instructor grades your submission

Read through this outline carefully. When your instructor grades your submission, they will be looking to see if you followed the provided format: you can lose points if you do not. If you have any questions about what to do or need interpretation of the instructions, please post them in the Questions breakout room so that all students can benefit from the information.

Mastery of statistics involves not only the ability to generate sound statistical data, but also the ability to critically evaluate the statistical analysis of others. The latter is the focus of the Critical Review assignment in MGMT 650. A review, or critique, is not a summary or a simple retelling of the major findings in a research article. It is much more. It assesses how well the researcher carries out the required steps in the research process.

Elements of the critique

Summary of the article (Discuss what the article is about) This part SHOULD NOT include any of your personal input but rather just summarize what the author did in his/her research.

  • Research Topic
    • What question is the researcher trying to answer?
  • Research Methodology
    • How did the researcher study the topic? Survey? Experiment? Statistical Analysis?
    • Briefly answer who, what, where, and when, and how.
  • Major Conclusions
    • What does the author conclude?
    • What recommendations does he make?

This section should be about 1.5 pages in general.

The next part is the key of the critique.  This next sections of your paper gives an assessment of how well the research was conducted based on what you learned.  Remember you can use your own personal experience and outside articles to help you support your point of view in this section of the assignment.

In-depth critique of the article (Discuss how well the research is conducted in your own words)

Write a brief paragraph for each of the following listed elements in your own words:

  • Purpose
    • Is the research problem clearly stated? Is it easy to determine what the researcher intends to research?
  • Literature Review
    • Is the review logically organized?
    • Does it offer a balanced critical analysis of the literature?
    • Is the majority of the literature of recent origin?
    • Is it empirical in nature?
  • Objectives/hypotheses
    • Has a research question or hypothesis been identified?
    • Is it clearly stated?
    • Is it consistent with discussion in the literature review?
  • Ethical Standards Applied
    • Were the participants fully informed about the nature of the research?
    • Was confidentiality guaranteed?
    • Were participants protected from harm?
  • Operational Definitions
    • Are all terms, theories, and concepts used in the study clearly defined?
  • Methodology
    • Is the research design clearly identified?
    • Has the data gathering instrument been described?
    • Is the instrument appropriate? How was it developed?
    • Were reliability and validity testing undertaken and the results discussed?
    • Was a pilot study undertaken?
  • Data Analysis/Results
    • What type of data and statistical analysis was undertaken? Was it appropriate?
    • How many of the sample participated? Significance of the findings?
  • Discussion
    • Are the findings linked back to the literature review?
    • If a hypothesis was identified was it supported?
    • Were the strengths and limitations of the study including generalizability discussed?
    • Was a recommendation for further research made?
  • References
    • Were all the books, journals and other media alluded to in the study accurately referenced?
  • Conclusion
    • Considering all of the evaluation categories, is the article well or poorly researched?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *