Advanced Research Skills in Psychotherapy 1 NS604 ‘Doing your Literature Review: Structure and Content Issues’ Dr. Gemma Kiernan Room 219-School of Nursing Telephone: 01-7008542; E-mail: gemma.kiernan@dcu.ie

Format Types of literature review Doing your literature review: tips critiquing literature exercise Doing a literature search: basic and advanced search techniques

Types of literature review Traditional or narrative literature review Systematic literature review Rigorous criteria Answers research questions E.g. Cochrane reviews of healthcare interventions published online in the Cochrane library.

Types of literature review Meta-analysis (& ‘dodo bird’ verdict) Systematic review of the findings of quantitative studies Use of statistical techniques to identify new patterns (Berkeljon, A. & Baldwin, S.A. (2009). An introduction to meta-analysis for psychotherapy outcome research. Psychotherapy Research Methods, 19(4-5): 511-518)

Types of literature review Meta-synthesis/Qualitative meta-analysis Systematic review of the findings of qualitative studies Use of secondary analysis to reach new concepualisations (Timulak, L. (2008). Meta-analysis of qualitative studies: A tool for reviewing qualitative research findings in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research Methods, 19(4-5): 591-600)

Traditional literature review ‘Quality (in a traditional literature review) means appropriate breadth and depth, rigour and consistency, clarity and brevity and effective analysis and synthesis’ (Hart, 1998, p.1)

Structuring your literature review Introduction State the topic of your research Explain the relevance of your topic Provide preview of main points you will address in the main body of the review Identify the search strategies you used

Structuring your literature review Main body ‘Funnel effect’ to walk your readers through theory and empirical literature towards your research questions or aim/objectives & choice of methodology Framing your review Themes Chronological sequencing Exploring theoretical and empirical literature separately (Carnwell & Daly, 2001) Assign headings to move readers through review in a logical way

Note………… Incidence rate refers to the number of new cases with a given condition in a particular time period Prevalence refers to the current number of people suffering from a condition in a given year E.g. The incidence of a cancer is 20,000 a year with a prevalence of 80,000

Structuring your literature review Sample literature map (Creswell, 2005):

Structuring your literature review Conclusion or (Rationale) Summarise the main ideas from the literature Provide a justification for your study

Literature review: content issues Quality of literature Follow a priority system based on extent of external review for inclusion of literature Refereed journal articles ( n.b. impact factor) Non-referred journal articles Books Conference papers Dissertations Website Include recent studies but also key older studies Use extracts*, illustrations and examples to justify your analyses and argument Be reflexive, examine your own bias and make it clear

Note……. The impact factor, often abbreviated IF, is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to articles published in science and social science journals. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower Access it via Journal Citation reports in Web of Science (1 or over)

Literature review: content issues Critiquing the literature……work like a therapist Analyse individual studies & report general patterns What are the key concepts emerging from the literature ? What are the main methodological assumptions that can be extracted from the literature? What are the key strengths and weaknesses of studies in your topic area? What are the gaps in research in your topic area?

Literature review: content issues Evaluating quantitative research studies (Coughlan, Cronin & Ryan, 2007) Is there a balanced critical analysis of the literature? Has a conceptual or theoretical framework been identified? Is the purpose of the study clearly identified ? Are there clear research questions/hypotheses? Is the research design adequately outlined? How were the sample selected? Adequate size? Inclusion/exclusion criteria? Has due consideration been given to ethical issues? Are the instruments/scales reliable and valid? Were statistical analyses appropriate? Is there consideration of clinical vs statistical significance? Are the strengths and limitations of the study acknowledged?

Literature review: content issues Evaluating qualitative research studies (Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin, 2007) Is there a balanced critical analysis of the literature? Are the purpose of the study & research aims clearly identified ? Has the design & philosophical underpinnings been identified and explained How were the sample selected? Appropriate size? Inclusion/exclusion criteria? Has due consideration been given to ethical issues? How was rigour assured? Are data grounded in examples? Are the strengths and limitations of the study acknowledged?

Literature review: content issues Why are research articles rejected for publication? (Greenhalgh, 1997) Did not address an important scientific issue Not original Did not test author’s hypothesis Different study required Practical difficulties Sample size too small Inappropriate/inaccurate statistical analysis Unjustified conclusions Conflict of interest Badly written

Checklist of dos and don’ts for reviewing (Hart, 1998) Explain why the topic is interesting; Be reflexive, examine your own bias and make it clear; Identify and discuss the relevant key landmark studies on the topic; Include as much up to date material as possible; Check the details such as how names are spelled; Critically evaluate the material and show your analyses; Use extracts, illustrations and examples to justify your analyses and argument; Manage the information that your review produces e.g. refworks Be clear, systematic and coherent.

Checklist of dos and don’ts for reviewing (Hart, 1998) Omit classic works and landmarks; Discuss outdated or only old materials; Misspell names or get date of publications wrong; Use jargon to justify a parochial standpoint; Produce a list of items, even if annotated; a list is not a review; Only produce a description of the content of what you have read; Accept any position at face value or believe everything that is written.

Useful Reading Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. & Ryan, F. (2007). Step by step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658-663. Elliot, R. Fischer, C.T. & Rennie, D.L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for the publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215-229. Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. British Medical Journal, 315, 305-308 Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). British Medical Journal, 315, 672-675. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage publications. Ryan, F. Coughlan, M. & Cronin, P. (2007). Step by step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12), 738-744.