Critical appraisal of problems

Prue (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This page is obsolescent or worse: see note at The process.

—Bruce 5 Nov 2023

1. Critical appraisal of problems

Consider the following points when formulating and criticising proposed problems or discussion topics:

The aims of the research question or problem must be clear to the audience. Terms used should be clearly defined, especially if they are new or can be used in different ways.
Is the question biased? Is an answer or view presupposed?
Is the question respectful? Is the question slanderous, insulting or provocative?
Is the question too broad or too narrow?
Is the question able to be researched/answered?
Is the question relevant and useful to answer? Is there a related question that would be more interesting or more informative or more relevant to the audience?

Consider the following points, where applicable, when proposing a solution or answer:

Was the question clear and focused? Was the question able to be researched? answerable?
Are all quotations attributed and verified? Have original sources been verified and referenced? Are passages quoted out of context?
Do you think all the important and relevant information has been covered? Is there any information you would like to see included that has not been addressed?
Is it clear where information has been sourced from? What kind of search strategy has been utilised? Have reference lists been followed up? Has there been an attempt to make personal contact with authors/experts/representatives of all sides of the discussion?
Do the quoted sources address the question? (are they relevant?)
Has the quality of the argument/information been assessed? Are the arguments logical? (a list of common mistakes in criticising arguments can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/mccormickphilosophy/home/critical-thinking-syllabus/critical-thinking-schedule/critical-evaluations)
If sources of information have been amalgamated, was it reasonable to do so?
Are the information sources timely/ out of date?
Is there a clear “bottom line”? Are the implications of the answer clear? Do the conclusions follow logically from the information presented?
What uncertainty remains after addressing the question?
Is the information accessible and interesting to the audience?
What harms and costs and benefits would result from implementation of any suggested solution?

Critical appraisal of answers (above) is adapted from Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018). CASP Systematic Review Checklist. [online] Available at: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Systematic-Review-Checklist.pdf Accessed: 27 April, 2018.