Critique Guidelines

ORLJ 4009

All research efforts are flawed in some way. Some flaws can be overcome and some

cannot. Read the assigned article and think about the questions listed below. Then write

a critical evaluation of the assigned article. You should address each of the questions below, paying

particular attention to question #4. Be sure to answer each question respectively and

number your responses to each of the questions. Make sure to explain your responses.

Please keep your paper to 4-5 double-spaced, typed pages, using one inch margins, and

12-pt. font. Papers longer than 5 pages will not be accepted for grading.

1. Briefly state the purpose of the research (the research question). Identify the

nature of the research question (descriptive, relational or experimental) that the

research is attempting to address. (5 points)

2. Identify the research strategy (e.g., McGrath’s circumplex) and research design

(e.g., X’s and O’s) employed. Do the strategy and design appropriately address

the researcher’s question(s) (as described in question 1 above)? Why or why

not? (10 points)

3. Is the sample appropriate? Have the study variables been operationalized

appropriately? (10 points)

4. Discuss the pros and cons (strengths and weaknesses) of the research strategy

and design used. Please include a discussion of how well each of McGrath’s 3

goals (A,B,C) were satisfied with the research strategy utilized and all possible

threats to the internal and external validity of the research (be sure to explain

how these threats may have operated to influence the study results). What are

the limitations of this research in addition to those you identified with respect to

the research strategy and design (e.g. subject-experimenter effects)? Can you

generate alternative interpretations of the researcher’s results? (25 points)

Note: Research articles often represent hours of time and energy invested by the

authors in conceptualizing the research question, designing the study, collecting data,

analyzing the results, and formulating conclusions. Please be mindful of this fact, and

regardless of the flaws you have identified, try to respect that this work may represent

something personally valuable to the authors. The purpose of a critique is to improve

the work, not tear it down.