Title The title is concise (Cormack, 2000) and describes the focus of the research itself.While it clearly indicates what the purpose of the study was (Cormack, 2000), it could be clearer and more indicative of the nature of the study.While the nature of the research in setting out to ‘examine the causal relationships between age, antriretroviral treatment, social support, symptom experience, self-care strategies and health related quality of life’ (Tangkawanich et al, 2008 p 216) in the chosen sample and population, is apparent in the abstract, there is little indication of these particular variables in the title, although the description of the ‘causal model’ (Tangkawanich et al, 2008 p 216) does indicate the nature of the research.
Nurses are expected to provide the best standards of care possible for their patients and clients, and in order to do this, they are required to provide evidence-based practice wherever possible.
Part of this process of providing care based on the best available evidence involves appraising primary research (Elliott, 2001, p 555).
But in order to identify this ‘best evidence’, the nurse must undertake an evaluation and critical review of research studies, to see if the research is useful and of sufficient quality to be applied to their practice (Fink, 2005).
This essay evaluates a quantitative research article which has relevance to nursing practice, because it deals with a chronic condition and one which is prevalent in worldwide populations.
This would suggest that they have the research skills and expertise to carry out such a study.
However, there is no indication in the author list whether or not any of them have the statistical expertise for the study. Abstract Tangkawanich et al, (2008 p 216) provide an abstract, which is identified by Cormack (2000) as an important introduction to the article.Ambiguity and irony presented in the paper could be targets as well."The critique is the process of objectively and critically evaluating a research report's content for scientific merit and application to practice, theory, and education, write Geri Lo Biondo-Wood and Judith Haber. "In other words, a critique is a balanced appraisal, not a hatchet job." ("How to Read a Scientific Article." In "Communicating Science: Professional Contexts," ed. Taylor & Francis, 1998) Arguments by the reviewer also need to be backed up with evidence.Imagine that someone has circulated a memorandum arguing that your company retain your current legal counsel.You, however, are convinced that it is time for a change, and want to demonstrate that....It does not clearly indicate the research approach used (Cormack, 2000).To the less research-aware reader, it would be difficult to divine this information from the title alone, and it could be argued that it would be better to include in this title a clearer indication of the nature of the study.a few-hundred-word review of a book in a newspaper or magazine for the lay audience, for readers to decide whether they should purchase it.If a critique is happening to the first draft of a paper, the issues brought by the reviewers need to be large-scale issues with the premise or procedure of obtaining the results—in the case of a scientific paper peer review—and arguments, such as flaws in logic or source material and fallacies, rather than be criticisms on a line level (grammar and the like).It is important to note here that you can prepare such a demonstration without mentioning any of your colleague's arguments or rebutting them.A critique of your colleague's demonstration, in contrast, requires you to examine the arguments in the demonstration and show that they fail to establish the conclusion that the current legal counsel should be retained."A critique of your colleague's demonstration does not show that its conclusion is wrong.