Preparing a Journal Article Critique
Article - Ventilatory responses at rest and during exercise in marathon runners by Donald A. Mahler, Ernest D. Moritz and Jacob Loke
I. What is an article critique?
A critical analysis of a study published in a peer-reviewed journal.
II. How do I format an article review?
Format and organization of the critique varies according to the professor's preference. In other words, there is no set format for writing a journal critique.
III. What does an article critique include?
A citation of the reviewed article in APA format.
Article Critique Outlines -
A) A one-paragraph summary of the article
- Fewer than 200 words
- Briefly describe experimental question (1 sentence)
- Provide concise description of the methods used (2-6 sentences)
- Discuss results/findings (2 sentences)
B) A description of the study's participants
- Include number of participants/sample size/number of groups used
- Provide any pertinent characteristics of participants (healthy young subjects, COPD, cystic fibrosis, type H diabetes, etc.)
- Briefly describe participant selection & assignment to condition (were they randomly assigned; categorized by age, years since diagnosis etc.)
C) Identification and description of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables within the study
- Define independent variable(s)
- Define dependent variable(s)
- Discuss if a functional relationship exists between the independent and dependent variables
- Discuss possible confounding variables within the study E) A description of the research design
D) A description of the research design
- Identify the design as a group- or single-subject study
- Describe the experimental design (e.g., ABA reversal design, alternating treatment design, or multiple baseline design, blinded, double blinded crossover etc)
E) Article strengths & weaknesses (helpful questions to ask yourself while evaluating the article's 4 main sections)
1. Introduction
- Did the researchers identify a significant problem as the focus of the study?
- Did the researchers develop potential explanation, or alternative explanation to the problem after conducting a thorough review of past research?
- Did the proposed study include a thorough, current, and relevant literature review? This does not mean "older studies are irrelevant!!
- Did the introduction guide the reader to the rationale for the study and eventually the hypothesis?
- Was the rationale justified by the information presented in the introduction?
2. Methods
- Did the researchers detail procedures enough for replication?
- Were the participants, setting, observational times, data collection methods, measurement of the independent and dependent variables, and experimental conditions described?
- How did the experimenters monitor possible side effects and adverse effects on participants throughout the study?
- How did the experimenters account for experimenter bias and reactivity?
- Were treatment integrity and inter-observer agreement addressed within the study?
- Were measures taken to reduce possible confounds within the study?
3. Results
- How did the experimenters attempt to demonstrate a functional relationship between the independent and dependent variables? What procedures did the experimenters use to strengthen the correlation between these variables?
- Did the experimenters graph the results? Did the information in the graphs represent the written description of the results?
4. Discussion
- Did the experimenters summarize the results and provide reasonable interpretations of the results based on the data and the experimental design?
- Did the experimenters relate the results back to the Introduction?
- Did the experimenters discuss any implications or limitations of the study or experimental design?
- Did the study provide significant results that added to the current body of knowledge?