2nd Journal Article Review
1. Summarize this article (while avoiding jargon--even if it's in the title) using words that
anyone could understand.
a. Why they did the study;
b. What they did (What happened to the subjects who participated in the study);
c. What they found
d. What they concluded
Hint: Start by telling the reader what the hypothesis was. If the hypothesis is drawn from
a theory, explain why the hypothesis follows from theory and how the theory would pass
the test and how it could fail the test. Next, explain how variables are being
operationalized and why these particular operationalizations are being used (used in
previous studies, sensitive, non-reactive, etc.). Then, talk, in concrete terms, about what
was done, what was found, and what it means.
2. After having summarized the article (translated it from "journalese" into English),
critique the study's internal, external, and construct validity.
a. Internal Validity:
1. What did the researchers do to control for threats to internal validity?
Were groups equivalent at beginning of study?
2. If it was a correlational study, what non-treatment factors or third
variables could account for the results? How did the researchers control
for possible confounding variables?
b. Construct Validity:
1. Do you think the measures the researchers used were good ones? Why
or why not?
2. If study was an experiment, do you think their treatment did what they
thought it did? Why or why not?
3. Did the researchers take any precautions to eliminate experimenter
effects or demand characteristics? If not, were these a problem for the
study?
c. External Validity:
How confident are you that the results would hold:
1. Over time?
2. With other subjects?
3. In a different setting?
d. Do you think that conducting the study was ethical? Why or why not?
4. Conclusions:
a. What was good about the study? What were some limitations or weaknesses of
the study?
b. If you were to redo their study, what changes would you make? Why?