Critique of Quantitative and Qualitative Articles
The assignment gives you your headings. Use them, and remember the two article types are judged by different criteria — trustworthiness is not validity by another name.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 16, 2026
Two article types, two different critique guides
This assignment has already decided its own structure, which is unusual and worth taking literally. A central heading announces the critique; the side headings come from Box 5.2 for the quantitative article and Box 5.3 for the qualitative one; and the articles are the same two you submitted in Topic 4, so a marker can check whether you actually critiqued them or found easier ones. Follow that structure exactly. The intellectual work is in resisting the pull to judge both articles by the same standard. Quantitative appraisal asks about design, sampling, measurement reliability and validity, statistical conclusion validity, and threats such as selection and attrition. Qualitative appraisal asks about the research tradition, whether the sampling was purposive and reached saturation, how data were collected, and how trustworthiness was established through credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Get those two vocabularies straight before writing and half the assignment is already done.
The most common failure is treating the qualitative article as a weak quantitative one. A sample of twelve is not a limitation in a phenomenological study; it may be exactly right, and the question to ask is whether the sampling was purposive and whether the analysis reached saturation. Generalisability is not the goal, so criticising its absence shows you have imported the wrong criteria. Equally, do not go soft: a qualitative study with no account of researcher positionality, no audit trail and no member checking is genuinely weak, and saying so with the right vocabulary is what earns the marks. Write each side heading as a judgement rather than a summary — 'the sample was appropriate to the design because...' rather than 'the sample was 42 nurses' — and end each critique with an overall verdict on whether the findings could inform practice, since that is the point of appraising anything.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Apply design-appropriate appraisal criteria to quantitative and qualitative reports.
- 02Distinguish validity and reliability from credibility and trustworthiness.
- 03Judge sampling adequacy by the standard of the study's own design.
- 04Reach an overall verdict on each article's usefulness for practice.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A central heading announcing the critique.
- 02Side headings taken from Box 5.2 for the quantitative article.
- 03Side headings taken from Box 5.3 for the qualitative article.
- 04A judgement, not a summary, under each heading.
- 05At least 1,000 words in APA format with references.
Heading by heading, following Box 5.2 and Box 5.3
Central heading and scope
Announce the critique and identify both articles precisely.
Quantitative critique: design and sampling
Appraise the design against the research question and the sampling against the design.
Quantitative critique: measurement and analysis
Assess instrument reliability and validity and the appropriateness of the statistics.
Qualitative critique: tradition and sampling
Identify the research tradition and judge purposive sampling and saturation.
Qualitative critique: trustworthiness
Assess credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.
Overall verdicts
State whether each study's findings could inform practice, and how far.
Getting the appraisal criteria right for each design
Recommended databases
- The assigned Polit and Beck chapter
- CINAHL
- PubMed Central
- NCBI Bookshelf
Search sequence
- 1.Copy the Box 5.2 and Box 5.3 headings out before you start writing.
- 2.Read a reference account of qualitative appraisal so the trustworthiness vocabulary is right.
- 3.Check the reliability statistics the article reports rather than assuming they exist.
- 4.Do not swap the Topic 4 articles for easier ones; the continuity is checkable.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Qualitative Study
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
An open reference on qualitative study design and how its rigour is judged.
- 02
Quantitative Methods
University of Southern California Libraries · 2025
The quantitative side: design, variables and the threats appraisal looks for.
- 03
Nursing Professional Development Evidence-Based Practice
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Evidence-based practice as the frame that makes appraisal purposeful.
- 04
QSEN: Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes Associated With Evidence-Based Practice (Table 9.4)
Nursing Management and Professional Concepts, Chippewa Valley Technical College (NCBI Bookshelf) · 2022
QSEN's evidence-based practice competencies — what appraisal is meant to feed into.
- 05
Exploratory Data Analysis: Frequencies, Descriptive Statistics, Histograms, and Boxplots
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Descriptive statistics and exploratory analysis, for judging whether the reported analysis fits the data.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Summarising each article instead of appraising it.
- Criticising a qualitative study for a small sample or lack of generalisability.
- Using validity vocabulary where trustworthiness vocabulary is required.
- Ignoring the prescribed headings and inventing your own structure.
Submission checklist
- Are the side headings the ones from Box 5.2 and Box 5.3?
- Does each section contain a judgement with a reason?
- Have you used credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability for the qualitative study?
- Is there an overall verdict on each article?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.