Article Critiques

The purpose of the article critique is to practice and improve your written critical review of empirical research. Truly, there is no more important component of academic literacy for you to develop, quickly and deeply, than the ability to “critique” empirical research (i.e., research that gathers data (hence, empirical) and draws inferences from those data). Article critiques should be 5- to 7-pages, double-spaced.

The questions that each article critique should address are:

A. Overall framework (1 – 2 pages)

  1. Critique the author’s conceptual framework.
  2. Comment on the need for this study and its importance.
  3. How effectively does the author tie the study to relevant theory and prior research?
  4. Evaluate the clarity and appropriateness of the research questions or hypotheses.

B. Research Design and Analysis (1 – 2 pages)

  1. Critique the appropriateness and adequacy of the study’s design in relation to the research questions or hypotheses.
  2. Critique the adequacy of the study’s sampling methods (e.g., choice of participants) and their implications for generalizability.
  3. Critique the adequacy of the study’s procedures and materials (e.g., interventions, interview protocols, data collection procedures).
  4. Critique the appropriateness and quality (e.g., transparency, reliability, validity) of the measures used.
  5. Critique the adequacy of the study’s data analyses. For example: Have important statistical assumptions been met? Are the analyses appropriate for the study’s design? Are the analyses appropriate for the data collected?

C. Interpretation and Implications of Results (1 – 2 pages)

  1. Critique the author’s discussion of the methodological and/or conceptual limitations of the results.
  2. How consistent and comprehensive are the author’s conclusions with the reported results?
  3. How well did the author relate the results to the study’s theoretical base?
  4. In your view, what is the significance of the study, and what are its primary implications for theory, future research, and practice?

D. Consistency across sections A, B, and C  (less than a page)
Do the sections seem to cohere and build on each other? If so, how so and how well do they do this (remember to critically evaluate)? If not, why not and what would you suggest to fix the problem(s)?

How are the article critiques scored?

Each of your responses should include 3 elements: (1) a brief summary of what the authors did/reported, (2) your critique / evaluation of what the authors did/reported, and (3) support for your evaluation (e.g., reasons, rationale, evidence, etc.)

  1. Strong responses (i.e., scores ~ 7-8) do all three with substance and, at times, insight.
  2. Above average responses (i.e., scores ~ 5-6) do two of three explicitly – i.e., clear writing, clear evaluation and/or clear rationale/evidence.
  3. Average responses (i.e., scores ~ 4) do two of three, but not very explicitly.
  4. Below average responses (i.e., scores ~ 2-3) do one of the 3, often vaguely.
  5. Low score responses (i.e., 0-1) fail to address the question.