Critical appraisal tools for research papers

Abstract Background Consumers of research researchers, administrators, educators and clinicians frequently use standard critical appraisal tools to evaluate the quality of published research reports. However, there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate critical appraisal tool for allied health research. We summarized the content, intent, construction and psychometric properties of published, currently available critical appraisal tools to identify common elements and their relevance to allied health research. Methods A systematic review was undertaken of published critical appraisal tools sourced from papers located on electronic databases and the Internet.

Critical appraisal tools for research papers

Overview[ edit ] PAR has multiple progenitors and resists definition. It is a broad tradition of collective self-experimentation backed up by evidential reasoning, fact-finding and learning.

All formulations of PAR have in common the idea that research and action must be done 'with' people and not 'on' or 'for' people. Inquiry based on PAR principles makes sense of the world through collective efforts to transform it, as opposed to simply observing and studying human behaviour and people's views about reality, in the hope that meaningful change will eventually emerge.

PAR draws on a wide range of influences, both among those with professional training and those who draw on their life experience and those of their ancestors.

Many draw on the work of Paulo Freire[14] new thinking on adult education research, [15] the Civil Rights Movement[16] South Asian social movements such as the Bhoomi Sena, [3] [17] and key initiatives such as the Participatory Research Network created in and based in New Delhi.

Critical appraisal tools for research papers

Critical appraisal tools for research papers recommendations to researchers committed to the struggle for justice and greater democracy in all spheres, including the business of science, are useful for all researchers and echo the teaching from many schools of research: Do not trust elitist versions of history and science which respond to dominant interests, but be receptive to counter-narratives and try to recapture them.

Do not depend solely on your culture to interpret facts, but recover local values, traits, beliefs, and arts for action by and with the research organisations.

Do not impose your own ponderous scientific style for communicating results, but diffuse and share what you have learned together with the people, in a manner that is wholly understandable and even literary and pleasant, for science should not be necessarily a mystery nor a monopoly of experts and intellectuals.

However alternative traditions of PAR, begin with processes that include more bottom-up organising and popular education than were envisaged by Lewin. PAR strategies to democratize knowledge making and ground it in real community needs and learning[ clarification needed What are these strategies?

These principles and the ongoing evolution of PAR have had a lasting legacy in fields ranging from problem solving in the workplace to community development and sustainable livelihoods, education, public health, feminist research and civic engagement.

It is important to note that these contributions are subject to many tensions and debates on key issues such as the role of clinical psychology, critical social thinking and the pragmatic concerns of organizational learning in PAR theory and practice.

Labels used to define each approach PAR, critical PAR, action research, psychosociology, sociotechnical analysis, etc. While a common denominator, the combination of participation, action and research reflects the fragile unity of traditions whose diverse ideological and organizational contexts kept them separate and largely ignorant of one another for several decades.

Work with us

Closely related approaches that overlap but do not bring the three components together are left out. Applied researchfor instance, is not necessarily committed to participatory principles and may be initiated and controlled mostly by experts, with the implication that 'human subjects' are not invited to play a key role in science building and the framing of the research questions.

As in mainstream science, this process "regards people as sources of information, as having bits of isolated knowledge, but they are neither expected nor apparently assumed able to analyze a given social reality". PAR, in contrast, has evolved from the work of activists more concerned with empowering marginalized peoples than with generating academic knowledge for its own sake.

Lewin's seminal contribution involves a flexible, scientific approach to planned change that proceeds through a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of 'a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action', towards an organizational 'climate' of democratic leadership and responsible participation that promotes critical self-inquiry and collaborative work.

An important offshoot of Tavistock thinking and practise is the sociotechnical systems perspective on workplace dynamics, guided by the idea that greater productivity or efficiency does not hinge on improved technology alone.

Improvements in organizational life call instead for the interaction and 'joint optimization' of the social and technical components of workplace activity. In this perspective, the best match between the social and technical factors of organized work lies in principles of 'responsible group autonomy' and industrial democracyas opposed to deskilling and top-down bureaucracy guided by Taylor 's scientific management and linear chain of command.

Process consultation, team building, conflict management, and workplace group democracy and autonomy have become recurrent themes in the prolific body of literature and practice known as organizational development OD.

On the whole, however, science tends to be a means, not an end. Workplace and organizational learning interventions are first and foremost problem-based, action-oriented and client-centred. Psychosociology[ edit ] Tavistock broke new ground in other ways as well, by meshing general medicine and psychiatry with Freudian and Jungian psychology and the social sciences to help the British army face various human resource problems.

This gave rise to a field of scholarly research and professional intervention loosely known as psychosociology, particularly influential in France CIRFIP. Several schools of thought and 'social clinical' practise belong to this tradition, all of which are critical of the experimental and expert mindset of social psychology.

In addition to this humanistic and democratic agenda, psychosociology uses concepts of psychoanalytic inspiration to address interpersonal relations and the interplay between self and group. It acknowledges the role of the unconscious in social behaviour and collective representations and the inevitable expression of transference and countertransference —language and behaviour that redirect unspoken feelings and anxieties to other people or physical objects taking part in the action inquiry.

Key differences between these schools and the methods they use stem from the weight they assign to the analyst's expertise in making sense of group behaviour and views and also the social aspects of group behaviour and affect.

Another issue is the extent to which the intervention is critical of broader institutional and social systems. The use of psychoanalytic concepts and the relative weight of effort dedicated to research, training and action also vary. It has left a singular mark on the field of rural and community development, especially in the Global South.Critical appraisal skills enable you to systematically assess the trustworthiness, relevance and results of published papers.

The Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) has over 25 years of significant and unrivalled expertise in the delivery of training to healthcare professionals.

Research. Our research is recognised for its exceptional quality and international reputation. We are supported by RCUK, EU and industry funding. Research papers provide information on current practice and new developments in the diagnosis, prevention and Therefore, different critical appraisal tools may be utilised to assess the varying study designs available.

Additionally, some study questions may preclude themselves to . Research Resources and Research Tools by Marcus P. Zillman. Critical Appraisal tools. Critical appraisal is the systematic evaluation of clinical research papers in order to establish: Does this study address a clearly focused question?; Did the study use valid methods to address this question?

Critical appraisal is a systematic process used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a research article in order to assess the usefulness and validity of research .

Critical thinking - Wikipedia