RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Requirement No. 1: Research Critique

The purpose of this assignment is to critically evaluate the research article that you will be
assigned. In doing the critique of the research material, it is important to identify both the
strengths and weaknesses of the study. You should also remember that a research critique is a
judicious, critical appraisal of the strengths and limitations and not just a review or summary of
the article. Critical evaluation allows an individual to assess the worth of a research article by
looking carefully at all parts of the study. The aim, therefore, is to critique and evaluate the
chosen article in terms of strengths and weaknesses and to demonstrate an understanding of the
research process.

With the research article, it may also be possible to critically comment upon:
• the clarity of the introduction whether it explain what the researcher wants to find, including
the completeness of what the introduction should contain.
• the thoroughness of related literature, including the researcher critique of the sources
reviewed.
• the suitability of the research design.
• the effectiveness of the data collection process.
• the validity of the sample selection process .
• the appropriateness of the chosen research methods to the subject being researched, which
are reflected in the research result.
• and so on.

Note: The research paper that you will review should be related to your area of study and must
be first approved by to avoid duplication.

Guidelines for Writing a Research Critique

The Critique should be 5-10 pages (1500-2800 words) using APA format. Your critique should be
longer than your summary. There is a long list of questions shown in Table 1. You don’t have to
address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions. Some questions are
relevant to the article some may not. We listed so many questions simply because we would like
you to learn what to look for in evaluating a research article. The format of your paper should NOT
be like a Q & A list. Instead, you should integrate your answers into an essay format similar to
the given examples.

Suggested Outline of Critique

1. Title of the article or the research paper.

2. Summary of the article/research paper
• Introduction
• Assumption
• Instruments
• Theoretical Framework/Hypothesis
• Procedure
 • Analysis
• Results
• Conclusions
3. Critique of Article/Research Paper.
• Problem
• Review of Literature/Theoretical Framework
• Hypothesis/Research Question
• Sample
• Research Design
• Instruments
• Analysis of Data
• Conclusion/Implications/Recommendation
4. Conclusion
Conclude your analysis by briefly summing up the strengths and weaknesses of the study
and by assessing its contribution to the advancement of knowledge, theory, or practice. Consider
suggesting research directions and methodological considerations for future researchers. Use
past or present tense consistently whenever you refer to completed research. Use APA Citation
Style to format references in your critique, and be sure to cite page numbers for all quoted
passages. Also see the web link: http://www.apastyle.org/. No more than 10 pages in length,
including the cover page. Recommended bond paper size: A4; Recommended font and font size:
Times New Roman 12; Margins: Top, right, bottom - 1.0 in., Left - 1.5 in; 1.5 lines space but
double space between paragraphs. A hard copy and a soft copy of the assignment are be
submitted.

Table 1: Elements of a Research Critique and Questions to Consider in Writing a Critique

Section Questions to guide evaluation

Problem Statement 1. What are the problem and/or purpose of the research study?
and Purpose 2. Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest
and the specific relationship between those variables express a
relationship between those variables which are investigated? If
so, what is/are the relationship(s)? Are they testable?
3. Do the problem statement and/or purpose specify the nature of
the population being studied? What is it?
4. What significance of the problem, if any, has the investigator
identified?
Review of literature and 1. Is the review comprehensive?
theoretical framework 2. Are all cited references relevant to the problem under
investigation?
3. What concepts are included in the review?
Of particular importance, note those concepts that are the
independent and dependent variables and how they are
conceptually defined.
4. Does the literature review make the relationships among the
variables explicit or place the variables within a
theoretical/conceptual framework? What are the relationships?
5. What gaps or conflicts in knowledge of the problem are
identified?
6. Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of
various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review
more than a series of abstracts or annotations?
7. Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature
and its implications for the problem investigated.
8. Are the references cited by the author mostly primary or
secondary sources? Give an example of each.
9. What are the operational definitions of the independent and
 dependent variables? Do they reflect the conceptual
definitions?
Hypotheses or 1. What hypotheses or research questions are stated in the study?
research questions 2. If research questions are stated, are they used in addition to
hypotheses or to guide an exploratory study?
3. What are the independent and dependent variables in the
statement of each hypothesis or research question?
4. If hypotheses are stated, is the form of the statement statistical
(also called null) or research?
5. What is the direction of the relationship in each hypothesis, if
indicated?
5. Are the hypotheses testable?
Method Sample

1. How was the sample selected?

2. What type of sampling method is used? Is it appropriate to the
design?
3. Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to
result in a representative, unbiased sample?
4. Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for
minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research
represented?
5. To what population may the findings be generalized? What are
the limitations in generalizability?
Instruments

1. Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or

measurements) used?
2. Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?
3. Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended
variables?
4. Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is
appropriate for the sample under study?
5. Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if
appropriate?
6. Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability
coefficients?
7. If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?
8. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the
procedures involved in its development and validation
described?
9. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are
administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation
procedures fully described?
Design and Procedure

1. What type of design is used?

2. Is the design appropriate for answering the question or testing
the hypotheses of the study?
3. Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them
to be replicated by another researcher?
4. Does the design seem to flow from the proposed research
problem, theoretical framework, literature review, and
hypothesis?
5. Are the control procedure described?
6. Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentally
confounding variables that he or she was not able to control
for?
Analysis of data/Results 1. What level of measurement is used to measure each of the
major variables?
2. What descriptive or inferential statistics are reported?
3. Were these descriptive or inferential statistics appropriate to the
 level of measurement for each variable?
4. Are the inferential statistics used appropriate to the intent of the
hypotheses?
5. Does the author report the level of significance set for the
study? If so, what is it?
6. If tables or figures are used, do they meet the following
standards? They supplement and economize the text. They
have precise titles and headings. They do not repeat the text.
7. Did the researcher find a correlation (relationship) or a cause?
8. Are there alternative interpretations of the findings?
9. How “generalizable” are the findings? Can the findings be
applied to other populations or situations?
Conclusions, implications, 1. If hypothesis testing was done, was/were the hypotheses
recommendations, supported or not supported?
and utilization 2. Are the results interpreted in the context of the
problem/purpose, hypothesis, and theoretical
framework/literature reviewed?
3. Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or
disagreement with previous results obtained by other
researchers in other studies?
4. Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results
discussed?
5. Are the theoretical and practical implications of the findings
discussed?
6. What relevance for the field does the investigator identify, if
any?
7. What generalizations are made?
8. Are the generalizations within the scope of the findings or
beyond the findings?
9. What recommendations for future research are stated or
implied?