Description:
PLEASE FOLLOW CAREFULLY: As part of the course requirements, you are
responsible for providing a research paper which constitutes a critical
evaluation of a published research article relevant to the topic of your
grant proposal. Thus, you should obtain a PDF of one of the articles
that you will cite in your team’s proposal. A suitable article for
evaluation is one that employs inferential statistics (e.g., t test,
ANOVA, chi-square, etc.) in the analysis of its data. A photocopy of the
published article must be appended to your research paper. The length
of your critique should be 3 - 5 double-spaced pages prepared in
standard paragraph form with complete sentences, using APA format.
Points will be deducted for severe violations of APA style......Click here to get more on this paper......
The following is an outline of the various sections of your report,
along with certain key questions you should seek answers for in
reviewing the article. Depending upon the specific article you select to
review, certain of these questions may or may not be relevant to ask.
Consider these questions as you write each section, but do not repeat
the specific questions and do not include the question numbers. If
certain questions are not applicable, simply skip them and move on. The
critique should have a comfortable “flow” to it, much like a book report
or movie review....Click here to get more on this paper......
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING PUBLISHED RESEARCH
Section I. Statement of the Problem
1. What is the research problem?
2. Is the problem related to some theory and, if so, what is the theory?
3. Can the problem be investigated empirically through hypothesis testing, or does its solution require
an unscientific method such as a value judgment?
4. Are the research hypotheses adequately related to the problem?
5. Are the research hypotheses clearly stated?
6. Are the research hypotheses empirically testable?
7. What are the independent and dependent variables of the study?
8. Are any of these variables operationally defined? If so, what is their operational definition? If not,
should they be?
9. Do you think that these variables are appropriate to examine in light of the research problem and
specific research hypotheses? If not, can you suggest a more appropriate variable or set of
variables?....Click here to get more on this paper......
Section I. Statement of the Problem
1. What is the research problem?
2. Is the problem related to some theory and, if so, what is the theory?
3. Can the problem be investigated empirically through hypothesis testing, or does its solution require
an unscientific method such as a value judgment?
4. Are the research hypotheses adequately related to the problem?
5. Are the research hypotheses clearly stated?
6. Are the research hypotheses empirically testable?
7. What are the independent and dependent variables of the study?
8. Are any of these variables operationally defined? If so, what is their operational definition? If not,
should they be?
9. Do you think that these variables are appropriate to examine in light of the research problem and
specific research hypotheses? If not, can you suggest a more appropriate variable or set of
variables?....Click here to get more on this paper......
Section II. Sampling
1. Is the subject population clearly identified?
2. How were the subjects selected and assigned to experimental conditions? Are the sampling
procedures adequate?
3. Are the characteristics of the sample (e.g., age, sex, disease entity, etc.) representative of the
population to which the researcher wishes to generalize his/her results?
-2-
Section III. Procedure
1. Is the experimental procedure specified in sufficient detail that you could faithfully replicate this
study?
2. Are the measurement instruments employed valid and reliable? Was any evidence or rationale
given to substantiate the validity and reliability of the measurement instruments? If so, what is the
evidence? If not, is such evidence necessary with respect to this instrument or instruments?
3. If several judges were used, is the inter-rater reliability given?
4. If judges were used (e.g., physician or therapist doing a clinical assessment), were they blind to the
experimental treatment each subject received? If not, should they have been?...Click here to get more on this paper......
1. Is the subject population clearly identified?
2. How were the subjects selected and assigned to experimental conditions? Are the sampling
procedures adequate?
3. Are the characteristics of the sample (e.g., age, sex, disease entity, etc.) representative of the
population to which the researcher wishes to generalize his/her results?
-2-
Section III. Procedure
1. Is the experimental procedure specified in sufficient detail that you could faithfully replicate this
study?
2. Are the measurement instruments employed valid and reliable? Was any evidence or rationale
given to substantiate the validity and reliability of the measurement instruments? If so, what is the
evidence? If not, is such evidence necessary with respect to this instrument or instruments?
3. If several judges were used, is the inter-rater reliability given?
4. If judges were used (e.g., physician or therapist doing a clinical assessment), were they blind to the
experimental treatment each subject received? If not, should they have been?...Click here to get more on this paper......
Section IV. Research Design
1. What is the type of research design used (e.g., pretest-posttest control group design)?
2. Is the design appropriate to the hypothesis being tested?
3. If the design is factorial, what are the levels of the independent variables? If it is not a factorial,
specify the levels of the single independent variable according to the design.
4. Given this research design, are there any threats to the internal validity of the study that could serve
as rival hypotheses for the results obtained? If so, state them in a manner that is specific to the
results of the study.
5. Can you think of any additional control groups or procedures which might circumvent any of these
threats to internal validity?
6. Does this design control adequately for threats to external validity? If not, for what specifically does
it fail to control? Can you suggest a remedy for this?Click here to get more on this paper......
1. What is the type of research design used (e.g., pretest-posttest control group design)?
2. Is the design appropriate to the hypothesis being tested?
3. If the design is factorial, what are the levels of the independent variables? If it is not a factorial,
specify the levels of the single independent variable according to the design.
4. Given this research design, are there any threats to the internal validity of the study that could serve
as rival hypotheses for the results obtained? If so, state them in a manner that is specific to the
results of the study.
5. Can you think of any additional control groups or procedures which might circumvent any of these
threats to internal validity?
6. Does this design control adequately for threats to external validity? If not, for what specifically does
it fail to control? Can you suggest a remedy for this?Click here to get more on this paper......
Section V. Results and Data Analysis
1. What type of statistical analysis(es) was performed?
2. What, in words, is the null hypothesis of each statistical test?
3. Are the statistical procedures appropriate for the data collected (in terms of the type of
measurement scale [nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio] of the dependent variable or the
assumptions of the test statistic employed)?
4. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to the stated research hypothesis(es)?
5. Are there any obvious errors in the statistical analysis?
6. Are all relevant statistical analyses reported or are there other comparisons that you feel should
have been done?Click here to get more on this paper......
1. What type of statistical analysis(es) was performed?
2. What, in words, is the null hypothesis of each statistical test?
3. Are the statistical procedures appropriate for the data collected (in terms of the type of
measurement scale [nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio] of the dependent variable or the
assumptions of the test statistic employed)?
4. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to the stated research hypothesis(es)?
5. Are there any obvious errors in the statistical analysis?
6. Are all relevant statistical analyses reported or are there other comparisons that you feel should
have been done?Click here to get more on this paper......
Section VI. Researcher's Conclusions
1. Were the researcher's conclusions warranted by the results obtained?
2. If there were any shortcomings in the design or inappropriate statistical analyses performed, does
the researcher recognize them and point to them as limitations to the usefulness or generalizability
of the study’s findings?
3. Does the researcher attempt to explain any unexpected and/or non-significant results?
4. Does the researcher suggest a causal relationship among his observations when the findings are
merely correlational?
Section VII. Commentary
Here describe your reactions to the study in terms of its overall quality. Do you feel that the study
provided adequate answers to the problem it set out to investigate? Do these answers suggest new lines of
research, such as the study your team is proposing? Can you make any recommendations or suggestions that
1. Were the researcher's conclusions warranted by the results obtained?
2. If there were any shortcomings in the design or inappropriate statistical analyses performed, does
the researcher recognize them and point to them as limitations to the usefulness or generalizability
of the study’s findings?
3. Does the researcher attempt to explain any unexpected and/or non-significant results?
4. Does the researcher suggest a causal relationship among his observations when the findings are
merely correlational?
Section VII. Commentary
Here describe your reactions to the study in terms of its overall quality. Do you feel that the study
provided adequate answers to the problem it set out to investigate? Do these answers suggest new lines of
research, such as the study your team is proposing? Can you make any recommendations or suggestions that
No comments:
Post a Comment