Article Critique Basic Guidelines Always use your own words. Read the article several times and take notes. Do not copy paste. Do not use quotes. Do not just say “the author used experimental design.” Explain what that means and how you knew that is what they used. The authors might not explicitly state this. Think critically when reading your article and really apply your readings from the course. Introduction • • Introduce the article, author(s), the purpose of the article, and the intended audience. Think: why was this paper written? Introduce and discuss any research questions or hypotheses. Method • • • • • • Discuss Research Ethical Procedures (if applicable) Describe the type of research conducted (be specific and use your text! Was it experimental or non-experimental? What type of method did they use? Did they state the method or did you have to figure it out?) Describe the setting (where did the study take place?) Describe the population and sample (make sure to note how many groups of participants there are) Describe the instruments the author used. Were they created by someone else? Was permission granted to use the instrument? Is the instrument included in the article? Describe any statistical tests used and what those measure (use your text!) Results • • • Summarize the results and what those results mean (use your text!) If there are multiple research questions answered, make sure you are summarizing them all here. Do not post numbers without any description. If there are statistical numbers as a result, explain what they mean. Critique • • • What was your main takeaway from the article? What did you learn? What was hard for your to understand? What strategies did you use when you were not sure what things meant? Discuss any ethical concerns or bias that may have been present. Did the author note any bias in their paper? How could that bias impact the outcome? Did the type of research design make sense for the purpose of the paper? • • • • • Did the author explain why or how they selected their research method? Did it make sense based on your readings? Were the research questions of the article answered? How do you know? Did the author discuss validity or reliability in their paper? Based on your readings, did their validity claims make sense? Discuss why or why not. Was any information missing from the paper? What would you do different if you were conducting this study? Be specific and explain using rationale from your text.