Article Review

Adult & Org. Development 2201

Research Method

Fall 2018 T,Th 1100-1220PM

Ritter Hall 211 Section 002

Instructor: Armando X. Estrada, Ph.D. Phone: (215) 204-1739

Office: Ritter Annex 245 Fax: (215) 204-6013

Office Hrs: T,Th 1200-1400/By Appt. Email: [email protected]

AOD 2201 WRITING ASSIGNMENT # 3 HANDOUT FOR ARTICLE REVIEW

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate competence in writing up an evaluation of a peer-reviewed journal article.

REQUIREMENTS: The critique should provide a brief overview of the article, critique

conceptual/theoretical underpinnings of the articles, evaluate methodological and statistical qualities of

the research, and critique conclusion, findings and recommendations. See additional guidance described

below.

DUE DATE: HARD COPY DUE 1100hrs 6 DEC 2018.

Article Information:

Author: Jordan, Phillip, Hernandez-Reif, Maria

Year: 2009

Title: Reexamination of young children’s racial attitudes and skin tone preferences

Source: Journal of Black Psychology

Volume: 32(3)

Pages: 388-403

RECOMMENDED READINGS

Kazdin, A.E. (1995). Preparing and evaluating research reports. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 228-237.

Privitera, G.J. (2017). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (2 nd

Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sage (ISBN: 978-1-5063-2657-3)—See Chapter 15 (pp. 495-526); Appendix A (pp. 527-580).

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE

The critique should provide (1) complete citation information; (2) provide a brief summary of the

purpose, methods, findings and conclusions of the study; and (3) provide a detailed critique of each of the

major elements of a paper including (a) introduction; (b) method; (d) results; (e) discussion using major

questions described in Kazdin (1995) in narrative form within no more than 3-5 single-spaced pages.

Each of these elements is described below.

1. Citation Information. The complete citation of the assigned article should follow APA Editorial Guidelines and list the following information: author, year, title, source, volume and page numbers.

2. Article Summary. The article summary should succinctly describe the contents of the article in no more than 250 words. The narrative needs to address the following questions: (a) What is the

background and purpose of the study? (b) Who was the subject of the study? How were they selected?

What constructs were assessed and how were they assessed? What type of design was used? (c) What

were the main finding and conclusions of the study?

3. Article Critique. The critique should be written in narrative form that does not exceed 3-5 single spaced pages. The critique should address the questions below in narrative form.

a. Introduction: (i) What is the background and context of the study? Why was it conducted? (ii) What theory, research or clinical work makes the study useful, important or interesting? (iii)

What specifically were the purposes, prediction or hypotheses under investigation?

b. Method: Participants—(i) Who were the participants? (ii)How were they obtained, recruited and selected? (iii) What are the demographic characteristics of the participants (e.g., gender, age,

race/ethnicity or other applicable characteristics described in the study). Measures—(i) What

were the constructs of interests and how were these measured? (ii) What are the relevant

reliability and validity evidence for these measures? Procedures—(i) How was the assessment

conducted, by whom and in what order? (ii) Where was the study conducted? What was the

setting? (iii) What other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants

were treated and what conditions were provided?

c. Results—(i) What is the design for the study and how does it relate to the goals of the study? (ii) What analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and

purposes of the study? (iii) What were the statistical results of the analyses? (iv) Were there any

other ancillary or exploratory analyses carried out?

d. Discussion—(i) What were the major findings of the study? (ii) How did these findings add to research and how do they support, refute or inform relevant theories, research or practice? (iii)

What alternative explanations and interpretations can be offered for the results? (iv) What

limitations or qualifiers are warranted given the particulars of the data, method or procedures?