Critique of Qualitative Design (60 points/12 points each)
Select a qualitative research article related to this PICOT) question. (Does hand washing among healthcare workers reduce hospital acquired infections?)
1. Was the research tradition for the qualitative study identified? If none was identified, can one be inferred?
2. Is the research question congruent with a qualitative approach and with the specific research tradition? Are the data sources and research methods congruent with the research tradition?
3. How well was the research design described? Are design decisions explained and justified? Does it appear that the design emerged during data collection, allowing researchers to capitalize on early information?
4. Did the design lend itself to a thorough, in-depth examination of the focal phenomenon? Was there evidence of reflexivity? What design elements might have strengthened the study (e.g., a longitudinal perspective rather than a cross-sectional one)?
5. Was the study undertaken with an ideological perspective? If so, is there evidence that ideological goals were achieved? (e.g., Was there full collaboration between researchers and participants? Did the research have the power to be transformative?)
1. Was the setting appropriate for addressing the research question, and was it adequately described?
2. What type of sampling strategy was used?
3. Were the eligibility criteria for the study specified? How were participants recruited into the study?
4. Given the information needs of the study—and, if applicable, its qualitative tradition—was the sampling approach effective?
5. Was the sample size adequate and appropriate? Did the researcher indicate that saturation had been achieved? Do the findings suggest a richly textured and comprehensive set of data without any apparent “holes” or thin areas?
6. Were key characteristics of the sample described (e.g., age, gender)? Was a rich description of participants and context provided, allowing for an assessment of the transferability of the findings?