Article Review and Critique Assignment
Article Review and Critique Assignment
Description
Purpose of the critiques: The purpose of research article critiques is to help you develop your ability to critically evaluate strengths and weaknesses of scientific research, specifically original research articles that are related to your area of interest (hopefully, they relate to your research proposal). An original research article is a data-based report of a research project in a scientific journal and typically includes the following sections: introduction with a statement of purpose and/or hypotheses, methods, results, and discussion. Review articles are not appropriate for this assignment.The article critiques give you an opportunity to select research papers of interest to you and explore these papers in depth.
Format for the written critique:Maximum length: 3 pages, excluding any pages devoted to relevant references, graphics, figures, tables, etc. Page 1 should serve as a cover page that shall include the full reference information for your target article (i.e., authors, year of publication, article title, journal, and pages) and your name. Pages 2-3 shall be dedicated to your review and critical analysis. Subsequent pages are reserved for a reference list that includes citations for any papers other than the target article that you cite in your narrative and any graphics, figures, tables, etc. that you want to include (there is no need to include content from the target article since you will submit a copy of the article with your critique).
Your review and critical analysis (pages 2-3) should be single-spaced (1-inch margins, font size not smaller than 10 point and not greater than 12 point) and should include two distinct sections (I suggest using subheadings that clearly identify these two sections):
Article Summary:You are to provide a briefsummary of the project (approximately 0.5 pages). Your summary should include an indication why there was a need for the study, the question being answered by the project, general procedures used, summary of findings and conclusions. This summary should resemble an abstract of a published research paper. Please do not copy or paraphrase the abstract from the paper you have chosen to critique (this will be considered plagiarism); rather, after reading the paper, develop your own summary/abstract
.
Article Critique:Your critical analysis of the research (approximately 1.5 pages) must go beyond a summary of the research. In this section you should indicate what you feel are the strengths and/or weaknesses of the research. You should include an assessment of the practical utility and implications of the research outcomes for our understanding of some aspect of human health and wellbeing, physical activity, nutrition, etc. You are also encouraged but not required to incorporate related literature into your assessment. Related literature can help you put the target article and its findings into perspective. As you read the article and prepare your review and critical analysis, keep in mind a variety of questions including:
Did the authors convince you there was a need for the study? Was the research focus/purpose well justified?
Is the research question or purpose of significance, i.e., is it meaningful?
If it is significant, to whom is it significant and why?
Is the study designed effectively to fulfill the purpose and/or test hypotheses? If so, have the authors clearly stated reasonable hypotheses? If not, should they have presented hypotheses?
- Was the research study effective in addressing the authors’ purpose and hypotheses? Were the methods used appropriate for answering the question?
Are there notable strengths, weaknesses, and/or limitations in the experimental design?
Related to b and c above, did the authors present the results clearly and are the results meaningful? If so, to whom and why?
Does the discussion provide a fair and effective interpretation of the results? Did the authors use existing literature effectively to help put the results in perspective?
Have the authors provided conclusions, and if so, are they appropriate conclusions based on the study’s methods and results?
- Overall, does the study provide useful information? Does the study advance our knowledge?
As you consider the above questions, please do notfeel as if you need to systematically respond to each and every one of the questions. I present these questions in an effort to stimulate your critical thinking as you read published articles.
The following may be a helpful resource as you complete your article critiques:
Benos, D.J., Kirk, K.L., and Hall, J.E. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education 27, 47-52. Available on Blackboard in the “Resources for Students Folder”
- Some other suggestions:Before starting your critique, read the article more than once. Make notes regarding possible strengths, weaknesses, and areas of confusion as you read the article. Prior to writing your critique, organize your thoughts; consider developing an outline for your critique. Carefully edit your written work. Consider having someone else read your critique and provide you with feedback. Avoid wordiness. Be clear. Be concise, but be thorough in your discussion of strengths and weaknesses.
- A copy of the research article you are critiquing; the article should be in PDF format
- Your article critique in Word format
- (file name format: author’s last name and first initial_journal title abbreviation_year of publication, e.g., SmithJ_MSSE_2007.pdf)
- (file name format: your last name, first initial_artcritn_journal abbreviation_year of publication, e.g., EllingsonL_artcrit1_MSSE_2007.doc)
- **Following these file-naming guidelines helps me keep your various documents organized.
- Suggested questions to drive your critique:
- Did the authors convince you there was a need for the study? Was the research focus/purpose well justified?
- Is the research question or purpose of significance, i.e., is it meaningful?
- If it is significant, to whom is it significant and why?
Is the study designed effectively to fulfill the purpose and/or test hypotheses? If so, have the authors clearly stated reasonable hypotheses? If not, should they have presented hypotheses?
Was the research study effective in addressing the authors’ purpose and hypotheses? Were the methods used appropriate for answering the question?
Are there notable strengths, weaknesses, and/or limitations in the experimental design?
Related to b and c above, did the authors present the results clearly and are the results meaningful? If so, to whom and why?
Does the discussion provide a fair and effective interpretation of the results? Did the authors use existing literature effectively to help put the results in perspective?
Have the authors provided conclusions, and if so, are they appropriate conclusions based on the study’s methods and results?
* Overall, does the study provide useful information? Does the study advance our knowledge
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||