In order to provide the best possible care to the patients in their care, nurses must determine the most effective and accurate handoff. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze the level of data retained or lost following the use of different transfer methods. Here, the above paper needs to be critiqued using the step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative Research (Coughlan, Cronin, & Ryan, 2007). In defining quantitative research, the term can be dichotomized. First, research refers to creative and systematic work aimed at increasing human knowledge and thus designing new applications (OECD, 2002). Furthermore, Gray (1997) stated that research should improve performance and that results should be generalizable and open to critical evaluation. Second, quantitative paradigms attempt to measure the event, predict, and develop causal explanations to explain the event. Achieved through the use of an established design based on theory and hypothesis, in which extensive data is collected, with the resulting statistical data analyzed using mathematical methods (Creswell, 1994). Additionally, when applied to this article, quantitative research hopes to record the rate of data loss during nursing handover, using data collection and analysis to increase knowledge. This therefore informs best practice for nurses regarding handoff methods. The title is precise, clear and relates directly to the question asked. Additionally, the title contains 12 words, thus avoiding being confusing or misleading, as indicated by Meehan (1999 cited by Coughlin et al. 2007) and Parahoo (2006 cited by Coughlin et al. 2007). There are four authors credited for the article, Pothier, Monteiro, Mooktiar and Shaw. At the time of publication...... middle of article ......r technique (Aveyard, 2010). The three types of documents examined were: 1, purely verbal, 2, note-taking style 3, a typed sheet. accompanying a verbal transfer. The absence of transfers or examples means that theses cannot be judged or repeated, making the research generalizable (Newell and Burnard, 2011). Ethically, the research was beneficial, aiming to inform the best care for patients with observed autonomy. for the participants because all were volunteers. To avoid bias, investigators were blind to each other's results, with points only recoded with agreement (although video recording was used for any discrepancies). The use of fictitious patients avoided issues of patient confidentiality and privacy, but no mention was made of the anonymity of the volunteers or any authorization from the ethics committee (HSE)., 2001).