Professional Development: Critiquing Research

The ability to critique (critically analyse and evaluate) research from both the

qualitative and quantitative paradigms is an essential skill for occupational

therapists. It is this skill, integrated with expertise gained from clinical practice

that underpins evidence based practice (EBP). Although there are many

definitions of EBP, Muir Gray (1997) defines it as “an approach to decision

making in which the clinician uses the best evidence available, in consultation

with the patient, to decide upon the option which suits the patient best." The

purpose of this assignment is to enable the development of skills in critical

analysis by critiquing a research article, which will contribute to further

development of knowledge and skills in using EBP in clinical settings.

A framework developed by Hek and Moule (2006) (see pages 3- ) has been

used to guide the critique of a research article. A framework was used as

Caldwell et al (2010 pg e1) argue that “ frameworks assist the novice

healthcare practitioner with learning about approaches to research by giving

consideration to aspects of the similarities and differences between the

qualitative and quantitative research paradigms.” This framework was chosen

as it is comprehensive and covers points/questions raised during the critiquing

process, although it is important to remember that it is not a definitive

checklist and other questions may be asked during the critiquing process. The

method, results and discussion sections of a qualitative research article by

Weston, J.M., Norris, E.V., Clark, E.M. (2011). ‘The Invisible Disease: Making

Sense of an Osteoporosis Diagnosis in Older Age’, Qualitative Health

Research, 21(12), pp. 1692-1704, will be critically analysed following a

critique of the article