Critical appraisal of research literature by expert and inexperienced physical therapy researchers.
OBJECTIVE
In this study, critical appraisal skills of physical therapists who were inexperienced and expert researchers were compared and the effect of the following independent variables on the appraisal skills of novices was examined: years of physical therapy practice, postgraduate experience with research, level of comfort with research, journal reading habits, and content-specific expertise.


METHODS
Four expert and 20 inexperienced researchers critiqued the same research article. A content analysis of the expert critiques was used to develop a set of 12 items of concerns about the study.


RESULTS
Experts identified a mean of 7.75 items of concern; novices identified a mean of 3.95 items. For 10 of the 12 items, a greater proportion of experts identified each concern compared with the novices. Novices had comparatively less difficulty identifying concerns with internal validity than they did identifying issues relating to construct validity. Only one of the variables--content-specific expertise--was associated with differences in critical appraisal skills among the novices.


CONCLUSIONS
These finding suggest that analysis of construct issues in research articles is a more advanced skill than analysis of research design and that critical appraisal of research literature is enhanced by clinical experiences related to the subject of the research report.
Domholdt
E
E
Krannert School of Physical Therapy, University of Indianapolis, IN 46227-3697.
Flaherty
J L
JL
Phillips
J M
JM
D026741:Physical Therapy Modalities / Q000592:standards*; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards*; D012106:Research