Quantitative & Qualitative Article Research Critique

Posted: December 21st, 2022

Quantitative & Qualitative Article Research Critique

Author

Affiliation

Course

Instructor

Due Date

Quantitative & Qualitative Article Research Critique

A key requirement for a scientific paper is that the authors must present the information in a systematic way that allows the audience to follow up without any confusion. Whereas scholarly research papers come in different formats depending on the authors’ desires and aspirations, adhering to widely applied structures make the work more appealing to readers. Papers that include all elements are also engaging and informative. Thus, the study compares and contrasts how a quantitative paper by Hadi et al. (2019) and a qualitative article by Rodriguez et al. (2019) by examining whether the researcher abide by key structures of presenting scientific papers. Despite the strengths and weaknesses in the articles, they offer valuable information that helps to understand how chronic pain impacts the quality of life for patients.

Quantitative Paper – Hadi et al. (2019)

Problem/Purpose

The purpose of the quantitative paper by Hadi et al. (2019) is to assess and explore the effect of chronic pain on the quality of life (QoL) for patients while retrieving both quantitative and qualitative data. The objective is based on the scholars’ argument that chronic pain has become increasingly problematic within primary care settings and can adversely affect the lives of patients. The purpose statement is clear and easy to locate. It is also significant to nursing because it addresses a clinical problem.

Review of Literature

The literature review section is evidently missing in the quantitative article. The authors only give a brief background after the introduction that shows how chronic pain inhibits with every aspect of patients’ lives. They also mention very briefly that the effects of chronic pain on the lives of patients has been well documented in literature. However, Hadi et al. (2019) to the method section without reviewing relevant literature. The absence of the literature review deprives readers of in-depth awareness and knowledge about the subject.

Conceptual/Theoretical Framework

The background information after the introduction serves as the conceptual framework for the study although this does not come out clearly. The brief background information reiterates the significance of examining the effects of chronic pain, and informs that the paper would provide valuable information to meet the objective.

Hypothesis

Other than the objective, Hadi et al. (2019) neither explicitly state the research questions nor the hypothesis. However, readers could consider the information in the background section that chronic pain has become a challenge in primary care and adversely impact on patients’ life to be the hypothesis. The researchers do not give any explanation for their omission of the research questions.

Research Method(s)

The researchers deploy a mixed-methods design but the paper hardly provides any information regarding the initiatives that were implemented to combat any threats or harm to the participants. No information exists whether the scientific paper was subjected to an ethics review board or the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for assessment. Nonetheless, the method section offers clear description of the selected approach.

Research Design

Using a mixed-methods design fit the purpose of the study because it presents an opportunity to gain both qualitative and quantitative data. The selected approach is the most rigorous possible design for this study considering its approach because it allows the research to gain data using qualitative forms and analyze the content using quantitative approaches to find particular trends that respond to the research question. Both the qualitative and quantitative data collected for this study and the manner of their collection was appropriate. For example, using face-to-face semi-structured interviews for collecting data qualitatively provided an opportunity to understand the participants’ attitudes. 

Population and Sample

The article lacks information about the sampling technique used to select the participants. The absence denies readers the chance to know how many participants took part in the exercise, and make it hard to know their features. Providing information on sampling would show how the researchers achieved convenience.However, the researchers provide information about the number of participants and describe their gender.

Data Collection and Measurement

The inclusion/exclusion criteria for the research is clear and the approaches for gathering data in the qualitative and quantitative phases are identified. They gather quantitative data using a survey form having patient data and use face-to-face to collect data for the qualitative phase. The approaches for collecting data for this research are objective, reliable, and valid because they have produced successful findings in past results.

Data Analysis

The researchers analyze qualitative and quantitative data independently. The SPSS software served as the primary tool for analyzing quantitative data. On the other hand, the researchers used thematic analysis to analyze qualitative data. Other statistical data analysis techniques are used in this article which presents this phase as being enlightening and informative. The rich thick description approach and debriefing were used to achieve trustworthiness of the findings.

Presentation of Findings/Implications

The presentation of the results happens in the most appropriate manner. The article clearly identifies the results section into quantitative phase and the qualitative phase. They use tables and figures to present the data, which makes it easy to get a preview of the statistical analysis. The limitation section is clear and allows readers to identify the areas that did not perform as anticipated. For instance, Hadi et al. (2019) inform that their quantitative analysis did not match with regard to gender or age.

Qualitative Paper

A critical analysis of the qualitative paper by Rodriguez et al. (2019) provides valuable information regarding the authors’ attempt to produce an informative paper that has many essential elements as possible. Other than the abstract that hints that the researchers use a qualitative, the research section reaffirms the information. The selected research method matches the purpose of the study, which is to enhance awareness regarding the knowledge of chronic pain caused by spinal deformity among older adults and understanding how cultural elements may influence the experience. Similar to the paper by Hadi et al. (2019), Rodriguez et al. (2019) presents the conceptual framework in the background information after the introductory paragraph, but readers must be keen to identify the guidance. Reading the section implies that the authors conduct their research with a motive of finding solutions to the issues of chronic pain among old people.

Further analysis of the qualitative paper provides more information about its nature. The authors clearly identify the data analysis section where they inform that they used open codification to analyze data, because the primary goals of the study was to make descriptions and know the participants’ views. Hence, readers can term the data analysis process as providing adequate details that may help to understand how the researchers arrived at their results. The analysis of the data and effective presentation develops particular themes that research to the research objective. It emerges that older people suffer chronic pain that affect their quality of life significantly. The other major theme that appear from the data analysis process is disturbed emotional and social relationships. The theme revolves around the knowledge that older people become increasingly unable to engage in physical exercises and duties that they did without any problems during their childhood. The discussion section allows the researchers to provide additional information for the outcomes of their analysis. The discussion presents more information on why chronic pain affects quality of life, especially among older adults. However, the analysis presented a clear image of the topic under investigation. The evident approach the author used to appeal to readers is the rhetoric appeal technic of logos, which entails providing logical information based on empirical evidence. The researchers do not present the limitations of their study yet this could add value and provide guidance for future direction.

Conclusion

The study examines two articles – one takes a quantitative approach and the other one takes a qualitative approach. The analysis of both articles reveals that despite the different approaches that the researchers embrace to respond to their objectives and research questions, the scholars in both instances incorporate certain key elements that form a basic aspect of a research paper. Both papers address a similar topic (chronic pain), which makes it easy to compare and contrast how the researchers present their findings and other critical aspects. The approaches the different scholars use to present their data differ but they help to explain the issue under investigation, thus showing the need to pay considerable attention to each technique and find how they suit the research purpose.

References

Hadi, M., McHugh, G., & Closs, J. (2019). Impact of chronic pain on patients’ quality of life: A comparative mixed-methods study. Journal of Patient Experience, 6(2), 133-141. doi: 10.1177/2374373518786013

Rodriguez, I., Abarca, E., Herskovic, V., Campos, M. (2019). Living with chronic pain: A qualitative study of the daily life of older people with chronic pain in Chile. Pain Research and Management, doi: 10.1155/2019/8148652