Running head: WRITTEN CRITIQUE PART 1 1 Written Critique Part 1 Dayle Lauren Stenberg College WRITTEN CRITIQUE PART 1 2 Written Critique Part 1 This paper offers a summary and subsequent follow up critique of the quantitative study, “The impact of nurses’ opinion of client behaviour and level of social functioning on the amount of time they spend with clients” by Kristiansen, Dahl, Asplund & Hellzen, (2005).* Background This quantitative descriptive study was conducted by Kristiansen (statistician and Doctoral student), Dahl (statistician), Asplund (statistician), and Hellzen (statistician) from the Mid-Sweden University in Stockholm, Sweden. The article is written in a rather subjective nature with some references to qualitative studies more than quantitative evidence. Purpose This article was written to study and compare the psychosocial climate in the nurse-patient relationship between mentally ill patients and psychiatric nurses, with particular focus on how the nurses’ expressed emotion affects the relationship process that occurs in mental health care. The authors attempt to provide data through observation and survey results to bolster their argument. At the time of this particular study, the authors’ state that no other research had been done in regards to the time that nurses spend with psychiatric patients. Thesis The authors’ stated position at the beginning of the article is that there was need to establish “connections between the time spent together and the nurses’ opinion of client behaviour and social functioning” (Kristiansen, Dahl, Asplund, & Hellzen, 2005, p. 720). Although the thesis statement is stated clearly at the end of the introduction to the article as “…to investigate the connections between the time spent together and the nurses’ opinion of client behaviour and social functioning” (Kristiansen et al., 2005, p. 720), the paper seemingly strays from their intended focus in the body of the paper, often confusing the writer as to the intended WRITTEN CRITIQUE PART 1 3 point. In this regard, assumptions are initially hidden, but soon become more obvious from a rather biased stance of dehumanization. * Evidence The authors provide some reference to other studies conducted regarding other issues not directly related to their study in hand. The paper is weak in constructing a solid argument as it lacks defined and structured thought. Although there are references made to reputable studies, the connection between the cited studies and the study they conducted are not always clear. Some of the statements provided by the authors seemingly arise from emotion rather than logic, as they are unable to provide any solid validity to their proposition, and therefore do not leave the reader convinced of a solid presentation of their argument. Refutation The authors initially paint a very strong image of their thesis statement but then retract their initial interpretation process through influence of their research results, presenting another statement that further confuses the reader. There are no opposing arguments brought forth in comparison. Appeal The article holds some appeal in the initial question posed as to whether nurses’ time spent with patients is influenced by their opinions on patient behaviours; an good question for anyone with interest in psychiatric care or mental health issues, however, the lack of synchronicity and weakness in the authors’ method and validation of their findings, coupled with poor English grammar, makes the article difficult to read and somewhat unappealing to a professional perhaps seeking to gain some further knowledge or insight into the article’s proposed question. Information gleaned from their survey and observations was interesting as it shows propensity for some pretty startling and grave evidence of dehumanization in mental health. Likely the single-most important deficit noticed was the lack of a number of important variables in this study; where the authors’ used a survey outside of its intended use, and direct WRITTEN CRITIQUE PART 1 observations, they did not account for nor discuss other reasons that affected the nurses’ time spent with patients. Had these variables been considered in the study, they possibly could have bolstered their hypothesis or refuted it and made the study more plausible. Conclusion Overall, this article offered some interesting recognition into plausible underlying problems in psychiatric nursing environments, but the study lacked congruency, and strong connection between the findings and the overall hypothesis. For this type of study, the sample sizing was much too small and there was a large deficit of variable consideration. The knowledge and expertise of the authors’ on this subject matter is questionable, and the poor grammar throughout the paper equally adds to the loss of credibility. 4 WRITTEN CRITIQUE PART 1 Mark 5 Mark Comments References Kristiansen, L., Dahl, A., Asplund, K., & Hellzen, O. (2005). The impact of nurses’ opinion of client behaviour and level of social functioning on the amount of time they spend with clients. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 12, 719-727. Retrieved from http://stenbergcollege.mrooms3.net/mod/folder/view.php?id=26037 WRITTEN CRITIQUE PART 1 APA (5%) APA format for body of paper, references with consistent and complete identification of sources using APA 6th Edition. Structure and Scholarly Presentation (10 %) Well structured paper, logically & coherently developed including a rational progression of ideas (e.g., via consistency and appropriateness of headings, and intelligent use of sentence and paragraph sequencing Length: 1000 words (+/- 10%) Appropriateness of word choice and language including spelling, punctuation and grammar Content (85%) Background: What is the nature of the article? Who wrote it and what are her/his qualifications for writing it? Purpose: Why was the article written? What is its purpose? What are the objectives of the article? What kind of material is presented to achieve those objectives? What is the significance of the article? How does it relate to other materials on the same subject? Thesis: What is the writer's position? Is it stated directly and clearly? What are the writer's key assumptions? Are they explicit or implicit? Do you detect biases? Are the assumptions and biases obvious, or are they hidden behind a stance of neutrality and objectivity? (An assumption is a belief about something. It is often not stated by a writer. Assumptions underlie all human behavior. For example, when you go to your classroom, you assume your teacher will show up. You should critically examine all assumptions, even those in sync with your own.) Evidence: What does the writer provide to support her/his position? What are the writer's specific arguments? Is the evidence believable? Authoritative? Sufficient? Logical or emotional? Are you convinced? Refutation: Does the writer present her/his thesis as the only reasonable position? Or has the writer clearly and fairly presented any opposing sides? 6 Assigned Earned 1.25 1.25 2.5 2.5 1.25 1.25 2 2 3.5 3.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 WRITTEN CRITIQUE PART 1 Has the writer shown the opposing arguments to be invalid? Has the writer overlooked any possible opposition? Appeal: What is the appeal of the article? What are some of its most striking or illuminating qualities? What, if any, are its striking deficiencies? What is the writer's style or tone? Authoritative? Speculative? Reasonable? Suggestive? What kind of language does the writer? Does it add to her/his credibility? Total 7 3.5 3.5 25 25 Grade 25.00 / 25.00 Graded on Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 7:30 PM Graded by Kim Bagshaw Dayle a very well written and compelling first half to this essay. I look forward to reading your second half.