https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/jets/article/view/4274/4451

Instructions

This is the first article critique of the course. For this assignment,

1. Read the attached article.
2. Use the checklist of evaluation questions and find (and highlight) the information related to the following sections: 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 13. Do not submit the highlighted document.
3. Write a paragraph summarizing the most important answers to the questions in each section: 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 13. Use the questions as a guide to writing a good paragraph.
4. Make sure the paper reads as a cohesive essay. It might help to add a brief introductory paragraph at the beginning and maybe a concluding one at the end.
5. APA style.
6. Essay should be between two and three pages
7. Start out with an introduction paragraph

1. Evaluating Titles ___ 1. Is the title sufficiently specific? ___ 2. Is the title reasonably concise? ___ 3. Are the primary variables mentioned in the title? ___ 4. When there are many variables, are the types of variables referred to? ___ 5. Does the title identify the types of individuals who participated or the types of aggregate units in the sample? ___ 6. If a study is strongly tied to a theory, is the name of the specific theory mentioned in the title? ___ 7. Has the author avoided describing results in the title? ___ 8. Has the author avoided using a 'yes-no' question as a title? ___ 9. If there are a main title and a subtitle, do both provide important information about the research? ___ 10. If the title implies causality, does the method of research justify it? ___ 11. Is the title free of jargon and acronyms that might be unknown to the audience for the research report? ___ 12. Are any highly unique or very important characteristics of the study referred to in the title? ___ 13. Overall, is the title effective and appropriate?

2. Evaluating Abstracts ___ 1. Is the purpose of the study referred to or at least clearly implied? ___ 2. Does the abstract mention highlights of the research methodology? ___ 3. Has the researcher omitted the titles of measures (except when these are the focus of the research)? ___ 4. Are the highlights of the results described? ___ 5. If the study is strongly tied to a theory, is the theory mentioned in the abstract? ___ 6. Has the researcher avoided making vague references to implications and future research directions? ___ 7. Does the abstract include purpose/objectives, methods, and results of the study? ___ 8. Overall, is the abstract effective and appropriate?

3. Evaluating Introductions and Literature Reviews ___ 1. Does the researcher begin by identifying a specific problem area? ___ 2. Does the researcher establish the importance of the problem area? ___ 3. Are any underlying theories adequately described? ___ 4. Does the introduction move from topic to topic instead of from citation to citation? ___ 5. Are very long introductions broken into subsections, each with its own sub heading? ___ 6. Has the researcher provided adequate conceptual definitions of key terms? ___ 7. Has the researcher cited sources for "factual" statements? ___ 8. Do the specific research purposes, questions, or hypotheses logically flow from the introductory material? ___ 9. Overall, is the introduction effective and appropriate?

6. Evaluating Samples when Researchers Do Not Generalize ___ 1. Has the researcher described the sample/population in sufficient detail? ___ 2. For a pilot study or developmental test of a theory, has the researcher used a sample with relevant demographics? ___ 3. Even if the purpose is not to generalize to a population, has the researcher used a sample of adequate size? ___ 4. Is the sample size adequate in terms of its orientation (quantitative versus qualitative)? ___ 5. If a purposive sample has been used, has the researcher indicated the basis for selecting participants? ___ 6. If a population has been studied, has it been clearly identified and described? ___ 7. Has informed consent been obtained? ___ 8. Has the study been approved by an ethics review committee? ___ 9. Overall, is the description of the sample adequate?

10. Evaluating Analysis and Results Sections: Qualitative Research ___ 1. Were the data analyzed independently by two or more individuals? ___ 2. Did the researchers seek feedback from experienced individuals and auditors before finalizing the results? ___ 3. Did the researchers seek feedback from the participants (i.e., use member checking) before finalizing the results? ___ 4. Did the researchers name the method of analysis they used and provide a reference for it? ___ 5. Did the researchers state specifically how the method of analysis was applied? ___ 6. Did the researchers self-disclose their backgrounds? ___ 7. Are the results of qualitative studies adequately supported with examples of quotations or descriptions of observations? ___ 8. Are appropriate statistics reported (especially for demographics)? ___ 9. Overall, is the Results section clearly organized? ___ 10. Overall, is the presentation of the results adequate?

13. Putting It All Together ___ 1. In your judgment, has the researcher selected an important problem? ___ 2. Were the researchers reflective? ___ 3. Is the report cohesive? ___ 4. Does the report extend the boundaries of the knowledge on a topic, especially for understanding relevant theories? ___ 5. Are any major methodological flaws unavoidable or forgivable? ___ 6. Is the research likely to inspire additional research? ___ 7. Is the research likely to help in decision making? ___ 8. All things considered, is the report worthy of publication in an academic journal? ___ 9. Would you be proud to have your name on the research article as a co-author?