Guiding Questions for Critiquing a Research Article

Basic research question or problem

Choose one of the articles that have been posted to the course D2L site to review and critique. Your critique should be between when finished. It may help you to review the critique guides posted to the course D2L site before starting this assignment. It is suggested that you read through your chosen article at least three times:

• The first time, just read it to see if it makes sense and to get a basic understanding of the contents;

• The second time, read it ‘critically’ (use the resources on the course D2L site about reading critically);

• The third time, read it sentence by sentence and take notes under each of the questions below so you can write a c oherent and well-thought-out critique.

The questions, below, are there to help you think about the article and to guide your writing: you do NOT have to answer every questions, nor do I want you to simply write a question-and-answer style of paper. Use the questions to help structure your writing and to help focus your thoughts. This is an opinion paper, not a shortanswer test! I want to see two things:

1. That you understand what good research is and how it is structured/designed; and

2. That you can read critically and that you can apply the course concepts thoughtfully.

Article Review Guiding Questions

The questions below are designed to guide your reading of an entire research article.

1. What is the basic research question, or problem? Try to state it in just one sentence.

2. Is the purpose of the study explanatory, evaluative, exploratory, or descriptive? Did the study have more than one purpose?

3. What prior literature was reviewed? Was it relevant to the research problem? To the theoretical framework? Does the literature review appear to be adequate?

4. Was a theoretical framework presented? What was it? Did it seem appropriate for the research question addressed?

5. How well did the study live up to the guidelines for science? Do you need additional information in any areas to evaluate the study? To replicate it?

6. Did the study seem consistent with current ethical standards? Were any trade-offs made between different ethical guidelines? Was an appropriate balance struck between adherence to ethical standards and use of the most rigorous scientific practices?

7. Were any hypotheses stated? Were these hypotheses justified adequately in terms of the theoretical framework? In terms of prior research?

Purpose of the study

8. What were the independent and dependent variables in the hypothesis(es)? Did these variables reflect the theoretical concepts as intended? What direction of association was hypothesized? Were any other variables identified as potentially important?

9. What were the major concepts in the research? How, and how clearly, were they defined? Were some concepts treated as unidimensional that you think might best be thought of as multidimensional?

10. Did the instruments used, the measures of the variables, seem valid and reliable? How did the authors attempt to establish this? Could any more have been done in the study to establish measurement validity?

11. Was a sample or the entire population of elements used in the study? What type of sample was selected? Was a probability sampling method used? Did the authors think the sample was generally representative of the population from which it was drawn? Do you? How would you evaluate the likely generalisability of the findings to other populations?

12. Was the response rate or participation rate reported? Does it appear likely that those who did not respond or participate were markedly different from those who did participate? Why or why not? Did the author(s) adequately discuss this issue?

13. Was the study design cross-sectional or longitudinal, or did it use both types of data? If the design was longitudinal, what type of longitudinal design was it? Could the longitudinal design have been improved in any way, as by collecting panel data rather than trend data, or by decreasing the dropout rate in a panel design? If cross--sectional data were used, could the research question have been addressed more effectively with longitudinal data?

14. Was an experimental, survey, participant observation, or some other research design used? How well was this design suited to the research question posed and the specific hypotheses tested, if any? Why do you suppose the author(s) chose this particular design? How was the design modified in response to research constraints? How was it modified in order to take advantage of research opportunities?

15. Was this an evaluation research project? If so, which type of evaluation was it? Which design alternatives did it use?

16. Was a historical comparative design used? Which type was it? Were problems due to using historical and/or cross-national data addressed?

17. Did the analysis rely on secondary data? Did the author(s) take into account the limitations due to use of secondary data? Did they provide an adequate description of the strengths and weaknesses of the original study?

18. Summarize the findings. How clearly were statistical and/or qualitative data presented and discussed? Were the results substantively important?

19. Did the author(s) adequately represent the findings in the discussion and/or conclusions sections? Were conclusions well grounded in the findings? Are any other interpretations possible?

20. What additional research questions and hypotheses are suggested by the study's results? What light did the study shed on the theoretical framework used?