Summary of main points
- The Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT) consists of
- The CCAT form.
- The CCAT user guide.
- Always use the CCAT Form and the CCAT User Guide together.
- Research designs should be appraised on their own merits, not to a ‘gold standard’.
- All categories must be scored: it does not matter which research design was used
- The lowest score for a category is 0, the highest score is 5
- Category scores are whole numbers only (that is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5)
- The score for each category must be reported
- The total score (out of 40 or as a percent) is reported in addition to each category score.
- Item descriptors may be marked present (✔), absent (✘), or not applicable (◼).
- Tick marks are not a check list to be totalled.
- Tick marks are simply a guide to scoring a category.
- If in doubt use your best judgement, there is no right or wrong answer.
References
1238
W7USVUBV,I3ESP3HJ,7K6NF2HK,TJ84WAU9
items
1
apa
0
default
asc
12
https://conchra.com.au/wp-content/plugins/zotpress/
%7B%22status%22%3A%22success%22%2C%22updateneeded%22%3Afalse%2C%22instance%22%3A%22zotpress-66b3f34fd5bcf473ce3820aa4970eb30%22%2C%22meta%22%3A%7B%22request_last%22%3A0%2C%22request_next%22%3A0%2C%22used_cache%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22data%22%3A%5B%7B%22key%22%3A%22W7USVUBV%22%2C%22library%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A1238%7D%2C%22meta%22%3A%7B%22creatorSummary%22%3A%22Crowe%20and%20Sheppard%22%2C%22parsedDate%22%3A%222011-01%22%2C%22numChildren%22%3A2%7D%2C%22bib%22%3A%22%3Cdiv%20class%3D%5C%22csl-bib-body%5C%22%20style%3D%5C%22line-height%3A%202%3B%20padding-left%3A%201em%3B%20text-indent%3A-1em%3B%5C%22%3E%5Cn%20%20%3Cdiv%20class%3D%5C%22csl-entry%5C%22%3ECrowe%2C%20M.%2C%20%26amp%3B%20Sheppard%2C%20L.%20%282011%29.%20A%20review%20of%20critical%20appraisal%20tools%20show%20they%20lack%20rigor%3A%20alternative%20tool%20structure%20is%20proposed.%20%3Ci%3EJournal%20of%20Clinical%20Epidemiology%3C%5C%2Fi%3E%2C%20%3Ci%3E64%3C%5C%2Fi%3E%281%29%2C%2079%26%23x2013%3B89.%20%3Ca%20href%3D%27https%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fdoi.org%5C%2F10.1016%5C%2Fj.jclinepi.2010.02.008%27%3Ehttps%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fdoi.org%5C%2F10.1016%5C%2Fj.jclinepi.2010.02.008%3C%5C%2Fa%3E%3C%5C%2Fdiv%3E%5Cn%3C%5C%2Fdiv%3E%22%2C%22data%22%3A%7B%22itemType%22%3A%22journalArticle%22%2C%22title%22%3A%22A%20review%20of%20critical%20appraisal%20tools%20show%20they%20lack%20rigor%3A%20alternative%20tool%20structure%20is%20proposed%22%2C%22creators%22%3A%5B%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Michael%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Crowe%22%7D%2C%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Lorraine%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Sheppard%22%7D%5D%2C%22abstractNote%22%3A%22Objective%3A%20To%20evaluate%20critical%20appraisal%20tools%20%28CATs%29%20that%20have%20been%20through%20a%20peer-reviewed%20development%20process%20with%20the%20aim%20of%20analysing%20well%20designed%2C%20documented%2C%20and%20researched%20CATs%20which%20could%20be%20used%20to%20develop%20a%20comprehensive%20CAT.%5CnStudy%20design%20and%20setting%3A%20A%20critical%20review%20of%20the%20development%20of%20CATs%20was%20undertaken.%5CnResults%3A%20Of%20the%2044%20CATs%20reviewed%2C%2025%20%2857%25%29%20were%20applicable%20to%20more%20than%20one%20research%20design%2C%2011%20%2825%25%29%20to%20true%20experimental%20studies%2C%20and%20the%20remaining%208%20%2818%25%29%20to%20individual%20research%20designs.%20Comprehensive%20explanation%20of%20how%20a%20CAT%20was%20developed%20and%20guidelines%20to%20use%20the%20CAT%20were%20available%20in%205%20%2811%25%29%20instances.%20There%20was%20no%20validation%20process%20report%20in%2011%20CATs%20%2825%25%29%20and%2033%20CATs%20%2877%25%29%20had%20not%20been%20reliability%20tested.%20The%20questions%20and%20statements%20which%20made%20up%20each%20CAT%20were%20coded%20into%208%20categories%20and%2022%20items%20such%20that%20each%20item%20was%20distinct%20from%20every%20other.%20%5CnConclusions%3A%20CATs%20are%20being%20developed%20while%20ignoring%20basic%20research%20techniques%2C%20the%20evidence%20available%20for%20design%2C%20and%20comprehensive%20validation%20and%20reliability%20testing.%20The%20basic%20structure%20for%20a%20comprehensive%20CAT%20is%20suggested%20that%20requires%20further%20study%20to%20verify%20its%20overall%20usefulness.%20Meanwhile%2C%20users%20of%20CATs%20should%20be%20careful%20about%20which%20CAT%20they%20use%20and%20how%20they%20use%20it.%22%2C%22date%22%3A%22Jan%202011%22%2C%22language%22%3A%22%22%2C%22DOI%22%3A%2210.1016%5C%2Fj.jclinepi.2010.02.008%22%2C%22ISSN%22%3A%22%22%2C%22url%22%3A%22%22%2C%22collections%22%3A%5B%22KFA5F9J4%22%2C%22RBP9P62Z%22%2C%22XRGB52DS%22%2C%229I2D5THA%22%2C%22FXTTRR7N%22%2C%22UXWKKRB2%22%2C%22KXZQJ6AG%22%2C%22RGPKH45M%22%5D%2C%22dateModified%22%3A%222024-02-23T00%3A54%3A09Z%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22key%22%3A%22I3ESP3HJ%22%2C%22library%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A1238%7D%2C%22meta%22%3A%7B%22creatorSummary%22%3A%22Crowe%20and%20Sheppard%22%2C%22parsedDate%22%3A%222011-07%22%2C%22numChildren%22%3A3%7D%2C%22bib%22%3A%22%3Cdiv%20class%3D%5C%22csl-bib-body%5C%22%20style%3D%5C%22line-height%3A%202%3B%20padding-left%3A%201em%3B%20text-indent%3A-1em%3B%5C%22%3E%5Cn%20%20%3Cdiv%20class%3D%5C%22csl-entry%5C%22%3ECrowe%2C%20M.%2C%20%26amp%3B%20Sheppard%2C%20L.%20%282011%29.%20A%20general%20critical%20appraisal%20tool%3A%20an%20evaluation%20of%20construct%20validity.%20%3Ci%3EInternational%20Journal%20of%20Nursing%20Studies%3C%5C%2Fi%3E%2C%20%3Ci%3E48%3C%5C%2Fi%3E%2812%29%2C%201505%26%23x2013%3B1516.%20%3Ca%20href%3D%27https%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fdoi.org%5C%2F10.1016%5C%2Fj.ijnurstu.2011.06.004%27%3Ehttps%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fdoi.org%5C%2F10.1016%5C%2Fj.ijnurstu.2011.06.004%3C%5C%2Fa%3E%3C%5C%2Fdiv%3E%5Cn%3C%5C%2Fdiv%3E%22%2C%22data%22%3A%7B%22itemType%22%3A%22journalArticle%22%2C%22title%22%3A%22A%20general%20critical%20appraisal%20tool%3A%20an%20evaluation%20of%20construct%20validity%22%2C%22creators%22%3A%5B%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Michael%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Crowe%22%7D%2C%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Lorraine%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Sheppard%22%7D%5D%2C%22abstractNote%22%3A%22Background%3A%20Many%20critical%20appraisal%20tools%20%28CATs%29%20exist%20for%20which%20there%20is%20little%20or%20no%20information%20on%20development%20of%20the%20CAT%2C%20evaluation%20of%20validity%2C%20or%20testing%20reliability.%20The%20proposed%20CAT%20was%20developed%20based%20on%20a%20number%20of%20other%20CATs%2C%20general%20research%20methods%20theory%2C%20and%20reporting%20guidelines%20but%20requires%20further%20study%20to%20determine%20its%20effectiveness.%5CnObjectives%3A%20To%20establish%20a%20scoring%20system%20and%20to%20evaluate%20the%20construct%20validity%20of%20the%20proposed%20critical%20appraisal%20tool%20before%20undertaking%20reliability%20testing.%5CnMethods%3A%20Data%20obtained%20from%20this%20exploratory%20study%20along%20with%20information%20on%20the%20design%20of%20the%20proposed%20CAT%20were%20combined%20to%20evaluate%20construct%20validity%20using%20the%20Standards%20for%20educational%20and%20psychological%20testing%20which%20consist%20of%20five%20types%20of%20evidence%3A%20test%20content%2C%20response%20process%2C%20internal%20structure%2C%20relations%20to%20other%20variables%2C%20and%20consequences%20of%20testing.%20To%20obtain%20data%20for%20internal%20structure%20and%20relations%20to%20other%20variables%2C%20the%20proposed%20CAT%20was%20analysed%20against%20five%20alternative%20CATs.%20A%20random%20sample%20of%201o%20papers%20from%20six%20different%20research%20designs%20across%20the%20range%20of%20health%20related%20research%20were%20selected%2C%20giving%20a%20total%20sample%20size%20of%2060%20papers.%20%5CnResults%3A%20In%20all%20research%20designs%2C%20the%20proposed%20CAT%20had%20significant%20%28p%3C0.05%2C%20two%20tailed%29%20weak%20to%20moderate%20positive%20correlations%20%28Kendall%5Cu2019s%20%5Cu03c4%200.33%5Cu20130.55%29%20with%20the%20alternative%20CATs%2C%20except%20in%20the%20Preamble%20category.%20There%20were%20significant%20moderate%20to%20strong%20positive%20correlations%20in%20the%20quasi-experimental%20%28%5Cu03c4%200.70%5Cu20131.00%29%2C%20descriptive%5C%2Fexploratory%5C%2Fobservational%20%28%5Cu03c4%200.72%5Cu20131.00%29%2C%20qualitative%20%28%5Cu03c4%200.74%5Cu20130.81%29%2C%20and%20systematic%20review%20%28%5Cu03c4%200.62%5Cu20130.82%29%20designs%20and%20to%20a%20lesser%20extent%20in%20the%20true%20experimental%20%28%5Cu03c4%200.68%5Cu20130.70%29%20design.%20There%20were%20no%20significant%20correlations%20in%20the%20single%20system%20research%20designs.%5CnConclusions%3A%20Based%20on%20the%20results%20obtained%2C%20the%20theory%20on%20which%20the%20proposed%20CAT%20was%20designed%2C%20and%20the%20objective%20of%20the%20proposed%20CAT%20there%20was%20enough%20evidence%20to%20show%20that%20inferences%20made%20from%20scores%20obtained%20from%20the%20proposed%20CAT%20should%20be%20sound.%22%2C%22date%22%3A%22Jul%202011%22%2C%22language%22%3A%22%22%2C%22DOI%22%3A%2210.1016%5C%2Fj.ijnurstu.2011.06.004%22%2C%22ISSN%22%3A%22%22%2C%22url%22%3A%22%22%2C%22collections%22%3A%5B%22C8HIHV9G%22%2C%22KFA5F9J4%22%2C%22RBP9P62Z%22%2C%22KXZQJ6AG%22%2C%22RGPKH45M%22%2C%224SJHN982%22%5D%2C%22dateModified%22%3A%222024-02-23T00%3A52%3A38Z%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22key%22%3A%22TJ84WAU9%22%2C%22library%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A1238%7D%2C%22meta%22%3A%7B%22creatorSummary%22%3A%22Crowe%20et%20al.%22%2C%22parsedDate%22%3A%222011-12%22%2C%22numChildren%22%3A2%7D%2C%22bib%22%3A%22%3Cdiv%20class%3D%5C%22csl-bib-body%5C%22%20style%3D%5C%22line-height%3A%202%3B%20padding-left%3A%201em%3B%20text-indent%3A-1em%3B%5C%22%3E%5Cn%20%20%3Cdiv%20class%3D%5C%22csl-entry%5C%22%3ECrowe%2C%20M.%2C%20Sheppard%2C%20L.%2C%20%26amp%3B%20Campbell%2C%20A.%20%282011%29.%20Comparison%20of%20the%20effects%20of%20using%20the%20Crowe%20Critical%20Appraisal%20Tool%20versus%20informal%20appraisal%20in%20assessing%20health%20research%3A%20a%20randomised%20trial.%20%3Ci%3EInternational%20Journal%20of%20Evidence-Based%20Healthcare%3C%5C%2Fi%3E%2C%20%3Ci%3E9%3C%5C%2Fi%3E%284%29%2C%20444%26%23x2013%3B449.%20%3Ca%20href%3D%27https%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fdoi.org%5C%2F10.1111%5C%2Fj.1744-1609.2011.00237.x%27%3Ehttps%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fdoi.org%5C%2F10.1111%5C%2Fj.1744-1609.2011.00237.x%3C%5C%2Fa%3E%3C%5C%2Fdiv%3E%5Cn%3C%5C%2Fdiv%3E%22%2C%22data%22%3A%7B%22itemType%22%3A%22journalArticle%22%2C%22title%22%3A%22Comparison%20of%20the%20effects%20of%20using%20the%20Crowe%20Critical%20Appraisal%20Tool%20versus%20informal%20appraisal%20in%20assessing%20health%20research%3A%20a%20randomised%20trial%22%2C%22creators%22%3A%5B%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Michael%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Crowe%22%7D%2C%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Lorraine%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Sheppard%22%7D%2C%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Alistair%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Campbell%22%7D%5D%2C%22abstractNote%22%3A%22Background%3A%20In%20systematic%20reviews%2C%20evidence-based%20practice%2C%20and%20journal%20clubs%20critical%20appraisal%20tools%20are%20used%20to%20rate%20research%20papers.%20However%2C%20little%20evidence%20exists%20on%20whether%20the%20critical%20appraisal%20tool%2C%20subject%20matter%20knowledge%2C%20or%20research%20design%20knowledge%20affect%20the%20appraisal%20of%20research%20papers.%20%5CnMethods%3A%20A%20match%20paired%20randomised%20trial%20was%20conducted%20in%20August%5C%2FSeptember%202010%20in%20the%20Faculty%20of%20Medicine%2C%20Health%20and%20Molecular%20Science%2C%20James%20Cook%20University%2C%20Australia.%20Ten%20participants%20in%20total%20were%20randomly%20assigned%20to%20two%20groups%20using%20either%20an%20informal%20appraisal%20of%20research%20%28IA%20group%29%20or%20the%20Crowe%20Critical%20Appraisal%20Tool%20%28CCAT%20group%29%2C%20a%20general%20critical%20appraisal%20tool.%20Participant%20independently%20appraised%20five%20research%20papers%2C%20where%20each%20paper%20had%20a%20different%20research%20design.%20The%20scores%20allocated%20to%20the%20papers%20by%20each%20group%20were%20analysed.%5CnResults%3A%20The%20intraclass%20correlation%20coefficient%20for%20absolute%20agreement%20was%200.76%20for%20the%20IA%20group%20and%200.88%20for%20the%20CCAT%20group.%20The%20G%20study%20showed%20that%20in%20the%20IA%20group%2024%25%20of%20variance%20in%20scores%20was%20attributable%20to%20either%20the%20rater%20or%20paper%20%5Cu00d7%20rater%20interactions%20whereas%20this%20was%2012%25%20in%20the%20CCAT%20group.%20Analysis%20of%20covariance%20showed%20that%20there%20were%20statistically%20significant%20results%20in%20the%20IA%20group%20for%20subject%20matter%20knowledge%20%28F%281%2C18%29%20%3D%207.03%2C%20p%20%3C%200.05%201%20tailed%2C%20partial%20%5Cu03b7%5Cu00b2%20%3D%200.28%29%20and%20rater%20%28F%284%2C18%29%20%3D%204.57%2C%20p%20%3C%200.05%201%20tailed%2C%20partial%20%5Cu03b7%5Cu00b2%20%3D%200.50%29.%20Kendall%5Cu2019s%20tau%20correlation%20coefficient%20also%20showed%20a%20significant%20weak%20positive%20relationship%20%28%5Cu03c4%20%3D%200.38%2C%20p%20%3D%200.03%29%20between%20total%20score%20and%20subject%20matter%20knowledge%20for%20the%20IA%20group.%5CnDiscussion%3A%20The%20Crowe%20Critical%20Appraisal%20Tool%20was%20more%20reliable%20than%20an%20informal%20appraisal%20of%20the%20research%20papers.%20In%20the%20IA%20group%2C%20there%20were%20significant%20effects%20for%20rater%20and%20subject%20matter%20knowledge%2C%20whereas%20the%20CCAT%20almost%20eliminated%20the%20rater%20effect%20and%20no%20subject%20matter%20knowledge%20effect%20was%20apparent.%20There%20was%20no%20research%20design%20knowledge%20effect%20in%20either%20group.%20%5CnConclusions%3A%20The%20CCAT%20provided%20much%20better%20score%20reliability%20and%20should%20help%20readers%20with%20different%20levels%20and%20types%20of%20knowledge%20to%20reach%20similar%20conclusions%20about%20a%20research%20paper.%22%2C%22date%22%3A%22Dec%202011%22%2C%22language%22%3A%22%22%2C%22DOI%22%3A%2210.1111%5C%2Fj.1744-1609.2011.00237.x%22%2C%22ISSN%22%3A%22%22%2C%22url%22%3A%22%22%2C%22collections%22%3A%5B%22C8HIHV9G%22%2C%22KFA5F9J4%22%2C%22RBP9P62Z%22%2C%22KXZQJ6AG%22%2C%22RGPKH45M%22%5D%2C%22dateModified%22%3A%222017-07-25T01%3A00%3A00Z%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22key%22%3A%227K6NF2HK%22%2C%22library%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A1238%7D%2C%22meta%22%3A%7B%22creatorSummary%22%3A%22Crowe%20et%20al.%22%2C%22parsedDate%22%3A%222012-04%22%2C%22numChildren%22%3A2%7D%2C%22bib%22%3A%22%3Cdiv%20class%3D%5C%22csl-bib-body%5C%22%20style%3D%5C%22line-height%3A%202%3B%20padding-left%3A%201em%3B%20text-indent%3A-1em%3B%5C%22%3E%5Cn%20%20%3Cdiv%20class%3D%5C%22csl-entry%5C%22%3ECrowe%2C%20M.%2C%20Sheppard%2C%20L.%2C%20%26amp%3B%20Campbell%2C%20A.%20%282012%29.%20Reliability%20analysis%20for%20a%20proposed%20critical%20appraisal%20tool%20demonstrated%20value%20for%20diverse%20research%20designs.%20%3Ci%3EJournal%20of%20Clinical%20Epidemiology%3C%5C%2Fi%3E%2C%20%3Ci%3E65%3C%5C%2Fi%3E%284%29%2C%20375%26%23x2013%3B383.%20%3Ca%20href%3D%27https%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fdoi.org%5C%2F10.1016%5C%2Fj.jclinepi.2011.08.006%27%3Ehttps%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fdoi.org%5C%2F10.1016%5C%2Fj.jclinepi.2011.08.006%3C%5C%2Fa%3E%3C%5C%2Fdiv%3E%5Cn%3C%5C%2Fdiv%3E%22%2C%22data%22%3A%7B%22itemType%22%3A%22journalArticle%22%2C%22title%22%3A%22Reliability%20analysis%20for%20a%20proposed%20critical%20appraisal%20tool%20demonstrated%20value%20for%20diverse%20research%20designs%22%2C%22creators%22%3A%5B%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Michael%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Crowe%22%7D%2C%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Lorraine%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Sheppard%22%7D%2C%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Alistair%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Campbell%22%7D%5D%2C%22abstractNote%22%3A%22Objective%3A%20To%20examine%20the%20reliability%20of%20scores%20obtained%20from%20a%20proposed%20critical%20appraisal%20tool%20%28CAT%29.%5CnStudy%20design%20and%20setting%3A%20Based%20on%20a%20random%20sample%20of%2024%20health%20related%20research%20papers%2C%20the%20scores%20from%20the%20proposed%20CAT%20were%20examined%20using%20intraclass%20correlation%20coefficients%20%28ICCs%29%2C%20generalizability%20theory%2C%20and%20participants%5Cu2019%20feedback.%5CnResults%3A%20The%20ICC%20for%20all%20research%20papers%20was%200.83%20%28consistency%29%20and%200.74%20%28absolute%20agreement%29%20for%20four%20participants.%20For%20individual%20research%20designs%2C%20the%20highest%20ICC%20%28consistency%29%20was%20for%20qualitative%20research%20%280.91%29%20and%20the%20lowest%20was%20for%20descriptive%2C%20exploratory%20and%20observational%20research%20%280.64%29.%20The%20G%20study%20showed%20a%20moderate%20research%20design%20effect%20%2832%25%29%20for%20scores%20averaged%20across%20all%20papers.%20The%20research%20design%20effect%20was%20mainly%20in%20the%20Sampling%2C%20Results%2C%20and%20Discussion%20categories%20%2844%25%2C%2036%25%2C%20and%2034%25%20respectively%29.%20The%20scores%20for%20research%20designs%20showed%20a%20majority%20paper%20effect%20for%20each%20%2853%5Cu201370%25%29%2C%20with%20small%20to%20moderate%20rater%20or%20paper%20%5Cu00d7%20rater%20interaction%20effects%20%280%5Cu201327%25%29.%5CnConclusions%3A%20Possible%20reasons%20for%20the%20research%20design%20effect%20were%20that%20the%20participants%20were%20unfamiliar%20with%20some%20of%20the%20research%20designs%20and%20that%20papers%20were%20not%20matched%20to%20participants%5Cu2019%20expertise.%20Even%20so%2C%20the%20proposed%20CAT%20showed%20great%20promise%20as%20a%20tool%20that%20can%20be%20used%20across%20a%20wide%20range%20of%20research%20designs.%22%2C%22date%22%3A%22Apr%202012%22%2C%22language%22%3A%22%22%2C%22DOI%22%3A%2210.1016%5C%2Fj.jclinepi.2011.08.006%22%2C%22ISSN%22%3A%22%22%2C%22url%22%3A%22%22%2C%22collections%22%3A%5B%22C8HIHV9G%22%2C%22KFA5F9J4%22%2C%22RBP9P62Z%22%2C%22KXZQJ6AG%22%2C%22RGPKH45M%22%2C%224NQP7UNU%22%5D%2C%22dateModified%22%3A%222017-07-25T01%3A00%3A00Z%22%7D%7D%5D%7D
Crowe, M., & Sheppard, L. (2011). A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: alternative tool structure is proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.008
Crowe, M., & Sheppard, L. (2011). A general critical appraisal tool: an evaluation of construct validity. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(12), 1505–1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.06.004
Crowe, M., Sheppard, L., & Campbell, A. (2011). Comparison of the effects of using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool versus informal appraisal in assessing health research: a randomised trial. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 9(4), 444–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1609.2011.00237.x
Crowe, M., Sheppard, L., & Campbell, A. (2012). Reliability analysis for a proposed critical appraisal tool demonstrated value for diverse research designs. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(4), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.006