Described below is a critical evaluation of a qualitative article by Lisa Booth using the framework suggested by Ryan, Coughlan and Cronin 2007 to establish credibility, robustness, believability and integrity ( Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin, 2007). Qualitative research is considered an inductive process, which within natural contexts attempts to produce insights into the subjective experiences, meanings, practices and views of the people involved (Craig & Smyth, 2007). The aim here was to investigate the factors influencing the communication styles used by radiographers, thus enabling a better understanding of patient-centred care within diagnostic radiography. The title was well worded and unambiguous, however, why a more precise title of "diagnostic radiographer"-patient relationship" was not selected is unclear as the study involved only diagnostic radiographers (Dawson, 2002). The article had appropriate citations except for the researcher's qualification and designation, which otherwise indicate the degree of knowledge in the field (Ryan et al, 2007) including the "Keywords" section which facilitated retrieval of the research by interested parties (Hart , 2001).Its publication in a peer-reviewed journal allowed for examination by suitable experts, thus making it more valid and original.In contrast, in a non-peer-reviewed journal where high odds cannot be denied that the information is incorrect (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002)? The loss of relevance of the information was not a threat as it was published within the optimal time (Hart, 2001). this was well worded using headings instead of a single paragraph style, so it appeared tidy (Macnee, 2004). The purpose was c… halfway through the paper… the data did not include member checking, thus reducing its robustness and allowing researcher bias to be ruled out. However, a constant comparative method emerged in the discussion which improved the plausibility of the final results. The themes identified were well corroborated but unstated always represented a point of theoretical saturation  Therefore, the published report was particularly strong in the area of ​​credibility and reliability; less strong in the field of transferability; and is weak in the area of ​​credibility and confirmability, although editorial limitations may pose a barrier to providing a detailed account (Craig & Smyth, 2007; Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2007). Works Cited Ryan, F., Couglan, M . & Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide to research criticism. Part 2: qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12), 738-744.