â® Do the operational and conceptual definitions match?
â® Were key variables operationalized using the best method possible (e.g., interviews, observations, etc.) and with sufficient justification?
â® Are the specific instruments adequately described, and were they good choices, given the study purpose and study population? What exactly were the instruments?
Is there evidence in the report that the data collection methods produced data with high reliability and validity? What was the proof?
â® If an intervention occurred, was it adequately described and implemented? Did the majority of those assigned to the intervention group receive it? Was there evidence of fidelity to the intervention?
â®š Were data collected in such a way that bias was minimized? Were the people who collected the data properly trained?
â® Did analyses take place to answer each research question or test each hypothesis? What exactly were they?
â® Were appropriate statistical methods used, taking into account the level of measurement of the variables, the number of groups compared, and so on?
Was the most powerful analytic method employed? What role did the analysis play in controlling for confounding variables)?
Were Type I and Type II errors avoided or reduced?
Was statistical significance information provided? Was information on the magnitude of the effect and the precision of the estimates (confidence intervals) provided?
â®š Is the research adequately summarized, with adequate use of tables and figures?
â®Are findings reported in a way that allows for meta-analysis and with enough information for EBP?
The findings’ interpretation
â®š Are all major findings interpreted and discussed in the context of prior research and/or the conceptual framework of the study?
â®Were any causal inferences justified?
â®š Are the interpretations consistent with the findings and the limitations of the study?
â® Does the report address the issue of the findings’ generalizability?