IntroductionEveryone has critical thinking skills, but when it comes to critiquing a journal article, it can be difficult for the first time. One of the best ways to develop critical thinking and reading skills is to use certain strategies when reading and evaluating a research study (Wood & Haber, 1998). The following essay will focus on a critique of a qualitative journal article giving its strengths and weaknesses, a critical evaluation which will be carried out with the support of different references and frameworks relevant to a qualitative study.TitleCrombie & Davies (1997 ) stated that the title of the article gives an understanding of the purpose of the study and the author's intentions on how the study will be carried out. The current title of the article generates a form of “relationship” between the radiologist and patient that represents a dependent variable and was also expressed in a declarative format rather than a question format (Wood & Haber 1998). It also gives an idea of ​​the method used for this study which is transactional analysis (Booth, 2007) and is written in a comprehensive manner that entices the reader to take a look in more detail throughout the article. A previous observational study (Booth & Manning, 2005) found that transactional analysis can be used effectively to identify radiologists' communication and behavior within the department. The author's name appears under the title but his profession is not mentioned and therefore the question arises whether the author is a professional radiologist or has training in radiography, however the journal is peer reviewed with all dates available from receipt of item until availability. online (Bassett, 2004).AbstractFrom article summary......middle of article......used a wide and varied literature review, but looking through the reference list, some of the literature is ten or more years old, which in this case cannot provide sufficient support for the study, however Booth (2007) explains the factors that might affect communication in radiography and gives some suggestions on the how these problems could be resolved. She discusses the clinical relevance of the study and recommends further studies. Overall the study can be classified as a good qualitative study with some pitfalls and the researcher is also knowledgeable and organized in conducting a qualitative study, the present paper has little value in radiography and probably of Other studies in this area may yield different results in relation to the radiologist's communication with patients. Actual results are not applicable to evidence-based practice.