DNP 801 Topic 4: empirical research identification
Empirical is a technical term with a checklist attached, and most rejected submissions fail on the same point: a systematic review is peer-reviewed and scholarly and is not an empirical study.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Empirical has a checklist, and it is not a synonym for peer-reviewed
The word empirical is doing precise work here and the checklist exists because students routinely submit articles that are scholarly but not empirical. An empirical study reports original data the authors themselves collected or analysed: it has a stated research question or hypothesis, a described method covering sample, setting and procedure, results presented as findings rather than as argument, and a discussion interpreting those findings. That definition rules out a great deal that looks respectable — systematic reviews and meta-analyses synthesise other people's data rather than reporting their own, and while they sit high in an evidence hierarchy they are not empirical studies for this assignment. It also rules out theoretical papers, editorials, quality improvement reports with no research design, clinical practice guidelines and textbook chapters. Check each candidate against the checklist item by item before committing to it, because discovering at the chart stage that an article has no method section costs the whole search again.
The three articles must relate to your PICOT question, and relate is worth interpreting properly: an article is related if it addresses your population, your intervention or your outcome, and the strongest set covers different elements rather than three studies of the same thing. Then the chart, which is where the assignment's purpose shows. Charting forces you to state each study's design, sample, setting, intervention, measures and findings in the same columns, and the value is comparative — laid out side by side, you can see that two studies used incompatible outcome measures, or that all three were conducted in a setting unlike yours, which is a finding about your evidence base rather than about any single paper. Say what the chart revealed rather than only completing it. That observation is what carries into the annotated bibliography and the evaluation paper in later topics, and it is what the sequence is building toward.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Apply a technical definition of empirical research rather than a general one.
- 02Exclude reviews, guidelines and commentaries that are scholarly but not empirical.
- 03Select articles that cover different PICOT elements rather than repeating one.
- 04Read a completed chart comparatively for what it reveals about the evidence base.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01Three empirical articles meeting every checklist criterion.
- 02Articles related to distinct elements of your PICOT question.
- 03A completed Research Article Chart.
- 04An observation about what the comparison reveals.
- 05APA-formatted citations.
Select three, then chart them
Fix the definition
State what makes a study empirical and what that excludes.
Search against the checklist
Filter candidates by checklist criteria before committing to them.
Cover different elements
Choose articles addressing population, intervention and outcome respectively.
Complete the chart
Record design, sample, setting, intervention, measures and findings consistently.
Read across the chart
State what the comparison reveals about your evidence base.
Finding articles that pass the checklist
Recommended databases
- CINAHL
- OVID
- PubMed Central
- The Empirical Research Checklist resource
Search sequence
- 1.Read the checklist before searching, so the criteria filter your results rather than your reading.
- 2.Filter your database search to research articles where that limiter exists.
- 3.Check each candidate's method section first — no method section, no empirical study.
- 4.Lay the three side by side before writing anything, since the comparison is the point.
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
Evidence-Based Medicine
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
The evidence hierarchy, which is what makes the review-versus-empirical distinction confusing and worth stating.
- 02
Human Subjects Research Design
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Research design fundamentals, which is what the chart's design column has to record accurately.
- 03
Research Design: Descriptive Studies
Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · 2024
Descriptive design and its limits, useful for judging what each charted study can support.
- 04
Systematic content analysis: A combined method to analyze the literature
MethodsX · 2020
A worked method for analysing a body of literature systematically, which is what reading across the chart begins.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Submitting a systematic review, which is scholarly but not empirical.
- Choosing three studies of the same intervention in the same population.
- Checking the checklist after selecting rather than before.
- Completing the chart without reading across it.
- Including a quality improvement report with no research design.
Submission checklist
- Does each article report original data collected or analysed by its authors?
- Does each have a stated method with sample and setting?
- Have you checked every checklist criterion for all three?
- Do the three cover different PICOT elements?
- Have you stated what the completed chart shows?
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.