Article Critique, Select one of the articles from your literature review for this assignment.
Article
Critique
"My advice to new researchers who are critiquing
literature...is that you practice, that every time that you go through and you
read a research article for a course paper
for your dissertation, for your doctoral study, that you read it with a
critical eye." —Dr. Gary Burkholder
Critiquing
an article is a skill that researchers continuously hone throughout their
careers. By doing this, researchers can better understand existing literature
and improve their own research skills. For this Application, you will critique
an article as a first step toward completing a literature review.
To
prepare for this Application:
Select
one of the articles from your literature review for this assignment.Review
the Journal Article Critique handout as well as the media segment on
article critique.Print
out the Journal Article Critique handout and use the guidelines to help
you read the article with a critical eye. Make notes on the handout to
help you determine the overall strengths and weaknesses of the article.
The
assignment:
Craft
a 5-page article critique based on the guidelines in the Journal Article
Critique handout.
Journal
Article Critique
Introduction
Scholarly critique is an important aspect of your role as
scholar-practitioner. Scholarly critique takes on a number of forms, of which
peer review and critical reviews of the literature are two common examples. There
are many examples of why it is important to develop good skills in scholarly
critique.
1.
In the peer-review process commonly used by editors of
journals, scholars review research prior to publication to ensure quality,
relevance, and contribution to the field.
2.
The system of tenure that is common in traditional colleges
and universities depends on a process of peer review by departmental
colleagues. At some point in time, you may be on such a committee (at a
university or in some other setting) where you have to critically evaluate a
colleague for promotion.
3.
Because there is no such thing as the perfect research
study, scholarly critique is critical to understanding the limitations of
research studies and how those limitations could be addressed in future
studies.
4.
The critical literature review article requires good
critical evaluation skills to help other scientists understand the current
state of knowledge in a particular field of study in terms of what we know and
what still needs to be more fully understood.
5.
The skills you will develop in the critical evaluation of
articles will also help you become a better reviewer of your own drafts. In the
short term, this better self-assessment will strengthen the work you submit to
dissertation committee members. In general, this approach helps researchers
become their own “skeptics/critics,” thereby developing more valid research
designs and research write-ups that can better stand up to peer scrutiny.
6.
Your dissertation requires a scholarly critique of the
literature, similar to a critical literature review. Thus, you need to
understand how to train yourself to be a critical reader of the research. If
you want to become an expert on a particular topic, you also need to become an
expert on critically dissecting and evaluating the research studies in that
area of study.
7.
The scholar-practitioner model is one that relies on
evidence-based practice. You are being trained to be critical consumers of
literature so that you can make key decisions regarding best practices in the
field. Understanding best practices requires one to be able to critically
evaluate study findings and determine whether those findings will remain valid
in “real-world” settings.
8.
In the dissertation process, your committee is essentially a
team of peer reviewers who provide input to help you achieve the best possible
research project that demonstrates doctoral level scholarship.
Start the process of learning to be a critical reviewer of the
scientific literature by dispelling a couple of common myths that you have.
· “I am not worthy of
critiquing something that has already been published in a peer-reviewed journal.”
In
fact, you have a lot of knowledge now about research design and statistics that
you can use to determine if a study is truly valid and where the limits to the
findings exist. If you are not worthy of critiquing a published article, then
can you possibly be worthy of attaining scholarship in a particular discipline?
· “If a study has
already been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it must be a really
good study.” There is no such thing as a perfect study. In fact, just
because a study is published does not guarantee that it is necessarily sound in
all aspects. Studies may be good, but all studies have areas for improvement.
Typically, three reviewers provide input; sometimes, it may be only two
reviewers. Thus, decisions are made based on a very small set of inputs, which
means that there may be key things missed that may not have been noticed by the
original reviewers.
Thus, the assignment to critique a peer-reviewed article should not be
approached as something negative. Peer review is one of the key processes that
sustains and furthers knowledge. Approach the critique from the following
perspectives:
1.
You are reviewing a study that was deemed to be publishable,
but challenge yourself to use the knowledge you have gained in your research
courses to see how the study could be made even better.
2.
Review research using the criteria described below to
understand better where the gaps are in our understanding of the field.
Limitations in sample size, sampling strategy, and design, for example, can
easily form the basis for another dissertation or scholarly research study.
Therefore, you should use the critique as a means of generating ideas for your
own research as well as approaches you can take in your own dissertation to
improve the validity and overall soundness of your study.
A suggested resource for this course is an excellent, easy to read (and
relatively inexpensive) text on how to approach the critical literature review.
This would also be a great resource as you complete the literature review for
the dissertation.
Pyrczak, F. (2009).
Evaluating research in academic journals:
A practical guide to realistic evaluation (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Pyrczak.
Overall
Requirements
· 5 pages maximum
(not including the reference page).
· Times Roman or
Arial 12-point font.
· One-inch margins at
top and bottom and along left and right sides.
· Any editing marks
(track changes or comments) are removed.
· Paper is
appropriately spell checked and grammar checked.
· Must be a paper
that is available as full text through the Walden library.
· At the end of the
paper, provide to the Instructor the full hyperlink to the full text article.
· The article chosen
must have been published within the previous 5 years.
Rubric
· Introduction. Provide a brief and concise summary of
the problem of the study and main findings. Cite the study using APA format and
provide the full citation at the end of the paper in a reference section.
· Critique of the Literature Review. Some things to
consider are:
o
Was the problem clearly articulated, and was ample evidence
provided to support the problem being addressed?
o
Was the theoretical or conceptual framework present, was its
relationship to the present study described, and was it appropriate to the
problem being addressed?
o
Was the literature cited appropriate to the topic?
o
Was the literature primarily from current sources (within 5
years of the article publication date)?
o
Did the author choose citations judiciously, or did it
appear that quantity of citations was emphasized over quality?
o
Does the literature review present a clear and non-biased
approach to the topic?
o
Were the research questions and/or hypotheses clearly
stated? Do they logically derive from the literature review?
· Critique of the Methods/Research Design. Some things to
consider are:
o
Were the participants adequately described in terms of
population, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sampling strategy?
o
Is the sample representative of the population?
o
Is there support that the sample size ensures adequate
statistical power?
o
For qualitative, was the approach to sampling adequately
described and justified? Is the number of participants in the study justified?
o
Was there a statement indicating that IRB approval was
obtained?
o
Were procedures for protecting participant rights included?
o
Were the procedures for executing the design carefully
described in a way that you or other scientists could replicate the study?
o
For qualitative, is the process for collecting, organizing,
and analyzing the data appropriately transparent?
o
Is the role and activity of the researcher in the data
collection setting/sites described?
o
Were reliability and validity measures of questionnaires,
scales, or other measurement instruments presented? Do measures exhibit
adequate reliability and validity?
o
Were instruments used in populations for which they may not
have been normed? Was there effort made to ensure reliability and validity in
the study sample?
o
Was the design appropriate to test the hypothesis(es) or
address the research questions?
o
Was random assignment used? If not, what are the potential
flaws to internal and external validity?
· Critique of the Results section. Some things to
consider are:
o
Are the important characteristics of the sample described?
o
Are participation rates (and attrition rates in longitudinal
studies) described? For longitudinal studies, was differential attrition
determined?
o
Were key descriptive statistics provided for all variables?
o
Do the results address the hypotheses under question?
o
For qualitative, were the findings tied back to the research
question?
o
For qualitative, was it clear how findings arose? Were
findings linked to the application of steps/methodology described in the
methods section?
o
For mixed methods, are findings described in a holistic,
complementary way in order to address the research questions?
o
For mixed methods, is the necessity of each type of data
(qualitative and quantitative) clear for answering each research question?
o
Are tables and figures used effectively? Were tables not
used when they would have been very helpful to the reader? For qualitative
(when needed) are models used effectively (and labeled effectively) in order to
understand findings and interpretations? (Models are sometimes included in the
discussion rather than the results section.)
o
Are effect sizes and p-values reported for all inferential
findings?
· Critique of the Discussion section. Some things to
consider are:
o
Are the results discussed in the context of the research
presented in the literature review section?
o
Are methodological limitations adequately addressed? Think
in terms of sample representativeness, generalizability of results, and
potential threats to internal and external validity.
o
Are implications for further research described?
o
Are implications for practitioners described?
o
Is the contribution/significance to the field in relation to
the continuum of inquiry clear?
o
For a qualitative study, is there some discussion of the
researcher’s reflections, insights, challenges, biases, surprises, etc.?
· Overall Evaluation. Some things to consider are:
o
Evidence to support strengths and limitations of the study.
o
Evidence that supports that the study was both reliable and
valid.
o
Justification for why you would include this as an important
piece of evidence in your study.
Grading
Rubric
_____ ( 5) Introduction
Comments:
_____(10) Critique of the
literature review
Comments:
_____(10) Critique of the
Methods/Research Design
Comments:
_____(10) Critique of the
Results Section
Comments:
_____(10) Critique of the
Discussion
Comments:
_____( 5) Overall Impression of the study
Comments: