Individual Paperâ€”Topic: Critique of
Quantitative Research Study: (15% of final course grade: 165 pts total).
total (not including references and title page) This
critique paper will be based on the following article and topic you identified
for your Group EBP project:
adult patients, what is the effect of music as an adjuvant therapy with
prescribed analgesics, in comparison to prescribed analgesics only, on pain?
J. M., Horodyski, M., Parvataneni, H. K., & Horgas, A. L. (2021). A
Controlled Trial of Music for Pain Relief after Arthroplasty Surgery. Pain
nursing: official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses,
22(1), 86â€“93. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2020.09.003
assignment must be strictly following APA guidelines, points will be deducted
if otherwise. Do not use first person throughout the paper until the section
called evaluate the paper. The paper is divided according to the grading
rubric. Make sure that the research critique follows the questions and critique
as outlined in the Polit & Beck (2017) textbook (Box 5.2 pp.
102-105). The questions included in the grading rubric are meant as a
general guideline to help you focus different sections of the paper; however,
students must use the Guide to an Overall Critique of a Quantitative Research
Report outlined by Polit & Beck (2017). Title Page: per APA guidelines (include name of paper,
your name, date, class and instructor name)
(2 or 3 paragraphs): 20 pts
A. Brief Summary of student chosen topic,
importance to nursing & PICO(T) question. B. Problem
Â· Is the problem clearly stated?
Â· Is the problem practically important?
Â· What is the purpose of the study?
C. Hypotheses or research
Â· What is the hypothesis?
D. Literature review
Â· Are the cited sources pertinent to the study?
Â· Is the review too broad or too narrow?
Â· Are the references recent?
Â· Is there any evidence of bias?
framework Â· Was a
conceptual/theoretical framework included?
Â· Are the key terms defined?
(3-4 paragraphs): 30 pts
A. Protection of human rights
Â· Was the study approved
by an IRB?
Â· How were study
B. Research design, population & sample
Â· What research design
Â· Is the research design
appropriate for the study? Explain why or why not
Â· How are randomization,
control, and manipulation applied?
Â· How was the sample
Â· Evaluate the sample
(size, composition, or in the way the sample was selected in relation to the
purpose of the study)? Was the sample appropriate for the research or was it
bias? C. Data collection & measurement
Â· What measurement tools were used?
Â· How was data collected
Â· What are the variables?
Â· How were the procedures structured?
Â· Was a pilot study conducted?
Â· How was sampling performed?
Â· What intervention was used?
RESULTS: (2-3 paragraphs): (30 pts)
A. Data analysis Â· How was data analyzed?
appropriate statistical methods used, given the level of measurement of the
variables, number of groups being compared, and assumptions of the tests?
Â· What statistical analysis was used?
Type I and Type II errors addressed? How?
Â· Did findings support the hypothesis and purpose?
Â· Were weaknesses and problems discussed?
DISCUSSION: (1-2 paragraphs): (20 pts)
of the Findings
Â· Are the conclusions of the study related
to the original purpose?
the findings generalizable to the larger population of interest?
were the findings summarized?
Â· How were the findings
Â· Were the implications discussed?
Â· Whom the results and conclusions will affect?
Â· What recommendations were made at the
CONCLUSION: (2-3 paragraphs) (30 pts)
1. What is your overall assessment of the
study and the article?
2. What suggestions do you have for making changes in
practice based on this article?
3. What suggestions do you have for further research?
4. What barriers exist that may prevent the
implementation of the recommended changes?
can interprofessional teams be used to make improvements based on evidence?
page: per APA guidelines (make sure to cite any source used throughout the
paper including the quantitative research article)
Individual Paperâ€”Topic: Critique of