Demonstrate an ability to underpin critical arguments with an appropriate range of contemporary literature.

Module code and title:             NS521 – Research Methods for Nursing

Assignment task

This is a 2,000 word systematic critique of one research paper from a choice provided by the module leader, using Caldwell et al’s (2005) critiquing tool.

You are expected to:

Identify a research study from the selection of papers found on the NS521 Blackboard shell within the assignment Folder. The papers will be uploaded during week 4 of the module.

You will be expected to critique the identified research paper using Caldwell et al’s (2005) critiquing tool. This can also be found in the assignment folder. You must also reference according to the Harvard referencing system.

The essay should include:

1. Introduction - Clear indication of the research paper selected with a rationale for choosing. Make reference to the critiquing tool.
2. Highlight which aspects of the critiquing tool will be focused upon. Critical evaluation of the research paper systematically utilising the critiquing tool.
3. Analysis of the research findings and the implications (or not) for clinical practice.
4. Conclusion – A summary of the main findings.

Learning outcomes

This assignment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your achievement of the following module learning outcomes:

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research methodologies used in health care settings

Demonstrate an ability to underpin critical arguments with an appropriate range of contemporary literature.

Critically appraise research literature using the required critiquing tool.

Task requirements

Your submitted work must be presented in size 12, Arial font with 1.5 line spacing. The assignment has a word count of 2,000 with + or – 10%. Each page must be numbered. On the title page you must include the following elements:

• Your student number and cohort.
• Module code and name.
• The actual word count.
• The submission date.
• Your seminar leader and module leader’s name.

This assignment should be presented in essay format, with a clear introduction and conclusion. You should avoid use of the 1st and 2nd person and use an appropriately formal academic style, avoiding contractions (e.g., don’t, won’t, etc.) and informal or spoken forms of language. Essays do not typically use headings and sub-headings.

Be sure not to identify any individual or organisation directly or by implication in your work (NMC, 2015).

Equally, unless crucial to the argument and/or where the information is already in the public domain, refer to organisations only in the most general terms, e.g., an NHS trust.

Sample Answer

A Systematic Critique of Smith et al. (2019) Using Caldwell et al.’s (2005) Critiquing Tool

Introduction

This essay presents a systematic critique of the research paper by Smith et al. (2019), which investigated the impact of mindfulness-based interventions on reducing stress among nursing students. The study was chosen because stress management is a highly relevant topic in nursing education, where students face multiple academic, clinical, and emotional pressures. Analysing such research is crucial, as the findings may inform interventions that support student wellbeing and enhance resilience within clinical practice. The critique will be conducted using Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor’s (2005) critiquing tool, a widely recognised framework that provides a structured approach to assessing research. The tool guides the reviewer through essential aspects of the study, including clarity of aims, appropriateness of methodology, ethical considerations, rigour in data collection and analysis, presentation of results, and the overall contribution to practice. This essay will focus specifically on evaluating the research design, sampling strategy, ethical rigour, and findings, before considering implications for clinical practice.

Critical Evaluation of the Research Paper

Smith et al. (2019) clearly outlined the aim of their study: to explore whether an eight-week mindfulness programme could reduce self-reported stress levels among undergraduate nursing students. According to Caldwell et al. (2005), a good research paper should establish a clear purpose and justify its relevance. In this case, the authors justified the study by highlighting the increasing prevalence of stress among nursing students and its potential negative impact on academic performance, retention rates, and future clinical practice. This rationale demonstrates alignment with contemporary healthcare concerns.

In terms of methodology, the study adopted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. Caldwell et al. (2005) argue that the choice of design should match the research question, and in this instance, the RCT is appropriate for testing the effectiveness of an intervention. Randomisation minimises selection bias and strengthens the internal validity of findings. However, while the authors claimed random allocation, the paper lacked detailed explanation of how randomisation was conducted, raising concerns about transparency and potential bias.

Sampling was another critical element. The study recruited 120 nursing students from a single university, randomly assigning them to intervention and control groups. Caldwell et al. (2005) recommend that researchers justify their sample size and demonstrate representativeness. Although the sample size was adequate to detect significant effects, the use of a single-site university limits generalisability. The participants were also predominantly female (85%), reflecting the gender distribution of nursing but potentially restricting applicability to wider healthcare student populations.

Data collection was conducted using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), a validated self-report instrument. According to Caldwell et al. (2005), tools must be reliable and valid to ensure trustworthy results. The PSS has been widely used in psychological and healthcare research, which supports its appropriateness. However, the reliance solely on self-report introduces the risk of social desirability bias, as students may underreport stress levels. Inclusion of physiological measures (such as cortisol levels) could have strengthened the objectivity of the findings.

Ethical considerations were addressed by securing institutional review board approval and obtaining informed consent. The researchers also assured participants of confidentiality and the voluntary nature of participation. Caldwell et al. (2005) stress the importance of protecting vulnerable groups, and while nursing students are not traditionally considered vulnerable, the stress context does warrant sensitivity. The authors did not discuss how they supported students who may have experienced heightened stress during the intervention, representing a potential limitation.

Continued...