Methods in Behavioral Research

Please use your own words
Reference book: Cozby, P. C. (2018). Methods in Behavioral Research, Thirteenth Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
The goal of this activity an opportunity to apply whatever you learned in this course in evaluating a research paper.
Direction: you briefly summarize and extensively evaluate
a peer reviewed article (I attach for you). In the summary section, you should write a
brief (up to 500 words) summary of the article in
your own words. literature review projects In the critique section, you evaluate the article using the following grading criteria.
Grading criteria for research critique
In your summary, you should identify main elements of the research including
1.Research problem
2.Research goal
3.Hypothesis
4.Research Questions
5.Research Method (briefly explain)
6.Sample (participants)
7.Variables
8.Tools (instruments, tests, surveys)
9.Main findings (brief summary of the results)
10.Conclusion
The paper should be 3-4 pages (1000-2000 words)and include to the following sections.
Your grade on this assignment is based on your answer the following questions.
There isa long list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions as you are writing your critique part. Some questions are relevant
to this article some are not. I listed so many questions simply because I’d 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 and in APA format(include cover page and reference
page, no abstract is needed).
Introduction
Problem
1.Is there a statement of the problem?
2.Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?
3.Is background information on the problem presented?
4.Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?
5.Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
Review of Related Literature
1.Is the review comprehensive?
2.Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?
3.Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?
4.Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?
Hypotheses
1.Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?
2.Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?
3.If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
4.Is each hypothesis testable?
Method
Subjects
1.Are the size and major characteristics of the population(not be confused with sample)
studied described?
2.If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?
3.Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?
4.Did the researcher use randomization in selection of participants?
5.Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?
6.Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?
Instruments/Tools
1.Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?
2.Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?
3.Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?
4.Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?
5.If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?
6.If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or
tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?
Design and Procedure
1.Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of
The study?
2.Are the procedures described in enough detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?
3.Are the control procedures described?
4.Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was unable to control for?
Results
1.Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?
2.Was every hypothesis tested?
3.Are the results clearly presented?
4.Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?
5.Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?
Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)
1.Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?
2.Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results
obtained by other researchers in other studies?
3.Are generalizations consistent with the results?
4.Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?
5.Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?
6.Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical
significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical
significance?
7.Are recommendations for future research made?
Make sure that you cover the following questions if you have not already covered them in your critique(no quotes in this section)
.1.Is the research important? Why?
2.In your own words what methods and procedures were used? Evaluate the methods and procedures.
3.Evaluate the sampling method and the sample used in this study.
4.Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.
5.What type of research is this? Explain.
6.How was the data analyzed?
7.What is (are) the major finding(s)? are these findings important?
8.What are your suggestions to improve this research?