Elements of the critique Summary of the article (Discuss what the article is about) This part SHOULD NOT include any of your personal input but rather just summarize what the author did in his/her research. Research Topic What question is the researcher trying to answer? Research Methodology How did the researcher study the topic? Survey? Experiment? Statistical Analysis? Briefly answer who, what, where, and when, and how. Major Conclusions What does the author conclude? What recommendations does he make?

QUESTION

Critical Review Assignment

Elements of the critique

Summary of the article (Discuss what the article is about) This part SHOULD NOT include any of your personal input but rather just summarize what the author did in his/her research.

• Research Topic
  • What question is the researcher trying to answer?
• Research Methodology
  • How did the researcher study the topic? Survey? Experiment? Statistical Analysis?
  • Briefly answer who, what, where, and when, and how.
• Major Conclusions
  • What does the author conclude?
  • What recommendations does he make?

This section should be about 1.5 pages in general.

The next part is the key of the critique.  This next sections of your paper gives an assessment of how well the research was conducted based on what you learned.  Remember you can use your own personal experience and outside articles to help you support your point of view in this section of the assignment.

In-depth critique of the article (Discuss how well the research is conducted in your own words)

Write a brief paragraph for each of the following listed elements in your own words:

• Purpose
  • Is the research problem clearly stated? Is it easy to determine what the researcher intends to research?
• Literature Review
  • Is the review logically organized?
  • Does it offer a balanced critical analysis of the literature?
  • Is the majority of the literature of recent origin?
  • Is it empirical in nature?
• Objectives/hypotheses
  • Has a research question or hypothesis been identified?
  • Is it clearly stated?
  • Is it consistent with discussion in the literature review?
• Ethical Standards Applied
  • Were the participants fully informed about the nature of the research?
  • Was confidentiality guaranteed?
  • Were participants protected from harm?
• Operational Definitions
  • Are all terms, theories, and concepts used in the study clearly defined?
• Methodology
  • Is the research design clearly identified?
  • Has the data gathering instrument been described?
  • Is the instrument appropriate? How was it developed?
  • Were reliability and validity testing undertaken and the results discussed?
  • Was a pilot study undertaken?
• Data Analysis/Results
  • What type of data and statistical analysis was undertaken? Was it appropriate?
  • How many of the sample participated? Significance of the findings?
• Discussion
  • Are the findings linked back to the literature review?
  • If a hypothesis was identified was it supported?
  • Were the strengths and limitations of the study including generalizability discussed?
  • Was a recommendation for further research made?
• References
  • Were all the books, journals and other media alluded to in the study accurately referenced?
• Conclusion
  • Considering all of the evaluation categories, is the article well or poorly researched?

The following online article may be helpful to you. Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research

ANSWER

A Critical Review of “Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research”

Introduction

In the realm of academic research, critiquing plays a vital role in evaluating the quality and validity of scientific studies. “Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research” is an article that offers a comprehensive framework for critically assessing quantitative research studies. This critical review aims to evaluate the article’s effectiveness in providing guidance for evaluating the key elements of quantitative research and its overall contribution to the field.

Summary of the Article

“Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research” is not a primary research study but serves as a synthesis of existing knowledge and best practices for critiquing quantitative research. It does not focus on a specific research topic but rather provides readers with a step-by-step guide for evaluating the quality and validity of research articles. The article examines various elements including the research problem, literature review, objectives/hypotheses, ethical standards, operational definitions, methodology, data analysis/results, discussion, references, and conclusion.

In-depth Critique of the Article

Purpose

The article effectively conveys its purpose of providing readers with a systematic approach to critiquing quantitative research studies. It clearly outlines the objective of assisting readers in evaluating the quality and validity of research articles by emphasizing key elements to consider.

Literature Review

The literature review in the article is well-organized and logically presented. It offers a balanced critical analysis of existing literature, synthesizing current knowledge and best practices for critiquing quantitative research studies. The article predominantly focuses on recent empirical studies, ensuring the relevance and applicability of the information provided.

Objectives/Hypotheses

Given that the article is not a primary research study, specific research objectives or hypotheses are not identified. However, the article aligns its recommendations with the discussion in the literature review, providing a coherent and consistent framework for critiquing research articles.

Ethical Standards Applied

While the article does not involve primary research with human participants, it highlights the significance of ethical considerations in research. Although the aspects of informed consent, confidentiality, and protection from harm are not directly applicable in this context, the article emphasizes their importance in studies involving human subjects.

Operational Definitions

As the article serves as a guide rather than a research study, it does not introduce specific terms, theories, or concepts requiring operational definitions. It focuses on providing a comprehensive framework for critiquing quantitative research rather than introducing new terminology.

Methodology

The article clearly identifies its research design as a literature review. Since it synthesizes existing research, there is no specific data gathering instrument described. The appropriateness of the methodology lies in its aim to provide readers with a comprehensive framework for critiquing quantitative research studies. However, no reliability and validity testing or pilot study were undertaken, as the article is not a primary research study.

Data Analysis/Results

As the article does not present primary data analysis or results, it instead offers guidance on evaluating the appropriateness of data analysis techniques in quantitative research studies. It emphasizes the importance of using appropriate statistical methods and evaluating the significance of findings based on sample participation.

Discussion

The article effectively links the findings of the critique to the literature review. While it does not discuss or support a specific hypothesis, it thoroughly examines the strengths and limitations of the critique process, including considerations of generalizability. The article concludes by recommending further research in the field of critiquing quantitative research studies.

References

The article demonstrates accuracy in referencing the books, journals, and other media cited, maintaining proper citation and bibliographic format.

Conclusion

Upon considering all evaluation categories, “Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research” can be deemed a well-researched article. It provides a comprehensive framework for critiquing quantitative research studies and offers valuable guidance for assessing the quality and validity of research articles in this domain. By emphasizing key elements such as the research problem, literature review, methodology, and data analysis, the article contributes to enhancing research evaluation practices and fostering rigorous scientific inquiry.