Critical appraisal is the process of descriptive evaluation of outcome of scientific research to judge its reliability, value, trustworthiness, value and relevance in a particular context. It uses explicit and transparent techniques for data assessment in a published research. This happens by the implications of the rules of evidence to the factors of the study such as internal validity, external validity, sticking to the reporting standards, generalizability, and conclusions (Jundi & Sakka, 2017). This is the critical appraisal of the two resources that have been used in the completion of the above infographic task. The analysis will be based on the analysis of sample, measures, and procedures of the sources.
The first data source for the appraisal is the study entitled Marijuana and Public health published on Centers for disease control and prevention and will be referred as study 1 while the second data source while the study of the second data source is entitled as Marijuana drug facts that is published on National Institute on Drug Abuse and will be referred as study 2 throughout the critical appraisal.
Study 1(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018):
The sample was taken from national surveys, national programs, and the ongoing trends and statistics. A plethora of surveys and programs were conducted and their continuous future warnings are also on the line of focus. This shows that the data collected is representing the target group i.e., the people who are consuming cannabis well.
The sample size taken in each interview is sufficient for the study as the data evaluated from each survey has a considerable amount of individuals that are participating. The methodology of the article is qualitative study. The study involved semi-structured interviews of the drug addicted population that were further sub grouped into adult, youngsters, and pregnant women. This shows the reliability and generalizability as each and every type of a population group has been considered.
Study 2 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2020):
For study 2, the sample seems to be sufficient and helping the target audience. The samples are taken from different demographic areas and this shows its generaliability. Generalizability can be defined as the extent up to which the results of a study could be valid, applicable, and reliable to other settings also (Leung, 2015).
The internal and external validity in a qualitative research article are the concepts that help in reflecting whether the outcomes of the research article are trustworthy or they are relevant or not. While, the internal validity is linked with how well the research was conducted and this include the format and the structure. The external validity is associated with the relevancy of the study with the topic and to show how the findings could be implemented in practice (Leung et al, 2015). So, both, the study 1 and study 2 are following the correct format and this reflects its internal validity and as the results can be implementation into practice which can result in the well-being of the population, this shows that the external validity of the both of the studies.
In both, study 1 and study 2, the measures depict all the possible aspects of the health behavior and this shows it reliability and validity. For analyzing the sensitivity, the sensitivity of anything is its true positive rate and is the percentage of the samples that are truly positive and are giving positive result. While, the specificity is the true negative rate, is the percentage of the samples that have been tested negative for that particular health behavior (Trevethan, 2017).
Both of the studies entail all the reliable measures and it could be concluded that the measures are valid, reliable, acceptable, accurate, sensitive, as well as specific.
Risk of bias is the possibility that shows whether the study design or the conduct of the study could lead to any misleading results or not. However, in both of the studies an extensive research has been done from all the credible sources and the results shows that the procedure used are appropriate as per the conduct of the study.
Though, the point of conflict in the studies is the limitations. Presenting the study limitations is certainly an integral part of any scholarly process. Without limitations, the readers would fully grapple the potential segregated areas or other bases that may crash on the results provided. However, providing limitations also come under ethical consideration of the scientific inquiry. It makes sure the articulacy of both the studies as well as the researchers along with providing the transferability of the procedures used. It also supports correct analysis and validation of the findings (Resnik & Shamoo, 2017). However, the authors of both of the studies have not considered any limitations and its possible impact on the outcomes. According to Ross & Zaidi (2019), limitations are important in order to understand the research findings in the framework, checking up the validity and relevancy of the work, along with identifying the level of integrity to the outcomes of the published research. Recognition of the limitations also requires a clarification of the meaning, influence of errors, and validation of problems on the published findings.
Both of the studies, study 1 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018) and study 2 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2020) used in the completion of infographic are valuable. All of the factors that have been critically appraised such as sample, measure, and procedure are well justified, along with the approach used. The methods used in the study are appropriate and the findings are clear and relevant to the title. Both of the studies show internal and external validity along with the sensitivity and specificity. However, the studies only lack in presenting the limitations.
Al-Jundi, A., & Sakka, S. (2017). Critical appraisal of clinical research. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research : JCDR, 11(5), JE01–JE05. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/26047.9942
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Marijuana and public health. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects.html
Leung L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), 324-327.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (2020). Marijuana Drug Facts. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Resnik, D. B., & Shamoo, A. E. (2017). Reproducibility and Research Integrity. Accountability in Research, 24(2), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1257387
Ross, P.T. & Bibler Zaidi, N.L. (2019). Limited by our limitations. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8, 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x
Trevethan R. (2017). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values: Foundations, pliabilities, and pitfalls in research and practice. Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 307. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00307
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Public Health Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....