UJIAN TENGAH SEMESTER
SEMESTER GENAP TA. 2017/2018
UNIVERSITAS NGUDI WALUYO
Nama : Rina Pratiwi
NIM : 152211030
MK : EBP
HARI/ TANGGAL : Senin, 24 Oktober 2022
Jurnal yang di critisi:
[Link]
view/246
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES
Rationale for research: Does the paper describe an important clinical problem and is the
question clearly formulated?
If yes, continue with the form below.
If no, find another paper!
1. Was a qualitative approach appropriate?e approach appropriate?
What should I look for? Where do I find the information?
Is the question being asked seeking to The Title, Abstract and
further understanding of people’s views, Introduction/Background should tell you
opinions and/or experiences in relation to a whether a qualitative approach was
specific setting/ scenario/ circumstance? appropriate for the question being asked.
In this paper
Yes No Unclear
√
Comment: Ya, penelitian ini sesuai dimana peneliti memahami atau menjelaskan pengalaman
pengalaman setiap partisipan.
2. Was the sampling strategy appropriate for the approach?
What should I look for?
How were the participants/setting(s)
selected?
Does the sample include a range of
experiences (maximum variation
Where do I find the information?
sample), where all relevant ‘variables’
The Methods should tell you how patients
are accounted for, e.g. gender, age,
were recruited and selected.
geographical location, severity of
condition, social support, socio-economic
background, access to services, ethnicity?
A convenience sample is seldom a good
sampling choice.
In this paper
Yes No Unclear
√
Comment: Populasi penelitian ini adalah remaja putri yang mengalami anemia di
Surabaya. Sampel dipilih dengan tehnik purposive sampling. Data dikumpulkan dengan
metode interview semi terstruktur dan dianalisis menggunakan tehnik analisa data
Colaizzi. Responden didapatkan 10 responden dengan pertimbangan telah terjadi saturasi
data.
Hanya di sebutkan bahwa metode nya menggunakan purposive sampling, tidak
dijelaskan tehnik purposive seperti apa sehingga memudahkan pembaca untuk
mengerti penelitian ini. Selain itu juga tidak dijelaskan usia berapa saja kah yang
diambil sebagai sample.
3. What were the data collection methods?
What should I look for? Where do I find the information?
Are data collection methods described in
sufficient detail to allow you to repeat the
study? Are they transparent and
Look in the Methods section for data
appropriate? E.g. Interviews are useful to
collection information, including interview
explore individual experience(s); Focus
guides and field notes.
groups are useful to explore views of a
particular group or elicit information that
is generated during group discussions.
In this paper
Yes No Unclear
√
Comment: Data dikumpulkan dengan metode interview semi terstruktur dan dianalisis
menggunakan tehnik analisa data Colaizzi. Tidak disebutkan untuk proses wawancara
detailnya, tetapi digambarkan pengumpulan data melalui wawancara yang sudah
diujicobakan, wawancara direkam kemudian di ubah menjadi transkrip.
4. How were data analysed and how were these checked?
What should I look for? Where do I find the information?
Was the data analysis approach The Methods section should provide
appropriate for the methodology used? sufficient information about how data were
E.g. A grounded theory study needs to analysed.
include constant comparison. Are the
analytical steps explained in detail (are
they transparent)? Are the steps to ensure
‘quality control’ described? E.g. Double
coding, research team discussion of
identified item, respondent validation.
In this paper
Yes No Unclear
√
Comment: dianalisis menggunakan tehnik analisa data Colaizzi. Responden didapatkan 10
responden dengan pertimbangan telah terjadi saturasi data. Tidak dijelaskan secara detail
tentang analisis data colaizzi itu seperti apa.
5. Is the researcher’s position described?
What should I look for? Where do I find the information?
It is ideal that the researcher(s) clearly Look in the Methods/Results/Discussion
state their position in relation to the section(s) to see if there is some mention of
research question. For example – their the researcher’s position as part of the
background, gender, and existing research process.
knowledge or personal experience of the
topic to be researched.
In this paper
Yes No Unclear
√
Comment: ya, karena diketahui bahwa tertulis trasnkip hasil wawancara yang dilakukan
antara peneliti dan responden.
What were the results?
6. Do the results make sense?
What should I look for? What does it mean?
Do the results answer the question, do Look in the findings/results section: Have
they make sense and are they credible? the authors provided a range of data (quotes)
(Credibility). Are the themes/theoretical to support their interpretation (themes/
concepts presented credible and do they theoretical concepts) of data? Are the quotes
relate to the research question? indexed so they could be traced back to the
original data set? For example:
atient/participant #2.
Have authors provided ‘negative cases’ i.e.
narratives that do not fit the identified
themes/ theoretical framework. For example
where some participants’ experiences differ
from the main findings (think outliers!)
Have the authors provided context
(background to participant) for quotes in
order to interpret meaning? This should be
relevant to the findings discussed, for
example age and gender/ length or
severity of condition, socio economic
background, educational background, etc.
In this paper
Yes No Unclear
√
Comment: Ya, hasil penelitian ini adalah kredibel karena dijelaskan bahwa terdapat
kebenaran atas derajat kepercayaan data dan kecocokan data antara konsep penelitian
dengan hasil penelitian. Penelitian ini memberikan wawasan yang penting tentang
pentingnya mengkonsumsi tablet fe dan promosi kesehatan tentang gizi.
7. Are the conclusions drawn justified by the results?
What should I look for? Where do I find the information?
How well does the analysis explain why Look in the Discussion/Conclusion sections
people behave in the way they do? of the paper (although some predominately
How comprehensible would this qualitative journals merge findings and
explanation be to a thoughtful participant discussion).
from the setting (can participants/ Check whether the authors draw on
patients ‘see’ themselves in the examples of data when providing
interpretation of data)? explanations.
How well does the explanation fit with Look for references to previous research in
what we know already and if not why this area and existing theory and whether
not? these are discussed in relation to findings
and explanations offered by authors.
Does the paper offer a ‘so what’
recommendation?
In this paper
Yes No Unclear
√
Comment: Ya, dari beberapa teori bahwa salah satu faktor adalah kurangnya pengetahuan
tentang mengkonsumsi tablet fe dapat mencegah anemia sehingga banyak anak yang
mengalami anemia. Teori ini sesuai dengan hasil yang dicapai oleh peneliti bahwa tidak
rutinnya remaja putri dalam mengkonsumi tablet Fe merupakan faktor utama menyebabkan
partisipan menderita anemia.
8. Are the finding transferable to other clinical settings?
What should I look for? Where do I find the information?
This may not be applicable to all studies Check the sampling information in the
using qualitative methods (e.g. Methods section. Then compare the
exploratory, pilot studies). However, sampling strategy mentioned with the actual
research using maximum variation participant sample recruited in the Findings
sampling and particularly theoretical section. Did the authors recruit the sample
sampling needs to demonstrate that the they set out to recruit?
findings are transferable to other settings. In the Discussion/Conclusion section check
E.g. A study aims to explore experiences whether the authors discuss the
of breathlessness in COPD and a true transferability of the findings. If not check if
theoretical/ maximum variation sample the authors have outlined whether the
has been recruited then the findings are findings are limited to a particular context as
transferrable to other clinical settings part of the limitations of the study.
with a similar context, E.g. includes a True theoretical sampling as described in
range of illness experiences, age, gender, Grounded Theory Methodology is guided by
socio-economic background, illness emerging themes during constant
severity. However if the sample includes comparative analysis. This is particular to
only white, middle class men in their this methodology so does not apply to all
50’s, then this is not maximum variation other qualitative methodologies. If this
sampling and cannot be transferred to methodology is used, steps to illustrate how
theoretical sampling has been followed in
other settings. the research process should be described
throughout the Methods section.
In this paper
Yes No Unclear
√
Comment: Karena ada beberapa hal yang tidak memiliki informasisecara detail pada
bagian metode pengambilan sample tidak jelaskan secara detail sample dengan keriteria
seperti apa yang diambil, kemudian pada bagian Teknik analisis data colaizzi juga tidak
dijelaskan secara terperinci.
Reference
Jurnal yang di critisi :
[Link]
article/view/246
Adapted from Greenhalgh, T and Taylor, R. How to Read a Paper: Papers That Go
beyond Numbers (Qualitative Research). BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 315, No.
7110 (Sep. 20, 1997), pp. 740-743
Keterangan :
Tiap point yang dikritisi diberi nilai 10
NA = total nilai : 0,80