This paper presents a structured critique of Pridham et al.'s (2002) quantitative study examining infant biological condition, caregiving environment, and caloric intake variables as they affect weight-for-age and motor development in full-term and premature infants at 12 months post-term. The critique evaluates the study's purpose, background literature, variables, sample population, research design, data collection methods, analytical approach, key findings, limitations, and recommendations. The analysis also considers how the findings can be applied to the clinical question of what parents need to know to enhance developmental outcomes for very low birth weight infants.
This paper presents a structured critique of Pridham et al.'s (2002) study titled "Infant and Caregiving Factors Affecting Weight-for-Age and Motor Development of Full-Term and Premature Infants at 1 Year Post-Term." The critique analyzes the study's purpose, background, main variables, population, research design, data collection and analysis methods, main findings, discussion of findings, limitations, recommendations, generalizability, and the extent to which the findings can be utilized to address the guiding clinical question of the course.
The purpose of the study was to examine the direct and indirect effects of infants' biological condition and experience, the caregiving environment, and caloric intake variables on two outcomes — weight-for-age and motor development — for 52 full-term and 47 premature infants at 12 months post-term age (Pridham, Brown, Clark, Sondel, & Green, 2002, p. 394). This stated purpose is quite clear. Furthermore, it fits well with the guiding clinical question for this literature review, which concerns what parents need to know to enhance developmental outcomes for very low birth weight babies.
The literature reviewed in relation to the topics addressed by this study was adequately covered. These topics included infant biologic condition, infant experience, and the caregiving environment. All literature reviewed was current, having been written between the late 1980s and the early 2000s. Taken together, the reviewed literature clearly justified the need for the study.
The primary variables in this study included a variety of facets. The dependent variables included infant nutritional intake, growth, and maternal responsiveness. The independent variables included premature and full-term infants. These variables are clearly described, and conceptual definitions are provided with sufficient clarity throughout the study.
The population from which the sample was derived consisted of infants recruited from family practice clinics, a pediatric primary care clinic, and a WIC Clinic. Premature infants were recruited shortly before their discharge from one of three neonatal intensive care units. Given the research design, this recruitment approach was appropriate.
The sample is clearly described, with inclusion and exclusion criteria explicitly noted. Exclusion criteria included mothers being under the age of 18 and being unable to speak and read English. The authors noted that 86% of families of premature babies were eligible for the study, while 67% of families of full-term infants were eligible. This sample is appropriate given the purpose of the study.
This study was quantitative and utilized a non-experimental research design. Although the non-experimental design is often considered the weakest in terms of internal validity and causal assessment, it was appropriate given the nature of the research questions and the population under study.
"Methods, path analysis, and regression equations"
"Key outcomes for premature and full-term infants"
"Study constraints, future research, and clinical relevance"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.