Article Review
For this assignment it is required that you acquire a research article from a peer reviewed
journal and critique the contents of the article. Use the five general guidelines from the
text book in your review and analysis of the article (listed below). In typing up the
review please do not simply go through each of the questions listed below and give a
response. It should read similar to a book review. You may find that in the article you are
reviewing not every question will apply and you do not need to answer every question
listed but do be as comprehensive as possible in your review. Remember the focus is on
strengths and weaknesses of the article. The following reference is the first article you
should review.
A Comparison of CBT and EMDR for Sexually-abused Iranian
Girls. Jaberghaderi, Nasrin; Greenwald, Ricky; Rubin, Allen; Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy, Vol 11(5), Sep-Oct 2004. pp. 358-368. [Original
Journal Article]
I. Preliminary Analysis of an Article
What are the author’s credentials and institutional affiliation?
Has the author’s work been cited by others?
Is the publication current or dated?
Is the work published by a publisher of professional books or journals?
Is the work peer reviewed?
Is the source a scholarly journal?
II. The Introduction
Has relevant research been adequately reviewed?
Are assertions supported with the appropriate citations?
Are the purposes of the study clearly stated?
Are the hypotheses clearly stated, and do they flow logically from the
information in the introduction?
III. The Method Section
Was the nature of the subject sample specified?
Does the design of the study allow an adequate test of the hypotheses?
Are there any methodological flaws that might affect the validity of the results?
Is sufficient detail presented to allow one to replicate the study?
IV. The Results Section
Did the statistically significant effects support or refute the hypotheses?
Are the differences reported large or small?
Were the appropriate statistics used?
Do the tables, figures, and text match?
V. The Discussion Section
Do the conclusions presented match the results reported?
If the author speculates about implications of results, does he or she stray too far
from the results reported?
How
well do the results mesh with existing theory and empirical data?
Does the author point the way to directions for future research?
Do not do this: The authors were credentialed and employed at Harvard. The author was
cited by others. The publication date was January 2003. It was published in a
professional journal (Journal of Psychology) and was peer reviewed.
It appears that the author did his research in reviewing other articles. He gave several
citations and the purpose of the study was clear.
Their description of their subjects wasn’t very good…
Do this: The article A Self-Disclosure Inventory for Adolescents was authored by
Professor Lloyd West (University of Calgary) and Assistant Professor Harvey W. Zingle
(University of Alberta). A quick review of the Psych-Info Database indicated that both
authors have published several articles related to adolescent development and the
formation of interpersonal relationships. This particular article was published in
Psychological Reports a professional peer reviewed journal.
The purpose of the study was to describe the development of a self-disclosure inventory
designed for the use of adolescents. This was clearly stated in the abstract as well as in
the first paragraph of the article. Following a brief but clear introduction to the key
variables of interest within their study, the authors provided a review of the pertinent
literature. The literature review provided by the authors was comprehensive and included
a concise summary of the most pertinent research related to each of the variables included
in their study. They also identified and noted variables in their study that were lacking in
research base. The literature review provided a rationale for the author’s hypotheses
that…
The description of the subjects used in their study was lacking in specificity. They failed
to describe the subjects in terms of religiosity and ethnic background. It may be that
these variables would have changed the results of their study. They noted that the sample
consisted of 50 females and 26 males. This ratio is inadequate in making comparisons
between the two genders...