how to critique a quantitative research paper example

• Teesside University Student & Library Services
• Learning Hub Group

Critical Appraisal for Health Students

• Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper
• Critical Appraisal: Help
• Critical Appraisal of a qualitative paper
• Useful resources

Appraisal of a Quantitative paper: Top tips

• Introduction

Critical appraisal of a quantitative paper (RCT)

This guide, aimed at health students, provides basic level support for appraising quantitative research papers. It's designed for students who have already attended lectures on critical appraisal. One framework for appraising quantitative research (based on reliability, internal and external validity) is provided and there is an opportunity to practise the technique on a sample article.

Please note this framework is for appraising one particular type of quantitative research a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) which is defined as 

a trial in which participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more groups: the experimental group or groups receive the intervention or interventions being tested; the comparison group (control group) receive usual care or no treatment or a placebo.  The groups are then followed up to see if there are any differences between the results.  This helps in assessing the effectiveness of the intervention.(CASP, 2020)

Support materials

• Framework for reading quantitative papers (RCTs)
• Critical appraisal of a quantitative paper PowerPoint

To practise following this framework for critically appraising a quantitative article, please look at the following article:

Marrero, D.G.  et al  (2016) 'Comparison of commercial and self-initiated weight loss programs in people with prediabetes: a randomized control trial',  AJPH Research , 106(5), pp. 949-956.

Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper (RCT): practical example

• Internal Validity
• External Validity
• Reliability Measurement Tool

How to use this practical example 

Using the framework, you can have a go at appraising a quantitative paper - we are going to look at the following article:

Marrero, d.g.  et al  (2016) 'comparison of commercial and self-initiated weight loss programs in people with prediabetes: a randomized control trial',  ajph research , 106(5), pp. 949-956.,            step 1.  take a quick look at the article, step 2.  click on the internal validity tab above - there are questions to help you appraise the article, read the questions and look for the answers in the article. , step 3.   click on each question and our answers will appear., step 4.    repeat with the other aspects of external validity and reliability. , questioning the internal validity:, randomisation : how were participants allocated to each group did a randomisation process taken place, comparability of groups: how similar were the groups eg age, sex, ethnicity – is this made clear, blinding (none, single, double or triple): who was not aware of which group a patient was in (eg nobody, only patient, patient and clinician, patient, clinician and researcher) was it feasible for more blinding to have taken place , equal treatment of groups: were both groups treated in the same way , attrition : what percentage of participants dropped out did this adversely affect one group has this been evaluated, overall internal validity: does the research measure what it is supposed to be measuring, questioning the external validity:, attrition: was everyone accounted for at the end of the study was any attempt made to contact drop-outs, sampling approach: how was the sample selected was it based on probability or non-probability what was the approach (eg simple random, convenience) was this an appropriate approach, sample size (power calculation): how many participants was a sample size calculation performed did the study pass, exclusion/ inclusion criteria: were the criteria set out clearly were they based on recognised diagnostic criteria, what is the overall external validity can the results be applied to the wider population, questioning the reliability (measurement tool) internal validity:, internal consistency reliability (cronbach’s alpha). has a cronbach’s alpha score of 0.7 or above been included, test re-test reliability correlation. was the test repeated more than once were the same results received has a correlation coefficient been reported is it above 0.7 , validity of measurement tool. is it an established tool if not what has been done to check if it is reliable pilot study expert panel literature review criterion validity (test against other tools): has a criterion validity comparison been carried out was the score above 0.7, what is the overall reliability how consistent are the measurements , overall validity and reliability:, overall how valid and reliable is the paper.

• << Previous: Critical Appraisal of a qualitative paper
• Next: Useful resources >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 10:15 AM
• URL: https://libguides.tees.ac.uk/critical_appraisal

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 21, Issue 4
• How to appraise quantitative research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

This article has a correction. Please see:

• Correction: How to appraise quantitative research - April 01, 2019

• Xabi Cathala 1 ,
• Calvin Moorley 2
• 1 Institute of Vocational Learning , School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University , London , UK
• 2 Nursing Research and Diversity in Care , School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University , London , UK
• Correspondence to Mr Xabi Cathala, Institute of Vocational Learning, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University London UK ; cathalax{at}lsbu.ac.uk and Dr Calvin Moorley, Nursing Research and Diversity in Care, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK; Moorleyc{at}lsbu.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102996

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Some nurses feel that they lack the necessary skills to read a research paper and to then decide if they should implement the findings into their practice. This is particularly the case when considering the results of quantitative research, which often contains the results of statistical testing. However, nurses have a professional responsibility to critique research to improve their practice, care and patient safety. 1  This article provides a step by step guide on how to critically appraise a quantitative paper.

Title, keywords and the authors

The authors’ names may not mean much, but knowing the following will be helpful:

Their position, for example, academic, researcher or healthcare practitioner.

Their qualification, both professional, for example, a nurse or physiotherapist and academic (eg, degree, masters, doctorate).

This can indicate how the research has been conducted and the authors’ competence on the subject. Basically, do you want to read a paper on quantum physics written by a plumber?

The abstract is a resume of the article and should contain:

Introduction.

Research question/hypothesis.

Methods including sample design, tests used and the statistical analysis (of course! Remember we love numbers).

Main findings.

Conclusion.

The subheadings in the abstract will vary depending on the journal. An abstract should not usually be more than 300 words but this varies depending on specific journal requirements. If the above information is contained in the abstract, it can give you an idea about whether the study is relevant to your area of practice. However, before deciding if the results of a research paper are relevant to your practice, it is important to review the overall quality of the article. This can only be done by reading and critically appraising the entire article.

The introduction

Example: the effect of paracetamol on levels of pain.

My hypothesis is that A has an effect on B, for example, paracetamol has an effect on levels of pain.

My null hypothesis is that A has no effect on B, for example, paracetamol has no effect on pain.

My study will test the null hypothesis and if the null hypothesis is validated then the hypothesis is false (A has no effect on B). This means paracetamol has no effect on the level of pain. If the null hypothesis is rejected then the hypothesis is true (A has an effect on B). This means that paracetamol has an effect on the level of pain.

Background/literature review

The literature review should include reference to recent and relevant research in the area. It should summarise what is already known about the topic and why the research study is needed and state what the study will contribute to new knowledge. 5 The literature review should be up to date, usually 5–8 years, but it will depend on the topic and sometimes it is acceptable to include older (seminal) studies.

Methodology

In quantitative studies, the data analysis varies between studies depending on the type of design used. For example, descriptive, correlative or experimental studies all vary. A descriptive study will describe the pattern of a topic related to one or more variable. 6 A correlational study examines the link (correlation) between two variables 7  and focuses on how a variable will react to a change of another variable. In experimental studies, the researchers manipulate variables looking at outcomes 8  and the sample is commonly assigned into different groups (known as randomisation) to determine the effect (causal) of a condition (independent variable) on a certain outcome. This is a common method used in clinical trials.

There should be sufficient detail provided in the methods section for you to replicate the study (should you want to). To enable you to do this, the following sections are normally included:

Overview and rationale for the methodology.

Participants or sample.

Data collection tools.

Methods of data analysis.

Ethical issues.

Data collection should be clearly explained and the article should discuss how this process was undertaken. Data collection should be systematic, objective, precise, repeatable, valid and reliable. Any tool (eg, a questionnaire) used for data collection should have been piloted (or pretested and/or adjusted) to ensure the quality, validity and reliability of the tool. 9 The participants (the sample) and any randomisation technique used should be identified. The sample size is central in quantitative research, as the findings should be able to be generalised for the wider population. 10 The data analysis can be done manually or more complex analyses performed using computer software sometimes with advice of a statistician. From this analysis, results like mode, mean, median, p value, CI and so on are always presented in a numerical format.

The author(s) should present the results clearly. These may be presented in graphs, charts or tables alongside some text. You should perform your own critique of the data analysis process; just because a paper has been published, it does not mean it is perfect. Your findings may be different from the author’s. Through critical analysis the reader may find an error in the study process that authors have not seen or highlighted. These errors can change the study result or change a study you thought was strong to weak. To help you critique a quantitative research paper, some guidance on understanding statistical terminology is provided in  table 1 .

• View inline

Some basic guidance for understanding statistics

Quantitative studies examine the relationship between variables, and the p value illustrates this objectively.  11  If the p value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected and the hypothesis is accepted and the study will say there is a significant difference. If the p value is more than 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted then the hypothesis is rejected. The study will say there is no significant difference. As a general rule, a p value of less than 0.05 means, the hypothesis is accepted and if it is more than 0.05 the hypothesis is rejected.

The CI is a number between 0 and 1 or is written as a per cent, demonstrating the level of confidence the reader can have in the result. 12  The CI is calculated by subtracting the p value to 1 (1–p). If there is a p value of 0.05, the CI will be 1–0.05=0.95=95%. A CI over 95% means, we can be confident the result is statistically significant. A CI below 95% means, the result is not statistically significant. The p values and CI highlight the confidence and robustness of a result.

Discussion, recommendations and conclusion

The final section of the paper is where the authors discuss their results and link them to other literature in the area (some of which may have been included in the literature review at the start of the paper). This reminds the reader of what is already known, what the study has found and what new information it adds. The discussion should demonstrate how the authors interpreted their results and how they contribute to new knowledge in the area. Implications for practice and future research should also be highlighted in this section of the paper.

A few other areas you may find helpful are:

Limitations of the study.

Conflicts of interest.

Table 2 provides a useful tool to help you apply the learning in this paper to the critiquing of quantitative research papers.

Quantitative paper appraisal checklist

• 1. ↵ Nursing and Midwifery Council , 2015 . The code: standard of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf ( accessed 21.8.18 ).
• Gerrish K ,
• Moorley C ,
• Tunariu A , et al
• Shorten A ,

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent Not required.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Correction notice This article has been updated since its original publication to update p values from 0.5 to 0.05 throughout.

Linked Articles

• Miscellaneous Correction: How to appraise quantitative research BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and RCN Publishing Company Ltd Evidence-Based Nursing 2019; 22 62-62 Published Online First: 31 Jan 2019. doi: 10.1136/eb-2018-102996corr1

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Writing well

How to write a critique

• Starting well
• How to write an annotated bibliography
• How to write a case study response
• How to write an empirical article
• How to write an essay
• How to write a literature review
• How to write a reflective task
• How to write a report
• Finishing well

Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.

• Study the work under discussion.
• Make notes on key parts of the work.
• Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work.
• Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.

Example template

There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or Canvas site for guidance from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.

Introduction

Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:

• name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator
• describe the main argument or purpose of the work
• explain the context in which the work was created - this could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience
• have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be - for instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

Critical evaluation

This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.

Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:

• Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
• What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
• What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
• What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
• What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
• How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
• Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?

This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.

To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.

This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

• a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
• a summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed
• in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.

Reference list

Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.

• Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
• Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
• Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
• Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
• Used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of the work?
• Formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
• Used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
• Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate referencing style?

Further information

• University of New South Wales: Writing a Critical Review
• University of Toronto: The Book Review or Article Critique

Global links and information

• Referencing and using sources
• Background and development
• Changes to QUT cite|write
• Need more help?
• Current students
• Current staff
• TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12079 (Australian University)
• CRICOS No. 00213J
• ABN 83 791 724 622
• Last modified: 28-May-2024
• Accessibility
• Right to Information
• Feedback and suggestions

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.

SPH Writing Support Services

• Appointment System
• ESL Conversation Group
• Mini-Courses
• Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group
• Career Writing
• Citing Sources
• Critiquing Research Articles
• Project Planning for the Beginner This link opens in a new window
• Grant Writing
• Publishing in the Sciences
• Systematic Review Overview
• Systematic Review Resources This link opens in a new window
• Writing Across Borders / Writing Across the Curriculum
• Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.)
• Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon)
• The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research (Coughlan et al.)

Guidelines:

• Critiquing Research Articles (Flinders University)
• Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study (American Nurses Association)
• How to Critique a Journal Article (UIS)
• How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan)
• How to Write an Article Critique
• Research Article Critique Form
• Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article (University of Calgary)

Presentations:

• The Critique Process: Reviewing and Critiquing Research
• Writing a Critique
• << Previous: Citing Sources
• Next: Project Planning for the Beginner >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 12:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles

Edward barroga.

1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6

It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4

There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4

Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8

Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13

There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .

Research questions in quantitative research

In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .

Hypotheses in quantitative research

In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .

Research questions in qualitative research

Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15

There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .

Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15

Hypotheses in qualitative research

Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14

The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14

As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.

a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16

a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17

The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .

Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.

Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12

In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
• - Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
• “BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
• EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
• “Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
• Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
• EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
• - Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
• “BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
• STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
• EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
• - Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
• “Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
• EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
• “Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
• “As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
• “In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
• EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
• - Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
• “We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
• “Conclusion
• Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
• EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
• “We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
• Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
• EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
• “Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
• “Statistical Analysis
• ( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS

• EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
• “ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
• “This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
• EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
• “ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
• EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
• “In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
• “This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
• “ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30

Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.

A guide for critique of research articles

Following is the list of criteria to evaluate (critique) a research article. Please note that you should first summarize the paper and then evaluate different parts of it.

Most of the evaluation section should be devoted to evaluation of internal validity of the conclusions. Please add at the end a section entitled ''changes in the design/procedures if I want to replicate this study." Attach a copy of the original article to your paper.

Click here to see a an example (this is how you start) of a research critique.

Click here to see the original article.

The following list is a guide for you to organize your evaluation. It is recommended to organize your evaluation in this order. This is a long list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions . Some questions may not be relevant to your article.

Introduction

1.     Is there a statement of the problem?

2.     Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?

3.     Is background information on the problem presented?

4.     Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?

5.     Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

Review of Related Literature

1.     Is the review comprehensive?

2.     Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?

3.     Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?

4.     Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?

5.     Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?

6.     Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?

1.     Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?

2.     Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?

3.     If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

4.     Is each hypothesis testable?

Method          Subjects

1.     Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described?

2.     If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?

3.      Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?

4.     Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?

5.     Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?

6.     Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?      

Instruments

1.     Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?

2.     Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?

3.     Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?

4.     Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?

5.     Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?

6.     Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?

7.     If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?

8.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?

9.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?

Design and Procedure

1.     Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the   study?

2.     Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?

3.     If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?

4.     Are the control procedures described?

5.     Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was unable to control for?

1.     Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?

2.     Was the probability level, α, at which the results of the tests of significance were evaluated,

       specified in advance of the data analyses?

3.     If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the

       required assumptions for parametric tests?

4.     Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the

       study?

5.     Was every hypothesis tested?

6.     Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?

7.     Are the results clearly presented?

8.     Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?

9.     Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?

Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)

1.     Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?

2.     Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results

        obtained by other researchers in other studies?

3.     Are generalizations consistent with the results?

4.     Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?

5.     Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?

6.     Are recommendations for future action made?

7.     Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical

       significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical

       significance?

8.     Are recommendations for future research made?

Additional general questions to be answered in your critique.

1. What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?

2. Describe the sample used in this study.

3. Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.

4. What type of research is this?  Explain.

5. How was the data analyzed?

6. What is (are) the major finding(s)?

Writing a Critique Paper: Seven Easy Steps

Were you assigned or asked by your professor to write a critique paper? It’s easy to write one. Just follow the following four steps in writing a critique paper and three steps in presenting it, then you’re ready to go.

One of the students’ requirements I specified in the course module is a critique paper. Just so everyone benefits from the guide I prepared for that class, I share it here.

Since they are graduate students, more is expected of them. Hence, most of the verbs I use in writing the lesson’s objectives reside in the domain of higher thinking skills or HOTS. Developing the students’ critical thinking skills will help them analyze future problems and propose solutions that embody environmental principles thus resonate desirable outcomes aligned with the goal of sustainable development.

Table of Contents

Step-by-step procedure in writing a critique paper.

1) Procedure in Writing a Critique Paper, and the

The Four Steps in Writing a Critique Paper

To write a good critique paper, it pays to adhere to a smooth flow of thought in your evaluation of the piece. You will need to introduce the topic, analyze, interpret, then conclude it.

Introduce the Discussion Topic

That means, when you write your critique paper, you should be able to answer the Why , When , Where , What , Who , and How questions. Using this approach prevents missing out on the essential details. If you can write a critique paper that adheres to this approach, that would be excellent.

The news article by John Doe was a narrative about a bank robbery. Accordingly, a masked man  (Who)  robbed a bank  (What)  the other day  (When)  next to a police station  (Where) . He did so in broad daylight  (How) . He used a bicycle to escape from the scene of the crime  (How) . In his haste, he bumped into a post. His mask fell off; thus, everyone saw his face, allowing witnesses to describe him. As a result, he had difficulty escaping the police, who eventually retrieved his loot and put him in jail because of his wrongdoing  (Why) .

Is the essay written to inform, entertain, educate, raise an issue for debate, and so on? Don’t parrot or repeat what the writer wrote in his paper. And write a paragraph or a few sentences as succinctly as you can.

We can use an analogy here to clearly explain the analysis portion.

Now, you are ready to interpret the article, book, or any composition once the requisites of analysis are in place.

That fact confirms the first observation that he was not ready at all. Escaping the scene of the crime using a bicycle with nothing to defend himself once pursued? He’s insane. Unimaginable. He’s better off sleeping at home and waiting for food to land on his lap if food will come at all.

Assess or Evaluate

Finally, judge whether the article was a worthwhile account after all. Did it meet expectations? Was it able to convey the information most efficiently? Or are there loopholes or flaws that should have been mentioned?

Format of Presenting the Critique Paper

Introduction.

You can find the thesis in the paper’s hypothesis section. That’s because a hypothesis is a tentative thesis. Hypo means “below or under,” meaning it is the author’s tentative explanation of whatever phenomenon he tackles.

This section is similar to the results and discussion portion of a scientific paper. It describes the outcome of your analysis and interpretation.

I mention the gender issue because the literature says that there is a difference in how a person sees things based on gender. For example, Ragins & Sundstrom (1989) observed that it would be more difficult for women to obtain power in the organization than men. And there’s a paper on gender and emotions by Shields et al. (2006) , although I wouldn’t know the outcome of that study as it is behind a paywall. My point is just that there is a difference in perspective between men and women. Alright.

Read More : How to Write an Article with AI: A Guide to Using AI for Article Creation and Refinement

Related Reading

Related posts, high-end mobile devices: mobile learning made easy in six ways, why publish research findings, how to use research tools in managing your finances, about the author, patrick regoniel.

Dr. Regoniel, a faculty member of the graduate school, served as consultant to various environmental research and development projects covering issues and concerns on climate change, coral reef resources and management, economic valuation of environmental and natural resources, mining, and waste management and pollution. He has extensive experience on applied statistics, systems modelling and analysis, an avid practitioner of LaTeX, and a multidisciplinary web developer. He leverages pioneering AI-powered content creation tools to produce unique and comprehensive articles in this website.

SimplyEducate.Me Privacy Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Research essentials. How to critique quantitative research

Affiliation.

• 1 Anglia Ruskin University.
• PMID: 26558974
• DOI: 10.7748/ncyp.27.9.12.s14

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH is a systematic approach to investigating numerical data and involves measuring or counting attributes, that is quantities. Through a process of transforming information that is collected or observed, the researcher can often describes a situation or event, answering the 'what' and 'how many' questions about a situation ( Parahoo 2014 ).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Research essentials. Smith J, Chudleigh J. Smith J, et al. Nurs Child Young People. 2015 Mar;27(2):14. doi: 10.7748/ncyp.27.2.14.s15. Nurs Child Young People. 2015. PMID: 25760001 No abstract available.
• What's the object of object working memory in infancy? Unraveling 'what' and 'how many'. Kibbe MM, Leslie AM. Kibbe MM, et al. Cogn Psychol. 2013 Jun;66(4):380-404. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.05.001. Epub 2013 Jun 12. Cogn Psychol. 2013. PMID: 23770623
• Science of Unitary Human Beings: an update on research. Tae Sook Kim. Tae Sook Kim. Nurs Sci Q. 2008 Oct;21(4):294-9. doi: 10.1177/0894318408324333. Nurs Sci Q. 2008. PMID: 18953005 Review.
• Understanding the basic aspects of research papers. Lee P. Lee P. Nurs Times. 2006 Jul 4-10;102(27):28-30. Nurs Times. 2006. PMID: 16850704
• Research philosophy: towards an understanding. Crossan F. Crossan F. Nurse Res. 2003;11(1):46-55. doi: 10.7748/nr2003.10.11.1.46.c5914. Nurse Res. 2003. PMID: 14533474 Review.
• Search in MeSH
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Login / FREE TRIAL

‘Nursing Times wants to ensure that the voices of nurses and midwives are heard’

STEVE FORD, EDITOR

• You are here: Nurse educators

Understanding and critiquing quantitative research papers

10 July, 2006 By NT Contributor

This article, the second in a three-part series on research, explores quantitative research. Quantitative research aims to focus on objectivity, and therefore searches for answers that can be generalised to other situations. Quantitative researchers believe that it is possible to focus on objective reality within the world.

VOL: 102, ISSUE: 28, PAGE NO: 28

MSc, BA, RSCN, RGN, RM, DipN, ILTM, is lecturer in child health nursing, City University, London.

When reading quantitative research, readers are faced with a lot of specialist terminology. It is important to be familiar with this jargon in order to be able to interpret the report. Some of the terminology has been introduced in the first article in this series (Lee, 2006), which looked at quantitative (numerical) and qualitative (non-numerical) data.

Within quantitative research there are different approaches (methodologies). The example used throughout this series of giving the patient an experimental drug to treat hypertension and then measuring the patient’s blood pressure, may be set up in one of several ways. Researchers may ask GPs to record the patient’s blood pressure, before starting treatment and thereafter every month for a year, as well as recording the patient’s attitudes to taking the medication. This type of research is known as ‘survey research’, although the research may not necessarily take into consideration other factors such as the patient’s diet or exercise regime.

An alternative method is to divide the patients into two groups and measure the participants’ blood pressure as above, ensuring that both groups do not change any lifestyle factors (variables such as diet or exercise) that might affect their blood pressure. The first group would receive the drug to be studied, while the second group would receive a placebo drug. This is known as the randomised controlled trial (RCT) and to date in health research it has often been considered to be the ‘gold standard’ of research.

Critiquing frameworks

When it comes to critiquing research, students can call upon various frameworks to assist them. Some frameworks have been constructed for the critique of both qualitative and quantitative research, which raises the question of whether such frameworks can truly evaluate either when the background beliefs (philosophies) of the two world views (paradigms) are so different. There are other frameworks that have been designed to deal solely with quantitative or qualitative research (and can only be used for that purpose). Box 1 lists some of the most commonly utilised frameworks within the nursing literature.

Box 1. Some Commonly used research frameworks

Caution should be exercised when choosing a suitable framework, as each framework asks slightly different questions of the research. Within quantitative research there are different critiquing frameworks for the different methods used. For example, there are separate frameworks for evaluating randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case control studies. The ten main questions that the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) asks of RCTs are discussed here and listed in Box 2.

Box 2. Guided reflection:

Use the following points to write a reflection for your PREP portfolio:

• Outline where you work and the relevance of this article to your practice;
• Identify the last time you came across a piece of quantitative research;
• Discuss something new that you have learned about quantitative research after reading this article;
• Explain how this information could have informed your care of a patient;
• Outline how you will take what you have learned from this article and disseminate it among your colleagues.

Did the study ask a clearly focused question? Quantitative research should ask a clearly focused question. With an RCT the question can be rephrased as a hypothesis that is refuted or agreed with. Survey research still aims to answer a focused question.

Was this an RCT? Some research questions are best addressed by quantitative inquiry and others by qualitative inquiry. In the example of the patient with hypertension - the researcher who wants to measure the effects of a drug on a patient’s hypertension is clearly seeking to use a quantitative paradigm.

If research uses an RCT the report should clearly state that an RCT was undertaken. Likewise with quasi-experimental or survey research, both should state clearly what sort of research design was used. Consideration should also be given as to whether it was appropriate to undertake either an RCT or other form of quantitative research.

Were participants appropriately allocated to intervention and control groups? Once the population for a quantitative research study has been determined, the researcher must then decide what proportion of the population (sample) will be included in the research study. If you want to be able to generalise the results beyond the study population, the study participants must have been chosen randomly for one of the groups in an RCT.

In other forms of quantitative research other sampling methods might be used but it should always be determined if the sampling method is appropriate to the research design (Polit and Beck, 2004).

Were participants, staff and study personnel ‘blind’ to the study group? With an RCT study participants are allocated randomly to the study or control group (sometimes there are more than two groups). When the research participants do not know whether they are in the study or the control group - that is they do not know if they are taking the actual medication or a placebo - the results are more convincing since psychological factors have been ruled out.

Similarly, any health service staff caring for such patients and any researchers recording the patients’ blood pressure are less likely to be influenced or introduce bias if they, too, are unaware of which group the study participants belong to.

Were all the participants who entered the trial accounted for at its conclusion? Some participants who entered the research trial may not be included in the data analysis at the end of the trial. There may be various reasons for this, but the data analysis should reflect all the participants (even those who may have died as an indirect result of their hypertension).

Were the participants in all groups treated in the same way?In order to avoid bias it is important that all research participants are treated in the same way. Every person in the trial should receive the same dose of any medication (or placebo) and any follow-up treatment or measurements should be conducted with the same equipment and at the same time intervals.

Did the study have enough participants to minimise chance? When undertaking quantitative research it is important to realise that studying a small number of people (sample) may produce chance results. The study sample therefore should be large enough to reduce any chance bias from creeping in.

How are the results presented and what is the main result? The results of all quantitative research are presented as statistical data. Some statistics simply describe or summarise the research results and these are known as ‘descriptive statistics’. They include such terms as mean, frequency, normal distribution and standard deviation. However, other statistical tests may be undertaken to make inferences from the data. These are known as ‘inferential statistics’ and include such terms as probability.

How precise are these results? When examining statistical results readers should have some understanding of the different probability values and therefore how significant they may be to the research results.

Were all important outcomes considered so the results can be applied? If quantitative research results are to be applied to other similar populations, then all the outcomes of the research should be reported and understood, not just those research outcomes that appear to be either the most significant or most interesting to the researcher.

What are critiquing frameworks for research trying to achieve?

It can be seen from working through the above example of a framework for evaluating quantitative research that the questions tend to be sequential. That is, it is vital for readers to understand the research aims and questions in order to answer subsequent sections of the evaluative framework.

The critiquing frameworks enables readers to make a judgement regarding the soundness of the research. It is possible to critique a piece of research without using a critiquing framework, but the frameworks are very useful for those who are not used to critiquing research.

What do academic journals expect?

When reading reports in published journals and then critiquing the reports readers should bear in mind several points. First, the research report in a professional journal is likely to be much shorter than the researcher’s original paper. This is because of the restricted word allowances of professional journals. Many health journals restrict their research reports to between 3,000 and 5,000 words whereas some research papers may be around 10,000 words long, and those submitted for a higher degree may be up to 100,000 words. It is clear therefore that not every topic can be covered in a journal’s report. Readers should be careful before boldly stating that the researcher did not consider a certain aspect, because it may have had full coverage in the original (unpublished) research report. Readers would do well to look at the author guidelines of professional journals and then relate this to the critiquing framework outlined above.

Second, the terminology that is used in some of the journals would still require inexperienced readers to explore meanings further. The RCT, and following on from that, descriptive and inferential statistics, would be fully understood by the researcher but not necessarily fully understood by readers.

Readers should still be able to determine the validity and reliability within quantitative research. Once the above terms have been understood then it should be possible to determine if the research can be generalised, that is transferable to other situations/locations. Additionally, nursing journals have different expectations regarding how much should be included regarding the validity and reliability of research.

Lastly, the implications for nursing should be considered. These implications relate to the practice, education, research and management of nursing.

How quantitative research assists practitioners

Careful examination of quantitative research gives practitioners a greater understanding of how an action (in this example, giving patients with hypertension a particular drug) affects a group of people. After reading the research paper, individual practitioners would be able to enhance their practice and contribute to evidence-based practice.

This series outlines the two main approaches to research (recognising that there are other more specialised approaches) and explains how to read and critique qualitative and quantitative research (see next week’s issue for part three in the series). The development of such skills should assist pre-registration students with relevant assignments. They should also help practitioners to determine if a piece of research is relevant and suitable to be implemented in their practice. The skills outlined in this series are also essential prerequisites for those intending to undertake a critical review of literature, begin their own programme of research, or undertake systematic reviews of research.

As practitioners gain a deeper understanding of critiquing a single piece of research, they should consider critiquing several research studies on a particular topic, searching for common themes. They could then write a critical review of the literature on that chosen topic.

Benton, D.C., Cormack, F.S. (2000) Reviewing and evaluating the literature. In: Cormack, D. (Ed) The Research Process in Nursing. Oxford: Blackwell Science.Bray, J., Rees, C. (1995) Reading research articles. Practice Nursing; 6: 11, 11-13.Lee, P. (2006) Understanding the basic aspects of research. Nursing Times; 102: 27, 28-30.Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T. (2004) Nursing Research: Principle and Methods. Philadelphia: Lippincott and Wilkins.

Related files

060711understanding and critiquing quantitative research papers.

• Add to Bookmarks

Related articles

Launch your nursing career – study at the University of Nottingham

Why study nursing at the University of Nottingham? We believe in the nursing profession and remain passionate about the care people receive.

Monitor, contribute, inform: a process to guide nursing associates

This article introduces a framework to support the integration and understanding of the role across care environments.

Creative health: challenging student nurses to learn from the arts

An arts-based practice learning placement helped nursing students develop an understanding of the value of social prescribing

Supporting student nurses to demonstrate professional values

Professional values form part of the student nurse journey while on placement. Staff and educators can help nursing students meet these.

Have your say

Sign in or Register a new account to join the discussion.

Research Terms

Ai generator.

Research terms are specific words or phrases used in academic writing to describe the research process, methodologies, and findings. These include concepts like hypothesis , variables, sample size, literature review, and data analysis. Understanding these terms is crucial for interpreting research studies and effectively communicating ideas. Mastery of research terms enhances clarity in academic discourse, whether in a research project proposal , a qualitative research report , or the description of research methodology.

What are terms in research?

Terms in research refer to the specific words, phrases, and concepts used within a study to define its scope, methodology , and focus. These terms ensure clarity and precision, allowing researchers to communicate ideas and findings effectively. Clear definitions facilitate a shared understanding and maintain the integrity and replicability of research.

Examples of Research Terms

• Hypothesis : A proposed explanation for a phenomenon, to be tested through research.
• Variable : Any factor or element that can be changed and measured in research.
• Literature Review : A comprehensive survey of existing research and publications on a specific topic.
• Methodology : The systematic plan and approach used to conduct research.
• Data Collection : The process of gathering information for analysis in research.
• Sample : A subset of a population selected for observation and analysis.
• Control Group : A group in an experiment that does not receive the treatment, used for comparison.
• Validity : The extent to which a research study measures what it intends to measure.
• Reliability : The consistency of a research study or measuring test.
• Abstract : A brief summary of a research study’s aims, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Population : The entire group of individuals or instances about whom the research is concerned.
• Ethics : Moral principles that govern a researcher’s conduct and the conduct of the research.
• Bias : A systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome over others.
• Pilot Study : A small-scale preliminary study conducted to evaluate feasibility, time, cost, risk, and adverse events.
• Peer Review : A process by which a research study is evaluated by experts in the same field before publication.
• Quantitative Research : Research that relies on numerical data and statistical methods.
• Qualitative Research : Research that relies on non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, and textual analysis.
• Case Study : An in-depth study of a particular case, individual, group, or event.
• Longitudinal Study : Research that follows subjects over a long period to observe changes and developments.
• Cross-sectional Study : Research that analyzes data from a population at a specific point in time.
• Independent Variable : The variable that is manipulated to observe its effect on the dependent variable.
• Dependent Variable : The variable being tested and measured in an experiment.
• Confounding Variable : An outside influence that affects the dependent and independent variables, causing a spurious association.
• Operational Definition : A clear, precise, and measurable definition of a variable for the purposes of a study.
• Statistical Significance : The likelihood that a result or relationship is caused by something other than mere chance.
• Random Sample : A sample that fairly represents a population because each member has an equal chance of inclusion.
• Correlation : A measure of the relationship between two variables.
• Experimental Group : The group in an experiment that receives the treatment.
• Theoretical Framework : A structure that guides research by providing a clear perspective and basis for the study.
• Meta-analysis : A statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to determine overall trends.

Research Terms List

• Sampling Bias
• Control Variable
• Research Design
• Data Analysis
• Primary Data
• Secondary Data
• Theoretical Sampling
• Purposive Sampling
• Snowball Sampling
• Cluster Sampling
• Stratified Sampling
• Questionnaire
• Focus Group
• Field Study
• Experimental Design
• Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
• Ethnography
• Grounded Theory
• Content Analysis
• Descriptive Research
• Explanatory Research
• Exploratory Research
• Mixed Methods
• Triangulation
• Hypothesis Testing
• Null Hypothesis
• Alternative Hypothesis
• Research Proposal

5 Common Research Terminologies

• Hypothesis : A testable prediction about the relationship between two or more variables.
• Variable : An element, feature, or factor that can be changed and measured in research.

Confusing Terms in Research

• Reliability : The consistency of a research study or measuring test over time.
• Independent Variable : The variable that is manipulated to observe its effect.
• Dependent Variable : The variable being tested and measured, which is affected by the independent variable.
• Random Assignment : Assigning participants to experimental and control groups by chance to minimize pre-existing differences.
• Descriptive Research : Research that aims to describe characteristics of a population or phenomenon.
• Explanatory Research : Research that seeks to explain the reasons behind a phenomenon or relationship.

Key Research Terms

1. abstract.

• A brief summary of the research paper, outlining the main points, purpose, methods, results, and conclusions.

2. Hypothesis

• A testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables.

3. Variable

• An element, feature, or factor that can be changed and measured in research. Includes independent, dependent, and control variables.

4. Literature Review

• A comprehensive survey of existing research and publications relevant to the research topic.

5. Methodology

• The systematic plan for conducting research, including the methods, techniques, and procedures used to collect and analyze data.

6. Qualitative Research

• Research that focuses on understanding phenomena through non-numerical data such as interviews, observations, and texts.

7. Quantitative Research

• Research that focuses on quantifying data and analyzing it statistically to draw conclusions.

8. Sampling

• The process of selecting a subset of individuals from a population to represent the whole group in research.

9. Data Collection

• The process of gathering information from various sources to answer research questions.

10. Data Analysis

• The process of examining, cleaning, transforming, and modeling data to discover useful information, draw conclusions, and support decision-making.

Terms Synonymous to Research

• Investigation
• Examination
• Exploration
• Observation

FAQ’s

What is a variable in research.

A variable is any characteristic, number, or quantity that can be measured or quantified in research.

What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

Qualitative research explores concepts and experiences in-depth, while quantitative research involves measuring and analyzing numerical data.

What is a literature review?

A literature review summarizes existing research on a topic, identifying trends, gaps, and key findings.

What is a sample in research?

A sample is a subset of a population selected for study to represent the entire group.

What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a testable prediction or educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables in a study.

What is data collection?

Data collection involves gathering information from various sources to address a research question or hypothesis.

What is an independent variable?

An independent variable is the variable that is manipulated or changed in an experiment to observe its effect.

What is a dependent variable?

A dependent variable is the variable being tested and measured in an experiment, affected by the independent variable.

What is a control group?

A control group is a group in an experiment that does not receive the treatment, used for comparison against the experimental group.

What is a research methodology?

Research methodology is the systematic plan for conducting research, including methods for data collection and analysis.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

New directions for Indigenous and local knowledge research and application in fisheries science: Lessons from a systematic review

• Jones, Benjamin L. H.
• Santos, Rolando O.
• James, W. Ryan
• Costa, Sophia V.
• Adams, Aaron J.
• Boucek, Ross E.
• Coals, Lucy
• Cullen-Unsworth, Leanne C.
• Shephard, Samuel
• Rehage, Jennifer S.

Social‑ecological systems like fisheries provide food, livelihoods and recreation. However, lack of data and its integration into governance hinders their conservation and management. Stakeholders possess site‑specific knowledge crucial for confronting these challenges. There is increasing recognition that Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is valuable, but structural differences between ILK and quantitative archetypes have stalled the assimilation of ILK into fisheries management, despite acknowledged bias and uncertainty in scientific methods. Conducting a systematic review of fisheries‑associated ILK research (n = 397 articles), we examined how ILK is accessed, applied, distributed across space and species, and has evolved. We show that ILK has generated qualitative, semi‑quantitative and quantitative information for diverse taxa across 98 countries. Fisheries‑associated ILK research mostly targets small‑scale and artisanal fishers (70% of studies) and typically uses semi‑structured interviews (60%). We revealed large variability in sample size (n = 4–7638), predicted by the approach employed and the data generated (i.e. qualitative studies target smaller groups). Using thematic categorisation, we show that scientists are still exploring techniques, or 'validating' ILK through comparisons with quantitative scientific data (20%), and recording qualitative information of what fishers understand (40%). A few researchers are applying quantitative social science methods to derive trends in abundance, catch and effort. Such approaches facilitate recognition of local insight in fisheries management but fall short of accepting ILK as a valid complementary way of knowing about fisheries systems. This synthesis reveals that development and increased opportunities are needed to bridge ILK and quantitative scientific data.

How to Take—And Give—Criticism Well

Being able to accept a bad review and use it constructively is not just an essential life skill; it will also make you happier.

Listen to this article

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

Want to stay current with Arthur’s writing? Sign up to get an email every time a new column comes out.

W e live in the age of popular criticism. Search a doctor’s name on the internet, and you will quickly find patient assessments of their abilities and bedside manner. Before buying an item even as humdrum as paper clips on Amazon, you can find hundreds of reviews, some extensively detailed, others succinctly vitriolic. You can post on social media that a celebrity’s haircut is bad, and you stand a decent chance that he will actually see your snark.

In my own business, student evaluations are taken with deadly seriousness. As one academic colleague quips, professors today are treated like a Denny’s on Yelp. Google yourself and your professional rep, and you may find that opinions are … mixed.

We all love to criticize. Unfortunately, we also hate being criticized. That leads to a happiness problem in the giant, constant, panoramic review that is the experience of modern life. We post and comment on others with abandon, but feel aggrieved at the way others assess us, both online and in person. The world seems unlikely to change anytime soon. Fortunately, though, each of us can change how we give and take criticism, in ways that will make us less likely to harm others, more immune to taking offense, and better able to benefit from feedback—even when it is negative.

Read: Critics of critics should be criticized

C riticism is defined as judgment of the merits and faults of something or someone in written or spoken form. Technically, this can include compliments, but that isn’t what concerns us here. What vexes us is criticism of the negative variety, even when well-intentioned—so-called constructive criticism, which means to provide guidance so we can improve. Worst of all is destructive criticism, which aims to hurt or damage.

Criticism of either type is intrinsically hard to accept because of the way our brains process it. In 2013, a team of neuroscientists writing in the journal PLOS One showed that criticism stimulates the regions of the brain involved in social cognition more than those involved in cognition control itself. In other words, the recipient of criticism might be attempting to understand the beliefs and feelings of the critic rather than assessing the criticism itself. When someone says your work isn’t good enough, your natural first thought may be They must not like me , rather than What can I do to improve it?

Some people react more negatively than others to criticism. People most sensitive are those who score low in self-esteem and high in neuroticism, who are fearful of negative evaluation, and who are generally pessimistic. This isn’t too surprising, in that those already high in negative emotion will feel worse than average about being confronted with negative feedback. Competitiveness turns out to matter a lot as well: Research from 2012 showed that highly competitive people tend to work harder after receiving destructive feedback, but their performance suffers. One explanation for this may be that competitive people angrily want to prove the critic wrong, as opposed to carefully trying to better themselves.

One interesting finding from the research relates to narcissists, whom psychologists commonly classify as overt or covert . Overt narcissists are loud and aggressive; they demand a lot of feedback—with a strong preference for the positive kind because they like to have their egos stroked, and usually disregard criticism when it is negative. Covert narcissists are just as self-involved, but more insecure; instead of dominating the people around them, they tend to be passive-aggressive and vengeful (and thus quite destructive). And as psychologists discovered in 2008, these covert narcissists are highly sensitive to criticism—more than non-narcissists—which leads them to ruminate more than average and experience more negative emotion. Based on this finding, one way to detect a covert narcissist in the workplace could be by an outsize negative reaction to normal criticism—such as, say, a need to go home for the day after a mixed performance review.

Arthur C. Brooks: You’re not perfect

T he culture of criticism, abetted by new technology, isn’t going away. The only way to flourish in it, and despite it, is to adopt new habits of getting and giving critical feedback. The research offers us several rules for doing just that:

1. It’s not personal (even when it’s personal). When we receive criticism, we make it personal in two ways. First, we may naturally analyze the critic rather than the criticism. Second, we tend to consider the criticism a judgment on our inherent abilities, rather than on our performance. Interestingly, even among young children, research shows that viewing criticism as a judgment on one’s abilities can lead to lower self-worth, lower positive mood, and less persistence at tasks. The solution is to set up an internal affirmation such as: “I don’t care what this feedback says about the person giving it, and I choose not to see it as a personal attack on me. I will assess it on its face about the matter at hand—nothing more, nothing less.” This won’t save your feelings entirely, of course, but it is a helpful metacognitive approach —one that moves the focus from emotion to analysis. That enables you to judge the information on its merits (or lack thereof), as you would if it were about someone else.

2. Treat criticism like insider information. Once you depersonalize criticism in this way, you can start to see it for what it is: a rare glimpse into what outsiders think about your performance, and thus a potential opportunity to correct course and improve. Studies of student performance have shown that those who learn to use feedback actively tend to get better grades and have better study habits. If this doesn’t come easily to you, one way to develop the grit to do so is to ask friends or colleagues whom you like and trust to form a critics’ circle, reviewing one another’s work and giving honest suggestions. I did this early in my public-speaking career, assembling a trusted “murder board” to give me feedback on speeches. Because I had empowered them to criticize my performance, I found it didn’t hurt when they did. I got much better quickly—and lost much of my fear of critics.

3. Make criticism a gift, never a weapon. We all have to dispense criticism from time to time. For some—bosses, for example—doing so is part of the job, and failing to deliver criticism appropriately is evidence of malfeasance or incompetence. The key to criticizing to best effect is to remember the gift/weapon rule: If I am criticizing to help, I am doing it right; if I am doing it to harm, I am doing it wrong. To keep critical feedback in the first category, the research tells us that it should have five elements : the care of the recipient in mind; respectful delivery; good intentions; a pathway to improvement; and appropriate targeting of the recipient’s needs. This is a lot to hold in your head. One CEO I know tries to remember how best to execute this before a tough employee evaluation by praying for the well-being of the recipient.

4. Praise in public, criticize in private. This rule is commonly attributed to the legendary football coach Vince Lombardi, who used it to motivate players. Research suggests that his intuition was correct: Scholars writing in 2014 showed that positive feedback given to students in public was 9 percent more motivating than when given privately, while negative feedback in private was 11 percent more motivating than in public. So what does that mean for your snippy Amazon reviews? Send them to the author directly, if you dare. Or better yet, don’t send them at all—unless you truly intend them to be constructive.

Arthur C. Brooks: Listen to your own advice

I f taking some of this advice—especially about how to accept criticism better—is particularly hard for you, you are in excellent company. Many of the most successful people in the world were laid low by run-of-the-mill criticism. Consider Isaac Newton. In 1672, at age 29, he published a paper on light and colors of which he was probably quite proud. Most critics received it favorably, save for one: Robert Hooke, a well-regarded scientist and inventor, who wrote a condescending critique of Newton’s paper. As legend has it, Newton was so angry at Hooke that he slashed every portrait of Hooke he could find, which is why, per the tale, none exists today.

Most sources believe that the portrait-slashing part of the story is apocryphal. What rings true, however, is that taking criticism badly is more humiliating, ultimately, than the criticism itself. As with the enraged Newton, so it is for all of us: If instead we do the work to learn to accept negative feedback, our well-being will surely improve.