| a) Explain the research method usedThe research method used is observational trials. It is one of the research methods that invites a group of individuals in the natural settings. For instance, with the longitudinal approach in observation, it examines certain people’s behaviours under study for slightly a longer time. For example, the article gives a framework or a length of time where the researchers will be on the look out to observe if the therapy in question is practical and efficient (Cribb et al., 2015). In other words, the researchers will be tasked to observe the participants or measure certain outcomes in establishing various health outcomes. The researchers have the responsibility of carrying out the required procedures in establishing the certain features and factors of concern. |
| b) Critique: How well is the method explained by the study authors? Justify your opinion.The authors have attempted to understand the cause and effect relationships. However, unlike in the experiment, the researchers have little they can do to determine how various subjects are assigned to various groups and which/what treatment every group under the long-term rehabilitation pathways could be assigned. They also utilise the available aspect of time well to ensure that whatever they were aiming at is achieved. For example, in the article, method application only come to a halt after there has been observable change but of course after a certain period that was set by the authors themselves. From the research abstract, it is suggestive that the researchers organised the team under the study in a very sober manner (a group of chronic expressive aphasic patients). |
| c) Critique: Is the method appropriate for the research question? Justify your opinion.Yes. The method is appropriate for the research question. Taylor, Bogdan and DeVault, (2015) note that research questions are important since they act as a catalyst for the whole research. It helps give the focus where the research is headed. As a result, the type of research method used will ultimately determine whether the research question will be addressed or not. In this case, the method is appropriate because the research question was achieved in the long run. For example, the article’s concluding remarks suggest that “language training app shows improvement in expressive chronic aphasia, supporting its potential role in the long-term rehabilitation pathway language training app shows improvement in expressive chronic aphasia, supporting its potential role in the long-term rehabilitation pathway.” |
| d) Critique: How well was the method designed to answer the research question? Justify your opinion.The method is designed to work well in answering the research question by looking at the patients who would not allow their structural lesion to improve during study. For example, there use of appropriate methods of data collections (open ended questionnaires and interviews) to get various perceptions from different respondents. By the fact that it is retrospective, it increases the chances of understanding the rea meaning of the various health issues affecting individuals in question. The study also abandoned employing a double baseline design to assess the stability by enabling a one year’s post stroke parameter of the chronic inclusion so that any change that was observed during the study behavioural language and neural function could be associated with the applicable conditions to ensure the desired change. The researchers/authors also effectively record the observable change in every individual. This is evident because of the findings of the study. For example, some of the results obtained are a direct measure of the individual’s response to the therapy i.e. “There was a significant difference between post-therapy and baseline for content units.” Cribb et al. (2015) note that a good method design goes beyond the normal research methods depending on the kind of study. The findings indicate that post therapy was not necessary dependent on the baseline content units. |
| e) Critique: How well was the method carried out? Justify your opinion.The method ensured that there was maximum utilisation of aspects of observation especially because it was to take slightly longer. Logically, there is a sense in which combining the group (people under the study) facilitated achieving the purpose of the research. It is through holistic efforts of the whole group that the results were achieved. |
| f) Critique: How you would strengthen the methodology if anything? Justify your opinion.I would strengthen the methodology by involving a case control so that I will incorporate two methods of study to have more solid results that can undeniable be accepted. This is because, one research method especially for this kind of methodology could have possibilities of giving inaccurate results.The patients were randomly sampled to various study groups. Two hundred patients were sampled from different groups for testing. Allocation to treatment groups was not concealed from the allocator. It was open to the knowledge of the allocatorIt is true that other than for the intervention/s of interest, participants were treated the same. They were all subjected to the same form of therapyIt is also true that the groups were comparable at entry. One could not tell the group that had aphasia, so they were comparable We are unsure and not told whether the outcomes were measured in the same manner for all participants it could be; we are not sure They were all subjected to the same criteria before they were analyzedWe are also not sure whether those assessing outcomes were blinded to the treatment allocation. We are unsure and thus, the probability that it happened is half and the probability that it didn’t is also half.It is true that the outcomes were measured in a reliable manner. The inclusion parameters were reliable.It is also true that the statistical analysis used was appropriate for the data presented. We are unsure of the significance of the dropout rate. We are unsure.We are unsure of the adequacy of rate of patient follows up. We are not told in the entire article, it is also unclear from the article. |
| 2. Analysis and Results |
| a) Explain the analysis that was used.Descriptive analysis. It is the basis of all data insights. It is an analysis that describes the results of the study in ways beyond word description to graphs and tables. The analysis is appropriate because it proves to be good in utilising reliability validity aspects. |
| b) Critique: Is the analysis appropriate for the data that was collected? Justify your opinion.The analysis is appropriate because as it stands, it has categorised various groups of individuals under study in a descriptive and systematic manner. For instance, there is a section for comparing the treatment groups, effect of session therapy, effect on timings, compliance and lastly maintenance. This is because, it becomes easier to understand when the data is analysed using description. |
| c) Critique: What is the quality of the reporting of the results from the analysis? Justify your opinion.The Quality is not up to mark possibly because the researchers did not apply the up to date tools for reporting. For example, they only applied the inclusion parameters to measure the results or the outcomes. It could be that the researchers were ignorant or because the tools had not yet been developed yet. |
| 3. Discussion and Conclusion |
| a) Identify the main points that were made in the discussion.The method of speech therapy on self-delivery has a great potential to supplement rehabilitation pathway for a very long time among the people with chronic aphasia (Stark & Warburton, 2018). The patients that were subjected to the study all manifested having been impacted by the method of speech delivery. They all demonstrated to have benefited from the therapy although each one had a different degree of impact.Patient who would showed the most severe CAT scores at the baseline were recorded as having made the most significant improvement on the CAT post therapy (Stark & Warburton, 2018).Even though a few people under the study were familiar with use of tablets, they all reported as having utilised the therapy to the required dose (Stark & Warburton, 2018).The researchers state that the outcome measure improvements could be influenced by overtime exposures to a similar measurement outcome (Stark & Warburton, 2018).In conclusion, the study reveals that proof-of-concept study gives the evidence for general improvement especially after self-delivered iPad based speech therapy among a population that is chronically affected. It also goes ahead to support the individualised factors investigation to understand the effectiveness of a dose. Additionally, the study calls for further research in this area especially to a larger group of similar patients with language outcome measurement functionality as programs are underway for wider application of the tablet based speech therapy in almost all classification of chronic aphasia (Stark & Warburton, 2018). |
| b) Critique: How well does the discussion use the results to address the original research questions? Justify your opinion.The discussion combines the findings to address each of the research question that had been posed earlier by comparing the outcome of the results to the respective research question and the existing literature if any. |
| c) Critique: Whether the conclusions drawn are justified in relation to the evidence from the analysis. Justify your opinion.They are justified.It is through the analysis that has been made, that the conclusion has been drawn. In other words, the conclusion is dependent on the analysis. For example, in analysing the data, the authors find out that the patients who scored most severe at the baseline on any of the two (CUs or rate of speech) never showed a strong correlation for improving in their post therapy. |
| d) Critique: Whether you can apply the findings of this research to clinical practice and how? If not, why not? Justify your opinion.The findings of this study are applicable in clinical practice. According to Saunders and Vehviläinen-Julkunen (2016) evidence based practice is a medical practice that is rising to occasion in almost every heath facility. The evidence based practice is usually sourced from the existing researches that have been done. It is through all these researches that the health practitioners can draw some of the conclusions from regarding some health matters. The researches tend to be valid and reliable especially when they have been done by more than one expert in the field. LoBiondo-Wood and Haber (2017) note that one researcher is likely to make the studies biased but where there are more than one, they would tend to stick on ethical issues in a research so that the information gotten will be of great benefit to the ones who will use. In the same way, this research has various insights regarding tablet use therapy and its relationship with the patients with aphasia. The health practitioners are at liberty to apply this in their daily encounter with patient who might have Aphasia and would require some therapy to manage their state of infirmity. The patients were subjected to therapy for a period of 6 months and the outcome was impressive. Out of the total number of the patients none of them failed to positively respond to the therapy. As a result, this could form part of the evidence based practice in clinical set ups. It would be one of the methods of therapy for the patients with such condition: “all the patients responded positively to the therapy”. ReferencesCribb, R. M., Jobb, D., McKie, D., & Vallance-Jones, F. (2015). Digging deeper: A Canadian reporter’s research guide. Oxford University Press.Grove, S. K., Gray, J. R., & Faan, P. R. (2019). Understanding Nursing Research: First South Asia Edition, E-Book: Building an Evidence-Based Practice. Elsevier India.LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2017). Nursing research-E-book: methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice. Elsevier Health Sciences.Saunders, H., & Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K. (2016). The state of readiness for evidence-based practice among nurses: An integrative review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 56, 128-140.Stark, B. C., & Warburton, E. A. (2018). Improved language in chronic aphasia after self-delivered iPad speech therapy. Neuropsychological rehabilitation, 28(5), 818-831.Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley & Sons. |
| 4. Communication |
| a) Clear written expression |
| b) Correct grammar and spelling |
| c) Clearly structured/organised (introduction and conclusion, subheadings etc) |
| d) Sources correctly cited in-text (check draft for text-matches with turnitin) |
| e) References in APA style |
| f) Within word limit (excluding reference list) |
