PRIMER FOR CRITIQUING SECTIONS OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE
\nPurpose of An Article Critique<\/p>\n
The purpose of an article critique is to provide your critical analysis. An article appraisal is composed of
\nidentifying the strengths and weaknesses of the article and (in your opinion) implications of the article’s
\nstrengths and weaknesses. Identifying what the authors did or did not do well without discussing the
\nimplications of the article’s strengths and weaknesses limits the article critique to an article summary. An article
\ncritique discusses an author’s strengths, weaknesses, and implications.<\/p>\n
The items below enumerate minimum or critical elements that should be evident in each section of an article.
\nUse the items below to identify what the authors did or did not do well and use the individual items to discuss
\nthe implications of the article’s strengths or weaknesses\u2014this supports the rating justification. Similarly,
\nproviding ways in which the authors could have revised or enhanced the article’s clarity and readability are
\nways to support and strengthen the critique and rating justification.<\/p>\n
The Primer<\/p>\n
Items outlined below cover key elements to consider in each section of a research article when critiquing
\n(appraising) those respective sections. For critique assignments, use the Likert scale rating to assign a rating
\nbased on key elements that were or were not covered and level of clarity and quality in your respective article or
\nsections of an article.<\/p>\n
0 = poor; 1 = below average; 2 = average; 3 = above average ; 4 = excellent<\/p>\n
ARTICLE TITLE<\/p>\n
\u2022 Makes sense standing alone
\n\u2022 Includes the study population and study variables (independent and dependent variables\u2014the reader
\nshould be able to decipher the respective variables without reading the abstract)
\n\u2022 Avoids being cutesy, avoids posing rhetorical questions, and avoids jargon<\/p>\n
ABSTRACT<\/p>\n
A reminder that the abstract should contain enough information for the reader to know the following without
\nreading the full-text article: the purpose of the study (and independent and dependent variables if the purpose of
\nthe study statement is written correctly), the study design, the sample size, statistical tests that were used to
\nanalyze the data, the main findings, and the meaning of the findings (implications).
\nThere are structured and unstructured abstracts. Irrespective of abstracts being structured or unstructured, they
\nshould include\u2014at a minimum\u2014the following key elements:<\/p>\n
Background\/Purpose Section of an Abstract
\n\u2022 Optional\u2014but a plus: A sentence or sentences that describes or provides the background of the study or
\nthe rationale for the study (usually in 1 or no more than 3 sentences).<\/p>\n
\u2022 Required: A standalone and clearly written purpose of the study or objectives of the study statement (1
\nsentence) (e.g., The purpose of this study was….; The objectives of this study were….; The aims of this
\nwere…). The statement should be written in a way that the reader is able to identify the dependent and
\nindependent variables and population\u2014alone by reading the purpose statement irrespective of reading
\nthe full abstract.<\/p>\n
Methods Section of an Abstract
\n\u2022 Identification of the study design (explicitly stated or written in a way that the reader is easily able to
\ndetermine the study design\u2014experimental\/quasi-experimental\/non-experimental\u2014and the reader should
\nbe able know if the study was prospective or retrospective)
\no If an experimental design, the treatment arms should be specified, the total number of
\nparticipants should be specified or the number of participants who were randomized to each
\ntreatment arm should be specified.
\nThere is no need for the author to specify if the design was prospective or retrospective
\nas experimental designs by default are always prospective.
\no If a quasi-experimental design, the treatment arm(s) should be specified along with the total
\nnumber of participants or the number of participants in each treatment arm.
\nQuasi-experimental studies can be either prospective or retrospective. The authors should
\nspecify if the study was prospective or retrospective or it should be easy for the reader to
\nbe able to determine if the quasi-experimental study was prospective or retrospective.
\no Non-experimental designs vary widely, but in most cases the study design should be written in a
\nway for the reader to be able to determine if the study was prospective or retrospective.
\no If the study conducted a secondary data analysis, specification of the dataset (or if chart review
\nwhere patients or the data were extracted) is required.
\n\u2022 Specification of the statistical tests that were used to analyze the data.<\/p>\n
Results Section of an Abstract
\n\u2022 Optional\u2014but a plus: A sentence or 2 that provides a few characteristics of the sample (age, sex, race,
\nand so on). Again, not required in the abstract because the main purpose of the results section of an
\nabstract is to provide the main findings (the reader can discover characteristics of the sample upon
\nreading the article).
\n\u2022 Required: The main finding(s) of the study (should be written in statistical terms or non-statistical
\nterms). Secondary findings can be provided but are not required in the abstract.<\/p>\n
Discussion Section of an Abstract
\n\u2022 A discussion of the implications of the findings.<\/p>\n
*If needing to review the full-text article for the any of the items above (that should be in the abstract), this
\nshould inform and impact the appraisal, rating, and rating justification of the abstract.<\/p>\n
*A note regarding abstract word count. There is no need to consider word count in your Assessment of the
\nabstract. Although APA may have a word count limit, the word count is often different (a higher word count
\nlimit) for other styles. Abstract word counts or limits differ from journal to journal.<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION\/LITERATURE REVIEW
\nSome studies have separate or distinct introduction and literature review sections, while others may only have
\nan introduction that integrates the literature review. Studies with a distinct literature review section [the
\nliterature review] will likely be more in-depth than studies with an introduction but without a literature review
\nsection. Irrespective, both formats should aim to accomplish, cover, or include the following.
\nFrom reading the literature review, can you determine the prevalence, occurrence, and incidence of
\nthe phenomena which is being studied?
\nDo the authors present pro and con literature to back up their study? Although there is a natural
\ntendency to include only pro (or supportive) literature in this section, good literature reviews also
\nreflect some balance and con (or non-supportive) studies.
\nAfter reading the literature review, are the reasons for doing this study [the rationale] clear?
\nDoes the literature presented in the literature review clearly justify the purpose of the study?
\nIs the review of the literature adequate? In other words, does it meet the 15-10 rule of thumb (are
\nthere at least 15 different references cited in the literature review and are the majority recent \u2013
\npublished within 10 years of the publication year of the article)?
\nDoes the introduction\/literature review contain a purpose statement a well-written purpose of the
\nstudy statement (that includes the dependent and independent variables and the study population)?
\n(Not a requirement, but a plus) Does the study provide hypotheses statements and well-written
\nhypotheses statements?
\nMETHODS<\/p>\n
The methods section is generally broken up into or covers 5 distinctive areas of content:
\nStudy Design: Sample Selection\/Sampling (how the sample was acquired\u2014including probability or non-
\nprobability sampling; study sites or locations, participant recruitment, and inclusion and exclusion criteria);
\nOutcomes of Interest; Measures; Data\/Statistical Analysis (statistical analysis is usually the last paragraph of the
\nmethods section).<\/p>\n
Study Design
\n\u2022 Identification of the study design (explicitly stated or written in a way that the reader is easily able to
\ndetermine the study design\u2014experimental\/quasi-experimental\/non-experimental\u2014and the reader should
\nbe able know if the study was prospective or retrospective)
\no If an experimental design, the treatment arms should be specified, the total number of
\nparticipants should be specified or the number of participants who were randomized to each
\ntreatment arm should be specified.
\nNumber of participants in each treatment arm (and number of participants in each
\ntreatment arm if multiple treatment arms)
\nIntervention duration
\nWho provided the intervention (e.g., social worker, nurse, public health professional,
\nphysician)
\nWhere the intervention was provided or conducted (e.g., clinic, hospital, VA)
\nA description of the interventions\u2014for each treatment arm (and a description of the
\ncontrol intervention\u2014if a control was used)
\nThere is no need for the author to specify if the design was prospective or retrospective
\nas experimental designs by default are always prospective.
\no If a quasi-experimental design, the treatment arm(s) should be specified along with the total
\nnumber of participants or the number of participants in each treatment arm.
\nNumber of participants in each treatment arm (and number of participants in each
\ntreatment arm if multiple treatment arms)
\nIntervention duration
\nWho provided the intervention (e.g., social worker, nurse, public health professional,
\nphysician)
\nWhere the intervention was provided or conducted (e.g., clinic, hospital, VA)
\nA description of the interventions\u2014for each treatment arm (and a description of the
\ncontrol intervention\u2014if a control was used)
\nQuasi-experimental studies can be either prospective or retrospective. The authors
\nshould specify if the study was prospective or retrospective or it should be easy for the
\nreader to be able to determine if the quasi- study was prospective or retrospective.
\no Non-experimental design. Non-experimental designs vary widely, but in most cases the study
\ndesign should be written in a way for the reader to be able to determine if the study was
\nprospective or retrospective.
\n\u2022 If the study conducted a secondary data analysis, specification of the dataset (or if chart review where
\npatients or the data were extracted) is required.<\/p>\n
Sample Selection\/Sampling
\n\u2022 How and where the participants or sample were recruited.
\n\u2022 The sampling strategy should be worded in a way for the reader to easily know or infer if a probability
\nor non-probability sampling strategy was employed.
\n\u2022 Sampling time frame (e.g., January 2019 \u2013 November 2019) or the timeframe of the study.
\n\u2022 Inclusion and exclusion criteria.<\/p>\n
Outcomes of Interest
\n\u2022 The outcomes of interest were clearly stated or can be clearly inferred.
\no A reminder that outcomes of interest are what the authors sought out to observe (and they are not
\nwhat the authors found or the actual findings).
\nCorrect Outcomes of Interest: The outcomes of interest were changes in symptoms of
\ndepression, symptoms of anxiety, and quality of life among patients living with major
\ndepressive disorder who received CBT.
\nIncorrect Outcomes of Interest: Patients achieved improvements in symptoms of
\ndepression, but symptoms of anxiety and quality of life scores did not significantly
\nimprove.
\n*In some instances, there is a section heading that may read outcomes of interest, variables, or dependent
\nvariables. Irrespective of the heading used or not used, the reader should be able to clearly locate or infer the
\noutcomes of interest from the methods section.<\/p>\n
Measures
\n\u2022 How each dependent variable was measured?
\n\u2022 Measures that were used to measure each dependent variable
\no If the authors used a psychometric scale:
\n\u2022 Total score range of the scale
\n\u2022 Score cut-offs
\n\u2022 Score cut-off interpretations
\n\u2022 Psychometric properties of the scale (reliability and validity of the scale)\u2014at a minimum the
\nscale\u2019s \u201cCronbach\u2019s alpha\u201d
\n\u2022 Clear specification of time points that the scale or scales were used to measure the dependent
\nvariable(s) or in other words at what points throughout the study were the measures used to
\ncollect data on participants (e.g., baseline, end of treatment, 12 weeks follow-up)
\n\u2022 The following items within these bullet points only if the study is an intervention, Assessment, or
\nprogram Assessment study (examination of effectiveness or efficacy of the intervention):
\no Number of participants in the treatment arm (and number of participants in each treatment arm if
\nmultiple treatment arms)
\no Intervention duration
\no Who provided the intervention (e.g., social worker, nurse, public health professional, physician)
\no Where the intervention was provided (e.g., clinic, hospital, VA)
\no A description of the interventions\u2014for each treatment arm (and a description of the control
\nintervention\u2014if a control was used)<\/p>\n
Statistical (Data) Analysis
\n\u2022 Specification of the statistical tests that were used to analyze the data (e.g., chi-square, the dependent
\nsamples t-test [i.e., the paired samples t-test]; the independent samples t-test; ANOVA; ANCOVA;
\nlinear regression; logistic regression; ordinal regression; Cox proportional-hazards model; SEM\/HLM)
\n\u2022 The statistical software program that was used to analyze the data (e.g., SPSS, STATA)<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION<\/p>\n
\u2022 A summary of the main findings in non-statistical terms (in other words the authors stated and described
\nthe main findings of the study in plain language\u2014using non-statistical language)
\no This should be done with each dependent variable that was identified in the methods section (in
\nother words there should be a discussion of each outcome or result for each dependent variable)
\n\u2022 An in-depth discussion of the implications of each main finding (including citations of other articles and
\nways in which the study\u2019s findings concur or oppose findings of those respective studies)
\n\u2022 Use of both pro and con literature or studies with similar or differing results, and a discussion of those
\nrespective similarities and differences
\n\u2022 A paragraph (or 2) that discusses both limitations and strengths of the study (the section should equally
\ncover both limitations and strengths: 50%\/50%, 60%\/40%, but not beyond a 70%\/30% divide…if
\ndetermined the section is about 80% focused on strengths and about 20% focused on limitations\u2014this is
\nnot balanced)
\n\u2022 Suggestions or actions that the intended audience can take or act on (e.g., social workers are encouraged
\nto consider adaption of motivational interviewing approaches in HCV clinical settings to reduce alcohol
\nuse among patients living with HCV; public health social workers are advised to develop health
\npromotion and education initiates to increase awareness of HPV and the HPV vaccine among Asian
\nAmerican parents)
\n\u2022 Suggestions or steps for future research or future research that is needed<\/p>\n
—-<\/p>\n
THE PURPOSE OF AN ARTICLE CRITIQUE PRIMER FOR CRITIQUING SECTIONS OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE<\/p>\n
The goal of an article critique is to provide a critical examination of the content. An article Assessment is made up of the following components:<\/p>\n
outlining the article’s strengths and faults, as well as (in your opinion) the ramifications of the article’s findings<\/p>\n
Weaknesses and strengths Identifying what the writers did or did not do well without going into detail about it<\/p>\n
The article’s strengths and faults have ramifications The article critique is limited to a synopsis of the article. An article about<\/p>\n
The strengths, shortcomings, and consequences of an author are discussed in a critique.<\/p>\n
The following items list the essential or minimum elements that should be present in each section of an article.<\/p>\n
Use the items below to determine what the authors did or did not do well, and then use the individual items to support your conclusion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
PRIMER FOR CRITIQUING SECTIONS OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE Purpose of An Article Critique The purpose of an article critique is to provide your critical analysis. An article appraisal is composed of identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the article and (in your opinion) implications of the article’s strengths and weaknesses. Identifying what the authors did […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7636,615],"tags":[704,702,687,211,699,215,706,68,208,686,210,705,701,703,697,157,33,698,209,700,685],"class_list":["post-91545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cheap-essay-writer-usa","category-homework-help-writing-service-usa","tag-apn-nursing-help","tag-assignment-help-online-free-help-with-assignment-online","tag-assignment-help-website","tag-best-website-for-nursing-assignment","tag-dnp-nursing-help","tag-do-my-nursing-homework","tag-get-help-with-assignments","tag-healthcare-homework-help","tag-help-with-nursing-assignment","tag-help-writing-online-assignment-homework","tag-homework-help-for-nursing-school","tag-medical-assignment-help","tag-msn-nursing-help","tag-need-help-with-assignment","tag-nursing-capstone-help","tag-nursing-dissertation-help","tag-nursing-essay-help","tag-nursing-help-websites","tag-nursing-homework-website","tag-nursing-school-help-sites","tag-online-writing-assignments-for-pay"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/assessments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91545","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/assessments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/assessments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/assessments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/assessments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/assessments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/assessments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/assessments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/assessments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}