Journal Article Critique

Research Methods for Social Work Practice

FINAL Assignment: Journal Article Critique
(30 points possible)
Students will present the revised/final COPES question (revised from earlier assignments as
appropriate) and identify three peer-reviewed journal articles that present data supporting the
effectiveness of an intervention in a micro, mezzo, or macro setting that addresses the problem
area identified in the COPES question presented. The intervention does not have to be limited to
a clinical intervention. The intervention can be a non-clinical intervention at the mezzo or macro
level as well. You are encouraged to think broadly or more importantly along the lines of what
interests you most.
The articles must be original research articles (published within the past 10 years) in which the
authors collected and analyzed data. The articles cannot be literature reviews, critiques of other
articles, secondary data analyses, a description of research methodologies, systematic/reviews or
meta-analyses. There are no requirements for study designs, but the articles must have at least the
following sections (as would be expected in an article describing research studies: Abstract,
Introduction/Purpose, Methods, Results, Discussion/Implications/Conclusion. The research
described in the journal articles must be QUANTITATIVE studies, qualitative studies are not
allowed for this paper.
Students will then identify one of the three articles to critique in detail. For this assignment,
students are expected to critically evaluate the research presented in the article using the text by
Holosko: Primer for critiquing social research: A student guide. Holosko presents a guide to an
article critique through the use of a series of “BOXes” within the text. You should use the
following from BOXes/figures presented in the book directly as your guide:
Box 5, Box 6, Box 7, Box 8, Box 10, Figure 11 (1, 2, and 3 only), Box 11, Box 12, Box
16, Box 17, Box 18, Box 20 (1-4 only, exclude unique factors/features), Box 21, Box 22,
and Box 24 (who is this study for? . . . please note it can be and usually is for more than 1
audience and reasons will vary according to audience).
Additionally, provide a summary of strengths and weaknesses of the study overall (at least two
of each). Conclude with what you believe is the usefulness of the study in relation to your
problem area. Use EXAMPLES directly from the article to support your assertions. Do not
simply state for example: “the research questions were listed at the end of the introduction”.
You need to state what the questions were for the study.
Paper Requirements/Format: **FORMAT STYLES ARE AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT
– AND MUST FOLLOW ONE OF THESE.
1- Restate your COPES question (revised from COPES assignment as appropriate)
2- Provide a one paragraph summary of the problem area.
3- Identify the three journal articles (containing original research). List them and be sure to
have them in proper APA style (as in a reference list).
***NOTE: These should each be INDIVIDUALLY listed (in APA format)
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING the paragraph summary describing the contents (also see
#4 described below for what to include in summary).
4- Summarize the three articles (one paragraph for each article). Describe in general the
research studies presented in each, clearly identifying the methodology used, procedures,
sample, findings and the usefulness of each in providing evidence of a best practice for
your problem area/COPES question.
5- Clearly identify which article is the focus of your critique.
6- Article critique as described above according to Holosko’s guide (box numbers listed)
7- Summary and Conclusions based on your in-depth critique presented.
Identify what YOU think are two strengths and two weaknesses.
Summarize what YOU think of the usefulness of the study in general AND with respect to
your COPES question in your view.
Furthermore:
The paper must be single-spaced, but double-spaced between your answers of each box or figure.
For each question you must list or write the box number you are answering and the question(s)
(briefly) that is associated with each box or figure in the suggested format below. You do not
need to cite the authors in the body of this part of the paper (Holosko part).
Along with your responses, you must submit a copy of the entire article (that you reviewed). The
answers must not be simple yes or no answers. Points will be taken off for simple yes/no answers
because it will be considered incomplete. If the article you are critiquing does not have all of the
components for each section, it is your responsibility to say so and provide evidence that it is not
present. Always provide a response.
Grading
The critiques will be graded as follows with an underlying assumption that APA style is
followed for the title page. This is the only portion of the paper that must follow APA
formatting. The title or running head of the paper should read: A Critique of: a shortened version
of the title of the article. A running head is only required for the title page. Do not include a
running head through the entire paper.
It is further expected that you will use good language (clearly understood, no colloquial
language used) and proper grammar and complete sentences. Use of bulleted lists are NOT
permitted.
Other general assumptions are that the overall directions of the assignment are followed and that
there are thorough/complete responses to each box or figure, completion of the correct boxes or
figures, concise responses (meaning the responses should be clear and direct; please avoid
flowery writing), and demonstration of a clear understanding of the anatomy of research articles
(meaning what authors should include in original research papers). As well, your ability to
critique the article, and not just say the authors did ‘this’ or said ‘that’ should be demonstrated.
This will differentiate you from a A, B, C, or F. I am not only interested in your ability to locate
items in an article, but I am most interested in your ability to critique the article. This will put
you on your way to becoming a good research consumer.
Format 1: RECOMMENDED – also be sure to use examples directly from wording in the article
to demonstrate your assertions as much as possible and as appropriate.
Box 5 on p. 20: Assessing the Title
The title of this article contains twenty-one words, more than the APA recommended
amount of 10-12; however, it does make sense standing alone. It identifies the treatment being
studied as hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and the subject as blast-induced post-concussion syndrome
and post-traumatic stress disorder. The title does identify the variable of the hyperbaric oxygen
therapy as low-pressure. It refrains from using jargon, rhetorical questions, or cutesy titles.
Box 6 on p. 20: What are the Authors’ Affiliations?
This article does include footnotes that list the authors’ affiliations or where they are
employed (such as at the University of Alabama School of Social Work). There is also a section at
the end of the article that gives disclosure statements for the authors which identifies those that
have doctorate degrees, are registered nurses, etc. While the article does not specifically identify
the authors’ relationship to the study, this section does state that the authors have no competing
financial interests. The article does not offer any additional information about the authors.
Box 7 on p. 20: Assessing the Abstract
The abstract is written in a concise, clear, and accurate manner to allow the reader to fully
understand the purpose of the study. It is specific regarding the content of the study that was
conducted. Additionally, it is written in the active voice.
Format 2:
Box 5 on p. 20: Assessing the Title
Does the title
 Have 10-12 words?
The title of this article contains twenty-one words, more than the APA recommended
amount of 10-12.
 Make sense standing alone?
The title does make sense standing alone.
 Name important variables/theoretical issues?
It identifies the treatment being studied as hyperbaric oxygen therapy.
 Make reference to the study sample?
The title does identify the subject as blast-induced post-concussion syndrome and posttraumatic stress disorder.
 Identify variable relationships?
The title does identify the variable of the hyperbaric oxygen therapy as low-pressure.
 Avoid cutesiness, rhetorical questions, and jargon?
It refrains from using jargon, rhetorical questions, or cutesy titles.
Box 6 on p. 20: What Are the Authors’ Affiliations?
Can you find out
 Where the authors work?
This article does include footnotes that list the authors’ affiliations or where they are
employed.
 Their degree status?
There is also a section at the end of the article that gives disclosure statements for the
authors which identifies those that have doctorate degrees, are registered nurses, etc.
 Their relationship to the study?
While the article does not specifically identify the authors’ relationship to the study, this
section does state whether or not the authors have competing financial interests.
 Any additional information about them?
The article does not offer any additional information about the authors.
Box 7 on p. 20: Assessing the Abstract
Is the abstract
 Concise, clear, and accurate?
The abstract is written in a concise, clear, and accurate manner to allow the reader to fully
understand the purpose of the study.
 Specific?
It is specific regarding the content of the study that was conducted.
 Written in the active voice?
The article is written in the active voice.