soccer, basketball, skating, and scooter riding, \vhy did they spend so much of their time \Va tching

T\'?
IIo"' could the girls pursue S\vim1ning, bicycl ing, soccer, skatin g, and scooter riding i f the neighborhood
did not have sa fe parks ''here such activities could be enjoyed? Tl1e interventi ons suggested requ ire more
suppor ting evidence that the girls \vou ld try them.
The themes of "barriers to physical activity," "sedentary behaviors," and "directions for intervention"
did not yiel d a consistent, mea n ingft1l picru re. Rather, resul ts fro1n one then1e seem to under 1ninc the
result!> of another theme-probably because space li n1itations proh ibited the inclusion of detail ed quota-
tions tha t would have addressed the inconsistencies. Alternatively, the authors could have inclu ded a
detailed i nterpreta tion of \vhy a ll of these resu lts could simu ltaneously be true.
2. Mrlidation of fin dings: No indication is provided that the au thors valida ted their findings \vith the
girls or their caretakers or 'vi th experts in the area of .t\f rican Am erica n child obesity.
3. M ultiple reset1rcher participation: 'fhe acknov1ledgments section describes t\\'O authors as parti ci-
pating in the data ana lysis. ln the "Da ta Analysis" section, the authors state tha t "individ ual resea rchers
rea d all interviews and the team evaluated ma in codes and text samples" (C;ordon-Larsen et al., 2004,
p. 482). Half of the intervie,vs \Vere double-coded by t\vo coders, as indi cated by the staten1ent "Cases
of disagreement \Vere discll!>sed to generate consensus on coding" (p. 482).These descri ptions of who par-
ticipa ted in data ana lysis might have 1nore detail.

STANDARD 4: PHILOSOPHICAL OR THEORETI CAL CONNECTEDNESS

1. Cleflr connection between dfl ta fi nd nursing practice: Alt11ough this was not a nursing study, the au thors
iden tified quality interventions tha t \Vere derived from the research fi ndings. They a lso e1nphasi zed the
critical need for edu cationa l strategies targeting the disadva n tages of \Va tch i n g TV. 'f he need for educa-
tiona l sessions to sensitize ca regivers to the amoun t of time their children spend \\'atch ing TV also "·as
detailed. In addition, the au thors h ighl i ghted the need for afford able neighborhood recrea tional programs
and fucilities.1'1oriva ting caregivers t o en gage in physical activity was another i nterven tion the researchet·s
stressed, and they encouraged incorporating sha red caregiver and daugh ter activities in to the Girls Rule!
intervention progran1. These are so1ne excellent ideas t6 respond to the problems of TV'va tching and
seden tary activities of the sn1dy pa rticipants.
2 . Ide11tificntio11 of study bnsis: It was not clear'vha t ph ilosophical or theoreti cal basis \vas used in the
study because the authors did not cite their philosophical or theoretical sources. The researchers described
their n1ethod as 3 qua li ta tive approach but did not specify ethnography, grounded theory, Heideggerian
phenomenology, Husserlian phenome nology, or some other qu alitative approach. Sometimes these
distinctions can he determ ined by l ooking at the reference section of the paper, but i n this case the
methodological approach is not clear.
3. Consisteney of st11dy b11sis 1111d 1111alytical 111ethods: The authors did not clarify \vha t philoso phical or
theoretica l basis was used in me study. So it \vas difficu lt to determine if the assumptions, data collection,
and methods of ana l ysis were consistent. Never theless, these cr iteria are 1najor factors to consid er in
evaluating qu a l itative resea rch. -
}<'or example, in grounded theory, the purpose is to develop a theory based on participant perspectives.
This \vou ld not be a reasona ble goal i n phenomenology.ln Husserl ian phenomenology, a typica l assump-
tion is tha t the researcher should distance h i mself or hersel f from any persona l experience, knowledge, or
understa nd ing that could intluence data ana lysis. An assum ption of Heid eggerian phenon1enology is that
it is not possible to bl ock all of one's knowledge, bel iefs, and va lues. A researcher \vho steps away from his
or her ba ckgrou nd u ndersta ndings \vill find it ha rder to cond uct a sensitive intervie"·and to produce a
rich, n u anced interpretation of the phenomenon bei ng studied (Benner, 1994). Being clear about the philo-
sophical or theoretical approach used in a qual i tative study is a critically importa nt factor.
(C(}11t/1111CS)
SAMPLE CRITIQUE (co11tin11td}
Auditabillty
1. Decisi(l1l trail: The authors describe using a 1natrix-based analysis but do not detail the speciCics of this process.
During data analy'Sis, the researchers clearly indicated the categories developed to encompass their data.
"A total of six m ajor categories related to physical activity \vere identified: (1) share activity (nvo
subcategories); (2) barriers to activity (eight subcategories); (3) kno,vledge of hea lth-promoting effects of
activity (four subcategories); (4) need for change i n activi ty (three subcategories); (5) facilita tors to activi t)
(six subca tegories); and (6) control of behaviors related to activity by caregivers (three sub-categories).
Th ree important th e111es (Table I, p. 482) identified through the six , major then1atic categories incl u ded:
(1) sedenta ry behaviors, (2) ba rriers to physical activi ty, and (3) poten tia l intervention strategies."(Gordon-
Larsen et al., 2 004, p. 482)
The researchers need to detail ho\v the six the1natic categories and three inai n themes are related. The
subcategories'ithin th e thema tic categories also need to be e;\'Plained and more detail is needed to clarif}
ho'the six thematic categories \vere developed from the pa rticipants' original quotes.
2. . Sufficie11cy of quotations: Participant quotations \\'ere included, but they \vere typically only one
or two sentences long. It is h ard to tell 'vhether the quota tions were shortened to adhere to the space
limitations of the journa l or \\ h ether the in tervie\vers'ere not sufficie ntly eA-perienced in eli citing detailed
responses from partici pants.
\¥hen respondents gave quotations such as "111y favori te thing to do is to lie down and'vatch TY,"
intervie,vers shou l d ha ve follo,ved up'"ith a question about \vha t vas enjoyable about lying down to \Vatch
n \\'hy'"as th is activi ty more fun th an other activities? The girls' reports of using TV as a sleep aid or
a "pick-me-u p" called for a foJJ o,v-u p question a bout ho\v TV \vorked to hel p them fall asleep or make
them feel h appier. Did the gi rls have other "'ays of relaxi ng or improving th eir m ood? Most of the
qu otations leave the reade r "anting to kno"·more. Richer quotes'vou ld have been more inform ative but
m ight have been lin1i ted by the space requ iremen t of the journa l.
3. Sufficiency of data: In the category of "sedentary behaviors," 15 of l7 quotations ha d to do 'vi th
\va tching TY. 1\,·o quota tions discussed the selection of computer :tctivities if TV was denied. The entire
category migh t be m ore accura tely described as "TV vie,ving as a favorite sedenta ry behavior." The
qu otations the authors in clu ded did not all refer to possi ble sedenta ry behaviors; rather, they men tioned
the primary sedenta ry behaYior of TV vie,,·ing. In this case, the findings and supportive quotes \vere not
perfectly aligned.
In the category of "barriers to physical activities," th e au thors provid ed su fficien t quota tions to
support thei r conclusions regard ing a l ack of (I) affordable and availa ble recreational activities, (2) safe
places to'val k and play, and (3) role modeling of an active l ifestyle. This section used speci fic quotation<;
and examples to docutnent the conclusions.
In the category of "directions for inten·ention," the authors reported that girls identified liking
hopscotch, ju mping rope, dancing, S\vi m ming, bicycling, soccer, basketball, skating, and scooter riding.
Because some of these activities, such as jumping rope and dancing, can be done inside the house and
others, such as hopscotch and basketball, can be done in the safety of a subu rba n backyard, inore quota-
tions are needed to explain'vh}' the girls did not engage in these activities. rrhe authors did not provide
specific examples of \vhen the girls last enjoyed these behaviors. The i nterventions suggested lacked the
specific exa mples to su pport th at the girls "''ould try them rather than "'atching TY.

STANDARD 3: ANALYTICAL AND INTERPRETATIVE PRECISENESS

1. Picture of phe11(!111e11011: The "direction s for interven tion" results do not clea rly link ,yjth the other
fin dings. If the girls are able to identi fy liking hopscotch, jumping rope, dancing, S\\ im m ing, bicycl i ng.