Critical Review Form - Qualitative

Studies (Version 2.0)

© Letts, L., Wilkins, S., Law, M., Stewart, D., Bosch, J., & Westmorland, M., 2007
McMaster University

CITATION:

Comments
STUDY PURPOSE: Outline the purpose of the study and/or research question.

Was the purpose and/or research

question stated clearly?
 yes
 no

LITERATURE: Describe the justification of the need for this study. Was it clear and compelling?

Was relevant background

literature reviewed?
 yes
 no

How does the study apply to your practice and/or to your research question? Is it
worth continuing this review?1

STUDY DESIGN: Was the design appropriate for the study question? (i.e., rationale) Explain.

What was the design?

 phenomenology
 ethnography
 grounded theory
 participatory action research
 other

1 When doing critical reviews, there are strategic points in the process at which you may decide the research is not applicable to
your practice and question. You may decide then that it is not worthwhile to continue with the review.

© Letts et al., 2007 Qualitative Review Form 1.

 Was a theoretical perspective Describe the theoretical or philosophical perspective for this study e.g.,
identified? researcher’s perspective.
 yes
 no

Method(s) used: Describe the method(s) used to answer the research question. Are the methods congruent with
 participant observation the philosophical underpinnings and purpose?
 interviews
 document review
 focus groups
 other

SAMPLING: Describe sampling methods used. Was the sampling method appropriate to the study purpose
or research question?
Was the process of purposeful
selection described?
 yes Penelitian ini dilakukan di Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS ). merekrut dengan
 no mengundang informan – peserta pelatihan medis – dari sampel (9) individu yang dikenal oleh
peneliti. Secara keseluruhan, lima belas wawancara dilakukan, 6 dengan sarjana (3 laki-laki) dan 5
dengan pascasarjana (3 laki-laki). Selain itu, empat wawancara lagi dilakukan dengan beberapa
ahli klinis (n=2) dan perawat berpengalaman (n=2) Pengambilan sampel snowball (9) / secara
acak digunakan untuk mengidentifikasi peserta potensial lainnya.

Was sampling done until Are the participants described in adequate detail? How is the sample applicable to
redundancy in data was reached?2 your practice or research question? Is it worth continuing?
 yes
 no
 not addressed Sampel di deskripsi cukup detail. “Kami memulai perekrutan dengan mengundang informan
– peserta pelatihan medis – dari sampel. . Kami beralasan bahwa status pendidikan MTs
(sarjana vs pascasarjana) dan jenis kelamin mereka adalah kriteria penting yang akan
memberikan variasi maksimum. Wawancara dilakukan sampai tercapai kejenuhan tematik.
Secara keseluruhan, lima belas wawancara dilakukan, 6 dengan sarjana (3 laki-laki) dan 5
dengan pascasarjana (3 laki-laki).”

Dalam rangka untuk menjaga pertimbangan etis, setiap peserta menerima satu set instruksi yang
Was informed consent obtained? menjelaskan tujuan penelitian, kebebasan mereka untuk ikut dan konfirmasi dari kerahasiaan.
 yes Akhirnya, persetujuan tertulis diperoleh. 
 no
 not addressed

© Letts et al., 2007 Qualitative Review Form 2.

 DATA COLLECTION:
Describe the context of the study. Was it sufficient for understanding of the “whole” picture?
Descriptive Clarity
Clear & complete description of
site:  yes  no
participants:  yes  no

Role of researcher &

relationship with participants: What was missing and how does that influence your understanding of the research?
 yes  no

Identification of assumptions
and biases of researcher:
 yes  no

2 Throughout the form, “no” means the authors explicitly state reasons for not doing it; “not addressed” should be ticked if there is
no mention of the issue.

© Letts et al., 2007 Qualitative Review Form 3.

 Procedural Rigour
Procedural rigor was used in Do the researchers provide adequate information about data collection procedures e.g.,
data collection strategies? gaining access to the site, field notes, training data gatherers? Describe any flexibility in the
 yes design & data collection methods.
 no
 not addressed wawancara semi terstruktural , rata rata berlangsung 64 menit, direkam secara
audio dan kemudian ditranskripsikan kata demi kata. Wawancara ini dilakuakn
dengan tujuan memungkinkan peserta untuk menggambarkan pengalaman
pribadi mereka dan pemikiran tentang subjek penelitian. Peneliti juga
memberikan Pertanyaan kunci meminta MTs untuk mengomentari ketaatan
mereka sendiri tanggung jawab dan unsur-unsur yang mempengaruhinya
perilaku mereka baik secara positif maupun negatif.  dilakukan sejumlah
wawancara tambahan dengan beberapa ahli klinis dan perawat profesional.
Mereka diminta untuk memberikan pandangan yang komprehensif tentang
tanggung jawab MTs dalam praktek.

DATA ANALYSES: Describe method(s) of data analysis. Were the methods appropriate? What were the findings?

Analytical Rigour Wawancara transkrip dianalisis menggunakan perangkat lunak MAXQDA

Data analyses were inductive?
 yes  no  not addressed
2007 Skrip dibaca dengan hati-hati beberapa kali dan tema pengkodean
dihasilkan menggunakan analisis konten konvensional Buku kode ditinjau
Findings were consistent with dalam pertemuan tim reguler dan setiap ketidaksepakatan diselesaikan
& reflective of data? dengan konsensus. Menggunakan teknik perbandingan konstan (12),
 yes  no wawancara tambahan diadakan untuk menyaring struktur pengkodean dan
mencapaiteoretis 
saturasi(10). Proses ini memberikan kekakuan metodologis karena sifatnya
yang berulang untuk merevisi tema awal dan penyempurnaannya melalui
pengumpulan dan analisis data selanjutnya.

Auditability Describe the decisions of the researcher re: transformation of data to codes/themes. Outline
Decision trail developed? the rationale given for development of themes.
 yes  no  not addressed

Process of analyzing the data was Data dikodekan kemudian dikelompokkan dan diatur menggunakan
described adequately? perangkat lunak
 yes  no  not addressed

Theoretical Connections
Did a meaningful picture of the How were concepts under study clarified & refined, and relationships made clear?
phenomenon under study Describe any conceptual frameworks that emerged.
emerge?
 yes Hasi dari analisis data ditemukan hubungan dengan tujuan penelitian ini
 no yaitu ada 2 kondisi yang menjadi faktor atau elemen yang mempengaruhi
medical students dan resident untuk bertanggung jawab selama pelatihan
klinis yaitu kondisi kontekstual dan kondisi intervensi

© Letts et al., 2007 Qualitative Review Form 3.

OVERALL RIGOUR For each of the components of trustworthiness, identify what the researcher used to
Was there evidence of the four ensure each.
components of
trustworthiness? Credibility
Rata-rata, wawancara berlangsung selama 64 menit, direkam dengan audio dan
 yes  no
Transferability  yes  no kemudian ditranskripsikan kata demi kata. Untuk menjaga etika pertimbangan, setiap
Dependability  yes  no peserta menerima satu set petunjuk yang menjelaskan tujuan penelitian, kebebasan
Comfirmability  yes  no mereka untuk berpartisipasi dan konfirmasi kerahasiaan. Akhirnya, tertulis
diinformasikan persetujuan diperoleh.

What meaning and relevance does this study have for your practice or research question?

CONCLUSIONS & What did the study conclude? What were the implications of the findings for
IMPLICATIONS occupational therapy (practice & research)? What were the main limitations in the study?

Conclusions were appropriate this study demonstrates that responsibility in MTs practically forms from
given the study findings? interactions between contextual and intervening conditions. Moreover, as there
 yes  no is a real dearth of research on the subject of responsibility, this study contributes
to related literature and might provide a helpful grounding for understanding the
concept of responsibility in MTs. Conclusively and according to the study data,
the following three measures seem essential for improving observance of
responsibility in MTs: a) to make and implement stricter admission policies for
medical colleges, b) to constantly improve and revise the education system in its
different dimensions such as management, structure, etc. Based on
regular and systematic evaluations, and c) to establish, apply and sustain higher
standards throughout the educational environment.

Conclusion : adanya tanggung jawab pada mahasiswa kedokteran. Tanggung

jawab medical trainee terbentuk karena adanya interaksi dari keadaan dan
intervensi

Implikasi : a) membuat dan menerapkan kebijakan penerimaan lebih ketat

untuk perguruan tinggi kedokteran,
b) untuk terus meningkatkan dan merevisi sistem pendidikan dalam
dimensi yang berbeda seperti manajemen, struktur, dll.
c) untuk menetapkan, menerapkan, dan mempertahankan standar yang
lebih tinggi di seluruh lingkungan pendidikan
The findings contributed to
theory development & future OT
practice/ research?
 yes  no