Critical Reviews (Summary and Critique)

The structure of a critical review is shown below. A Critical Review will make liberal use of critical review language and signposting. See examples in bold below.

Introduction

This includes:

• A citation of the article reviewed in a conventional referencing style (usually APA 7th Edition).
• A general overview of the topic, question(s), or aim(s) raised in the text
• An overall evaluative comment on the text being reviewed.

Example Silva, M. C. (1986). Research testing nursing theory: State of the art. Advanced Nursing Science, 9(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198610000-00003 Silva’s paper argues that nurse theorists, researchers and clinicians should move testing of nursing theory into the nursing mainstream. This review identifies the strengths and limitations of Silva’s article and chronicles how the evaluation criteria for theory testing within the article have been refined since its publication. The paper discusses how philosophy, with an emphasis on epistemology affects testing of nursing theory and reflects on philosophical issues to show that … The paper argues that the claims made by the author are … [end with your overall conclusion about the article].

The Summary Section

The summary section requires you to:

• Establish the key ideas/evidentiary or experimental claims made in the text
• List them from most to least significant
• Summarise each idea/evidentiary claim dispassionately as though you were providing a concise overview of the article for someone who has not read the article.
• Use the present tense for the author’s ideas even if they are published in the past (it is assumed they still believe their ideas). For research findings, use the past tense, e.g., found that…).

Example Silva’s paper argues for increased clarity over the term ‘testing of nursing theory’ that has been overused but little understood in the literature. She achieves this clarity by delineating the following seven evaluation criteria that distinguished the testing of nursing theory from other types of evaluation criteria in nursing research: 1)….2)…7) . The second point of Silva’s article is the distinction made between evaluation criteria and the testing of nursing theory and evaluation criteria for the overall quality of a research study. She asserts that … The third main claim made in the paper is that … She provides evidence from an experimental pilot project on … to show that … [outline of main points and evidence continues].

The Critique Section

This section is the most important as it demonstrates your ability to critically assess the article. In writing this section:

• Take it for granted that published articles by world experts are never perfect. There are always limitations and caveats and ways that research can be improved. Research articles will often identify ‘limitations’ as part of the paper. You can expand on these limitations but you need to consider other areas in which the article might be flawed as part of your critical review.
• Devote a paragraph for each critical response if you have a lot to say; combine ideas together in one paragraph if they are closely related concerns.
• If your critique is more positive than negative, present the negative points first and the positive points last. End with a statement of why you agree with the article overall. If your critique is more negative than positive, do the opposite.
• If the article is equally balanced in terms of positive and negative points, you need to decide overall what your judgement is after weighing up the positive and negative points. Don’t ‘sit on the fence’.
• Consider including recommendations for how the text can be improved in terms of methodological improvements, a clearer research approach, the inclusion of additional theories or frameworks, or a more suitable experimental paradigm.           (adapted from University of New South Wales, 2022)

Example One of the strengths of Silva’s article is also one of its limitations; that is, the seven formative evaluation criteria need far more precision than that given in the paper.  Chinn and Kramer (1999), Fawcett (1989), Melesis (1991) and Walker and Avant (1988) have all made contributions in terms of … and the author seems unaware of these developments. Second, although Silva gives a plausible explanation for choosing … evidence from other sources show that the results could not be generalised to all nursing theories in existence when the paper was written in 1986 (Jackson, 1986). Thus, the degree to which the results may have differed may have been compromised. A third limitation with Silva’s article is that only one approach to the testing of nursing theory was described. But this avoids mention of three other approaches to … This seriously limits the …. [critique continues].

The Conclusion Section

This must be as brief and succinct as possible. In a critical review of 800 words, a conclusion might not even be necessary. If required, do the following:

• Remind the reader in a single sentence of your overall position on the article, positive or negative, and why you have made this judgement.
• End with a positive point about how the text has contributed to your understanding of the topic and the discipline as a whole. If it hasn’t done so, leave this sentence out.

Example This review argues that Silva’s article fails to make…. /… makes a significant contribution / to our understanding of … because … [Despite this], Silva’s article is worth reading to get clearer understanding of how nurses have systematically contributed to evaluation criteria for empirical testing of nursing theory.  This bodes well for the advancement of nursing science and the future of nursing.