**A guide for critique of research articles**

Following is the list of
criteria to evaluate (critique) a research article. Please note that you should
first summarize the paper and then evaluate different parts of it.

Most of the evaluation
section should be devoted to evaluation of internal validity of the
conclusions. Please add at the end a section
entitled ''changes in the design/procedures if I want to replicate this
study." Attach a copy of the original article to your paper.

Click here to see a an example (this is how you start) of a
research critique.

Click here to see the original article.

Hint

The following list is a
guide for you to organize your evaluation. It is recommended to organize your
evaluation in this order. This is a long
list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should
address highlighted
questions. Some questions may not be relevant to your article.

**Introduction**

Problem

1. Is there a statement
of the problem?

2. Is the problem
“researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and
analysis of data?

3. Is background
information on the problem presented?

4. Is the educational
significance of the problem discussed?

5. Does the problem
statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship
between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables
directly or operationally defined?

Review of Related Literature

1. Is the review comprehensive?

2. Are all cited references
relevant to the problem under investigation?

3. Are most of the
sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?

4. Have the references
been critically analyzed and the results of various studies compared and
contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?

5. Does the review
conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the
problem investigated?

6. Do the implications
discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which
follow?

Hypotheses

1. Are specific questions to be
answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?

2. Does each hypothesis
state an expected relationship or difference?

3. If necessary, are
variables directly or operationally defined?

4. Is each hypothesis
testable?

**Method**

*Subjects*

1. Are the size and
major characteristics of the population studied described?

2. If a sample was
selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?

3. Is the method of sample
selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased
sample?

*4. *Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?

5. Are the size and
major characteristics of the sample described?

*6. *Does the sample size meet the suggested
guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research
represented?* *

Instruments

1. Is the rationale
given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?

2. Is each instrument
described in terms of purpose and content?

3. Are the instruments
appropriate for measuring the intended variables?

4. Is evidence presented
that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?

5. Is instrument validity
discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?

6. Is reliability discussed in
terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?

7. If appropriate, are
subtest reliabilities given?

8. If an instrument was
developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its
development and validation described?

9. If an instrument was
developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or
tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?

Design and Procedure

1. Is the design appropriate for
answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the study?

*2. *Are the procedures described in sufficient
detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?

3. If a pilot study was
conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the
subsequent study?

4. Are the control
procedures described?

5. Did the researcher
discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was
unable to control for?

**Results**

1. Are appropriate descriptive or
inferential statistics presented?

2. Was the probability
level, α, at which the results of the tests of significance were
evaluated,

specified in advance of the data analyses?

3. If parametric tests
were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the

required
assumptions for parametric tests?

4. Are the tests of
significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the

study?

5. Was every hypothesis
tested?

6. Are the tests of
significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?

7. Are the results
clearly presented?

8. Are the tables and
figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?

9. Are the data in each
table and figure described in the text?

**Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)**

1. Is each result discussed in
terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?

2.
Is each result discussed
in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results

obtained by other researchers in other studies?

3. Are generalizations
consistent with the results?

4. Are the possible
effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?

5. Are theoretical and
practical implications of the findings discussed?

6. Are recommendations
for future action made?

7.
Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on
statistical

significance only, i.e., has the author
avoided confusing practical and statistical

significance?

8. Are recommendations for
future research made?

Additional general questions to be answered in your critique.

1. What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?

2. Describe the sample used in this study.

3. Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments
used.

4. What type of research is this? Explain.

5. How was the data analyzed?

6. What is
(are) the major finding(s)?