics. The latter is subdivided
into tests to measure relationships and differences between
variables (Clegg, 1990).
Inferentialstatisticaltestsare used to identify if a
relationship or difference between variables is statistically
significant. Statistical significance helps the researcher to
rule out one important threat to validity and that is that t
result could be due to chance rather than to real differen
in the population. Quantitative studies usually identify th
lowest level of significance as P≤0.05 (P = probability)
(Clegg, 1990).
To enhancereadabilityresearchersfrequentlypresent
their findings and data analysis section under the headin
of the research questions (Russell, 2005). This can help t
reviewer determine if the results that are presented clea
answer the research questions. Tables, charts and graph
be used to summarize the results and should be ac
clearly identified and enhance the presentation of re
(Russell, 2005).
The percentageof the samplewho participatedin
the studyis an importantelementin consideringthe
generalizability of the results. At least fifty percent o
sample is needed to participate if a response bias is
avoided (Polit and Beck, 2006).
Discussion/conclusion/recommendations
The discussion of the findings should flow logically from t
data and should be related back to the literature review t
placing the study in context (Russell, 2002). If the hypoth
was deemedto havebeen supportedby the findings,
the researcher should develop this in the discussion.
theoretical or conceptual framework was used in the stud
then the relationship with the findings should be explored
Any interpretations or inferences drawn should be cl
identified as such and consistent with the results.
The significance of the findings should be stated b
these should be considered within the overall streng
and limitations of the study (Polit and Beck, 2006). In this
section some consideration should be given to wheth
or not the findings of the study were generalizable,
referred to as external validity. Not all studies make a cla
to generalizability but the researcher should have undert
an assessment of the key factors in the design, sampling
analysis of the study to support any such claim.
Finally the researcher should have explored the cli
significance and relevance of the study. Applying find
in practice should be suggested with caution and wi
obviously depend on the nature and purpose of the study
In addition,the researchershould make relevantand
meaningfulsuggestionsfor future researchin the area
(Connell Meehan, 1999).
References
The research study should conclude with an accurate
of all the books, journal articles, reports and other m
that were referred to in the work (Polit and Beck, 2
The referenced material is also a useful source of fu
information on the subject being studied.
Conclusions
The process of critiquing involves an in-depth examinatio
of each stage of the research process. It is not a criticism
rather an impersonal scrutiny of a piece of work usi
balanced and objective approach, the purpose of which i
highlight both strengths and weaknesses, in order to iden
662 British Journal of Nursing, 2007, Vol 16, No 11

whether a piece of research is trustworthy and unbiased. As
nursing practice is becoming increasingly more evidenced
based, it is important that care has its foundations in sound
research. It is therefore important that all nurses have the
ability to critically appraise research in order to identify what
is best practice. BJN
Bassett C, Bassett J (2003) Reading and critiquing research. Br J Perioper
Nurs 13(4): 162–4
Beauchamp T, Childress J (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th edn.
Oxford University Press, Oxford
Burns N, Grove S (1997) The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique
and Utilization. 3rd edn. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia
Burns N, Grove S (1999) Understanding Nursing Research. 2nd edn. WB
Saunders Company, Philadelphia
Carnell R (1997) Critiquing research. Nurs Pract 8(12): 16–21
Clegg F (1990) Simple Statistics: A Course Book for the Social Sciences. 2nd edn.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Conkin Dale J (2005) Critiquing research for use in practice. J Pediatr Health
Care 19: 183–6
Connell Meehan T (1999) The research critique. In: Treacy P, Hyde A, eds.
Nursing Research and Design. UCD Press, Dublin: 57–74
Cullum N, Droogan J (1999) Using research and the role of systematic
reviews of the literature. In: Mulhall A, Le May A, eds. Nursing Research:
Disseminationand Implementation.Churchill Livingstone,Edinburgh:
109–23-
Miles M, Huberman A (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd edn. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, Ca
Parahoo K (2006) Nursing Research: Principles, Process and Issues. 2nd edn.
Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills Basingstoke
Polit D, Beck C (2006) Essentials of Nursing Care: Methods, Appraisal and
Utilization. 6th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia
Robson C (2002) Real World Research. 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford
Russell C (2005) Evaluating quantitative research reports. Nephrol Nurs J
32(1): 61–4
Ryan-Wenger N (1992) Guidelines for critique of a research report. Heart
Lung 21(4): 394–401
Tanner J (2003) Reading and critiquing research. Br J Perioper Nurs 13(4):
162–4
Valente S (2003) Research dissemination and utilization: Improving care at
the bedside. J Nurs Care Quality 18(2): 114–21
Wood MJ, Ross-Kerr JC, Brink PJ (2006) Basic Steps in Planning Nursing
Research: From Question to Proposal 6th edn. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury
KEY POINTS
■ Many qualified and student nurses have difficulty
understanding the concepts and terminology associated
with research and research critique.
■ The ability to critically read research is essential if the
profession is to achieve and maintain its goal to be
evidenced based.
■ A critique of a piece of research is not a criticism of
the work, but an impersonal review to highlight the
strengths and limitations of the study.
■ It is important that all nurses have the ability to critically
appraise research in order to identify what is best
practice.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
British Journal of Nursing, 2007, Vol 16, No 11 663