Students will write a critique of a published scholarly research article applyigg their knowledge of the research process and the elements of good research design.

There are two major sections in a research critique:  1) a brief summary of the study and 2) a critique of the study.  The summary will be brief.  Some studies can be summarized in one long paragraph while others may necessitate longer summaries (three paragraphs or less).  A complex study in which many different variables were examined and multiple hypotheses were tested will require a longer summary.

• The purpose of the study and either the research questions OR the research hypotheses.

• Operational definitions of the variables that were studied (be brief, but remember to explain how the researcher(s) defined all variables, including independent and dependent or predictor and criterion).

• A brief summary of the methods used.

• The main findings and the ways in which they were interpreted by the author(s).

• The conclusions reached by the author(s).

• Ways in which the study is conceptualized.

• After reading the literature review, do you feel that there is a theory underlying the research questions? Is there a clear and explicit connection between the theory, earlier findings, and the purpose of the present study?
• Is there an adequate operational definition for each of these variables? If not, suggest better ways to operationally define the variables.

 
 
• Sample/Participants
•  Has the researcher provided a sufficient description of the sample?  Are demographics and other relevant information provided?
•  What are the limitations of the sample and the ways in which it was chosen?
•  What is the population generalizability of this study?  If there is a weakness here, suggest a way to improve population     generalizability.

 
• Research Design/Procedures

• Is the research design appropriate for this study?
•  What threats to internal validity exist in this study?  Which of these threats did the researchers attempt to control?  How were they controlled?
• What threats to internal validity were not controlled?  How might this have affected results?  What methods would you have suggested to deal with these threats?
• Comment on the ecological generalizability of the study.

 
• Instrumentation/Reliability and Validity of Dependent Variables

• Are the assessment measures reliable and valid, and if appropriate, objective? What procedures, if any, could have been employed to establish the reliability, validity, and objectivity of the assessment measures?
• If interviews or questionnaires were used, were they adequate? Are there additional sources of data that could be used?

 
• Data Presentation/Results

• Were the data analyzed appropriately?
• Do the conclusions follow logically from the data analyses? Are the data sufficient to warrant the conclusions? Are they presented in sufficient detail? Given the data presented, would you modify or change the conclusions? If so, how and why?
• Are measures of practical significance (effect size) given?
• Are data presented in a way that make results and findings easy to understand?

 
• Conclusions

• Is the researcher forthcoming with potential weaknesses/limitations of the study?
• Are the limitations of this study so serious that they render any conclusions meaningless?
Are any suggestions offered regarding avenues for further research? Are these suggestions worthwhile?  What other suggestions should have been offered?