SUMMARY This assignment calls for you to write a 2,000 to 2,200-word critique of an empirical research article. You may choose which article you wish to critique from the list shown below. Your paper must be formatted in APA style.
INTRODUCTION Critiquing (or analyzing) a scholarly journal article should help you develop the reading and critical thinking skills needed to evaluate scholarly research. This article provides a helpful overview of the approach you should use. Remember to use APA format.
HOW TO STRUCTURE YOUR PAPER Note: These guiding questions are meant to help you think about what ‘stuff’ to include in your paper. Although you do not necessarily have to answer every single question, a successful critique of an empirical research study will almost always address the vast majority (80%+) of these kinds of questions.
Part 1: Critiquing the Abstract [approximately 250 words]
1. What was the purpose of the paper? Why was the research conducted?
2. How was the research undertaken? What was the overall method/procedure?
3. What was accomplished by the study? What were the principle findings?
4. What conclusions were reached?
5. What is the significance of the research?
Part 2: Critiquing the Introduction [approximately 150 words]
1. Was the research question or problem researchable?
2. Was the research problem sufficiently important to justify the research?
3. Was the background presented in the introduction relevant to the research question?
Part 3: Critiquing the Literature Review [approximately 300 words]
1. Was the scope of the review broad, focused and comprehensive?
2. Did the review include material on both the immediate subject and its related areas?
3. Was the review balanced? That is, did the review provide ample, specific and convincing evidence to support the author(s)’ assertions?
4. Did the review present a fair representation of opposing views?
5. Did the review demonstrate a logical progression of ideas?
6. Did the review use a theoretical framework?
7. Did the review reveal gaps in current knowledge that the research study addressed?
Part 4: Critiquing the Aim [approximately 100 words]
1. Do you have a clear idea of what the study sought to achieve?
Part 5: Critiquing the Research Design, Method, and Procedures [approximately 400 words]
1. Did the researcher give an appropriate rationale for the selection and development of the research approach, methods and/or the instruments used?
2. Was the research method appropriate to the research question?
3. Were the data collected in a manner that addressed the research question?
4. Did the researcher provide sufficient information about the participants in the study?
5. What were the major ethical considerations for the research and the participants?
6. Were the measurement instrument/s and/or data collection methods described in sufficient detail?
7. Were all technical terms clarified?
8. Was the method used deemed reliable and valid by? If so, how?
9. Did the discussion demonstrate the study’s credibility, trustworthiness, clarity and appropriateness?
10. Did the researcher discuss any limitations or problems with the method and/ or measurement instruments?
Part 6: Critiquing the Data Analysis and Findings [approximately 200 words]
1. Did the researcher provide details explaining the steps followed in the data analysis process and why that process was used?
2. Was the data analysis sufficiently thorough/rigorous to substantiate the findings?
3. Were all collected data taken into account? If not, why not?
4. Were the presented results relevant to the research question?
5. Where appropriate, were tables or graphs used to enhance the clarity of the data analysis?
Part 7: Critiquing the Discussion [approximately 250 words]
1. Were the results interpreted with reference to the research question and study aims? (In other words, does the discussion section merely reiterate the results without providing additional context/explanation.)
2. Were the results discussed in relation to the research question, hypothesis (if applicable), and theoretical or conceptual frameworks?
3. Were there conclusions and/or recommendations of the discussion appropriately drawn from the data analysis?
4. Did the researcher highlight/draw attention to the most pertinent results?
5. Were the results used to support or refute results of other studies?
6. How relevant and useful are the results to practical applications of psychology?
Part 8: Critiquing the Conclusion [approximately 150 words]
1. Did the conclusion successfully present the main points of the research?
2. Did the conclusion demonstrate that the research provided fresh insights or a different perspective on the topic?
3. Did the researcher suggest recommendations, based on the research findings, for ‘stuff’ that should be or could be done differently in the field of psychology?
4. Did the researcher suggested areas for future research?
Part 9: Critiquing the Reference List (Bibliography) [approximately 125 words]
1. Were all citations in the text cited clearly and unambiguously?
2. Did the reference list demonstrate that a diverse and comprehensive body of literature was explored?
3. Did the reference list provide enough information for the reader to locate the sources cited?
4. Did the list combine both seminal (classic) and contemporary literature (i.e. under five years old)?
Part 10: Reflecting on the Article Critique [approximately 250 words]
1. Now that it’s over, what are your thoughts about this project? Are they mostly positive or negative?
2. What were the top two or three most challenging moments you encountered while working on this project? What made them so?
3. What were the top two or three most powerful learning moments you encountered while working on this project? What made them so?
4. What would you do differently if could go back in time to the beginning of the semester? 5. How will you use what you’ve learned on this project in the future? (If the answer is “nothing,” that’s okay, but please explain why.)
