Research critique: Grobecker on belonging and stress
A critique of no more than five pages of the assigned research study, Grobecker's 2015 paper on a sense of belonging and perceived stress among baccalaureate nursing students in clinical placements, identifying the research purpose, question or hypothesis, the design, the method of data collection, the sampling, the independent and dependent variables, the legal and ethical considerations, the data analysis, the findings, and the weaknesses and limitations, and concluding with an assessment of quality using the Johns Hopkins rating scheme, with a minimum of three references in APA format.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 13, 2026
Appraise, do not summarise
The purpose is stated plainly and worth taking seriously: to identify the quality of a research study, because being able to judge quality and apply it to practice or to support a change in practice is a skill professional nurses need. That framing tells you the critique is an appraisal rather than a summary, and the difference shows up in every section. Identifying the design is a summary task; saying whether the design could answer the research question is appraisal. Describing the sample is a summary task; saying whether the eligibility criteria make sense, which the criteria list asks directly, is appraisal. Work through the required headings, but in each one answer the evaluative question rather than only the descriptive one. The criteria list actually contains both kinds of question and marking will follow it, so read it as a checklist and answer every part.
One element deserves attention before you write because it is where a critique of this particular study can go wrong. The criteria ask you to identify the independent and dependent variables and remind you that the independent variable is the treatment or intervention being manipulated by the researcher. In a correlational or descriptive design there is no manipulation, so there may be no independent variable in that strict sense, only predictor and outcome variables measured as they occur. If that is the case here, say so and explain why, rather than forcing a label onto a study that does not have one. That is precisely the kind of judgement the assignment is testing, and a critique that assigns an independent variable to an unmanipulated study has misunderstood the design it just identified. Say which the study actually has and defend the reading from the design section.
The sampling and generalisability questions are linked and the criteria treat them separately, so answer both. Describe the sample's characteristics as reported, note the size, state the inclusion and exclusion criteria and say whether they make sense for the question. Then, under data analysis, the criteria ask what population was sampled and whether the results can be generalised to a larger population, which is a different question. This study drew a large national sample of volunteers from a student association database rather than a single programme, so the limit on generalisation is self-selection rather than a narrow geographic base, and volunteers who answer a survey about belonging may differ from those who do not. Say what the sample supports and what it does not, and note whether the authors themselves claimed more than their sample allowed, since that is a finding about the paper rather than about the topic. Say what population the sample represents rather than what population the topic concerns.
The legal and ethical section has three specified questions and each should be answered separately: whether the study went through review such as an institutional review board or research committee, whether it raises ethical issues needing consideration, and whether informed consent was obtained. The second is the one students skip, and this study has a real answer available: an online survey of students about stress and belonging raises questions about how consent was obtained and documented electronically, whether participation could affect anything in the student's programme, and how identifiable responses were protected, so examine what safeguards the paper describes. Reporting that the authors did not address it is a legitimate critique finding rather than a gap in your reading. Report what safeguards the paper describes and what it leaves unaddressed. Self-selection and consent through an online instrument are the ethical questions this design raises. Say what the paper reports and what it passes over.
The conclusion asks for two things: your assessment of the study's quality and a rating using the Johns Hopkins scheme, which rates evidence by level according to design and by quality as high, good or low. Apply it explicitly, naming the level and the quality grade and defending both, since an unexplained rating is not an appraisal. On execution, the paper must be a Word document, no more than five pages excluding title and reference pages, with at least three references of which the Grobecker article is one, in APA format. Use the assigned article rather than a different one on the same subject, and use the rubric supplied with the assignment as a final check, since the criteria list and the rubric together specify almost everything that will be marked. Check the criteria list and the rubric together, since between them they name almost everything that carries marks.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Answer the evaluative question under each required heading.
- 02Recognise when a design has no manipulated independent variable.
- 03Distinguish sample description from generalisability.
- 04Assess whether authors claimed more than their sample supported.
- 05Examine voluntariness where participants are students in placement.
- 06Apply and defend a Johns Hopkins level and quality rating.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01An introduction stating what the paper will discuss.
- 02The research purpose, question or hypothesis, stated in your own words.
- 03The research design, defined with a cited definition.
- 04The method of data collection and any instruments, with a judgement on their appropriateness.
- 05The sample characteristics, size and eligibility criteria, with a judgement on them.
- 06The variables, correctly identified for the design.
- 07Legal and ethical considerations including review, issues and informed consent.
- 08The data analysis, reliability and validity, the population sampled and generalisability.
- 09The findings and the recommendations for future research.
- 10The weaknesses and limitations identified by the authors.
- 11A conclusion assessing quality and applying the Johns Hopkins rating scheme.
- 12No more than five pages, in a Word document, with at least three references in APA.
The required headings in order
Introduction
What the critique covers and what the assigned study is.
Purpose and research question
The problem the researcher addressed, in your own words.
Design
The design named and defined, with whether it suits the question.
Data collection
Methods, instruments and their appropriateness, with support.
Sampling
Characteristics, size, eligibility criteria and whether they make sense.
Variables
What was measured, and whether an independent variable exists at all.
Legal and ethical considerations
Review approval, ethical issues including voluntariness, and consent.
Data analysis
Methods used, reliability and validity, population sampled and generalisability.
Findings, weaknesses and limitations
What was found, what further research the authors recommend, the weaknesses they identified and any they did not.
Conclusion and rating
Your assessment of quality with a defended Johns Hopkins level and grade.
The assigned article and the rating scheme
Recommended databases
- The assigned Grobecker article
- The Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice rating materials
- CINAHL and PubMed
- Research methods texts for design definitions
Search sequence
- 1.Read the assigned article twice, once for content and once for method.
- 2.Find a cited definition of the design from a textbook or methods source.
- 3.Check the instruments used for published reliability and validity evidence.
- 4.Read the Johns Hopkins level and quality definitions before rating anything.
- 5.Look for later studies on the same question to judge how the findings have held up.
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
A sense of belonging and perceived stress among baccalaureate nursing students in clinical placements
Nurse Education Today, via PubMed · 2016
The assigned article itself, which the critique must be about rather than a different paper on the same subject.
- 02
Research Ethics
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Review approval, consent and voluntariness, which are the three separate questions the legal and ethical section asks.
- 03
Nursing Professional Development Evidence-Based Practice
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Evidence hierarchies and how a rating scheme is applied, which the conclusion requires.
- 04
Hypothesis Testing, P Values, Confidence Intervals, and Significance
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
What the reported statistics can and cannot establish, which the data analysis section has to judge.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Summarising each section rather than appraising it.
- Assigning an independent variable to a study with no manipulation.
- Describing the sample without judging the eligibility criteria.
- Treating sample description and generalisability as one question.
- Skipping the question of whether the study raises ethical issues.
- Ignoring voluntariness when participants are assessed students.
- Quoting the authors without quotation marks and a page number.
- Giving a Johns Hopkins rating without defending the level or the grade.
- Submitting in a format the instructor cannot open.
Submission checklist
- The purpose or research question is stated in your own words.
- Any direct quotation carries quotation marks, a citation and a page number.
- The design is named and defined with a cited definition.
- Data collection methods and instruments are described and judged appropriate or not.
- Sample characteristics, size and eligibility criteria are reported.
- Whether the eligibility criteria make sense is answered with support.
- Variables are identified correctly for the design, including the absence of manipulation.
- Institutional review or research committee approval is addressed.
- Ethical issues including voluntariness are considered.
- Informed consent is addressed.
- Reliability and validity of instruments are discussed.
- The population sampled and the limits of generalisation are stated.
- Findings and recommendations for future research are reported.
- Author-identified weaknesses are reported and your own added.
- The Johns Hopkins level and quality grade are both named and defended.
- Five pages maximum, Word format, at least three references in APA.
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.