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.