Assessing the quality of research needs to go beyond scoring: commentary on Crowe and Sheppard (2011): authors' response
Crowe, Michael, and Sheppard, Lorraine (2012) Assessing the quality of research needs to go beyond scoring: commentary on Crowe and Sheppard (2011): authors' response. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49 (8). pp. 1048-1050.
|PDF (Published Version) - Registered users only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
|PDF (Published Version) - Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
View at Publisher Website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.201...
[Extract] To evaluate the quality of research is one of the most challenging steps in review processes, either as part of systematic reviews or peer review. Throughout the last decades, a number of criteria have been discussed and various instruments have been proposed.
The critical appraisal tool (CAT) newly developed by Crowe and Sheppard (2011) contributes to this increasing methodological inventory. It was developed based on a critical review of more than 40 CATs and reporting guidelines for different study designs of primary and secondary research (Crowe and Sheppard, 2011a). Its structure follows that of reporting guidelines. The tool contains eight sections following the study outline, e.g. introduction, design, sample, or findings. Each section is divided into sub-sections containing different descriptors, which focus either on reporting issues or aspects of research conduct and aim to guide the reviewer through the appraisal process. Based on the judgements made for each applicable descriptor, the reviewer has to assign a score between 0 and 5 to each section of the study report.
Although the CAT was developed and validated systematically, there are limitations which, in my view, require further discussion.
|Item Type:||Article (Commentary)|
|Keywords:||bias (epidemiology); publishing/standards; critical appraisal; quality control; risk assessment; evidence-based practice|
|FoR Codes:||11 MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES > 1117 Public Health and Health Services > 111799 Public Health and Health Services not elsewhere classified @ 60%|
16 STUDIES IN HUMAN SOCIETY > 1608 Sociology > 160807 Sociological Methodology and Research Methods @ 40%
|SEO Codes:||92 HEALTH > 9299 Other Health > 929999 Health not elsewhere classified @ 50%|
97 EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE > 970111 Expanding Knowledge in the Medical and Health Sciences @ 50%
|Deposited On:||08 Oct 2012 12:29|
|Last Modified:||02 Nov 2012 14:41|
Last 12 Months: 0
|Citation Counts with External Providers:|
Repository Staff Only: item control page