course material

1. Article Review and Critique Assignment
Purpose of the critiques: The purpose of research article critiques is to help you develop
your ability to critically evaluate strengths and weaknesses of scientific research,
specifically original research articles that are related to your area of interest (hopefully,
they relate to your research proposal). An original research article is a data-based report of
a research project in a scientific journal and typically includes the following sections:
introduction with a statement of purpose and/or hypotheses, methods, results, and
discussion. Review articles are not appropriate for this assignment.The article critiques give
you an opportunity to select research papers of interest to you and explore these papers in
depth.Format for the written critique:Maximum length: 3 pages, excluding any pages
devoted to relevant references, graphics, figures, tables, etc. Page 1 should serve as a cover
page that shall include the full reference information for your target article (i.e., authors,
year of publication, article title, journal, and pages) and your name. Pages 2-3 shall be
dedicated to your review and critical analysis. Subsequent pages are reserved for a
reference list that includes citations for any papers other than the target article that you cite
in your narrative and any graphics, figures, tables, etc. that you want to include (there is no
need to include content from the target article since you will submit a copy of the article
with your critique).Your review and critical analysis (pages 2-3) should be single-spaced (1-
inch margins, font size not smaller than 10 point and not greater than 12 point) and should
include two distinct sections (I suggest using subheadings that clearly identify these two
sections):Article Summary:You are to provide a briefsummary of the project (approximately
0.5 pages). Your summary should include an indication why there was a need for the study,
the question being answered by the project, general procedures used, summary of findings
and conclusions. This summary should resemble an abstract of a published research paper.
Please do not copy or paraphrase the abstract from the paper you have chosen to critique
(this will be considered plagiarism); rather, after reading the paper, develop your own
summary/abstract.Article Critique:Your critical analysis of the research (approximately 1.5
pages) must go beyond a summary of the research. In this section you should indicate what
you feel are the strengths and/or weaknesses of the research. You should include an
assessment of the practical utility and implications of the research outcomes for our
understanding of some aspect of human health and wellbeing, physical activity, nutrition,
etc. You are also encouraged but not required to incorporate related literature into your
assessment. Related literature can help you put the target article and its findings into
perspective. As you read the article and prepare your review and critical analysis, keep in

2. mind a variety of questions including:Did the authors convince you there was a need for the
study? Was the research focus/purpose well justified?Is the research question or purpose of
significance, i.e., is it meaningful?If it is significant, to whom is it significant and why?Is the
study designed effectively to fulfill the purpose and/or test hypotheses? If so, have the
authors clearly stated reasonable hypotheses? If not, should they have presented
hypotheses?Was the research study effective in addressing the authors’ purpose and
hypotheses? Were the methods used appropriate for answering the question?Are there
notable strengths, weaknesses, and/or limitations in the experimental design?Related to b
and c above, did the authors present the results clearly and are the results meaningful? If so,
to whom and why?Does the discussion provide a fair and effective interpretation of the
results? Did the authors use existing literature effectively to help put the results in
perspective?Have the authors provided conclusions, and if so, are they appropriate
conclusions based on the study’s methods and results?Overall, does the study provide
useful information? Does the study advance our knowledge?As you consider the above
questions, please do notfeel as if you need to systematically respond to each and every one
of the questions. I present these questions in an effort to stimulate your critical thinking as
you read published articles.The following may be a helpful resource as you complete your
article critiques:Benos, D.J., Kirk, K.L., and Hall, J.E. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances
in Physiology Education 27, 47-52. Available on Blackboard in the “Resources for Students
Folder”Some other suggestions:Before starting your critique, read the article more than
once. Make notes regarding possible strengths, weaknesses, and areas of confusion as you
read the article. Prior to writing your critique, organize your thoughts; consider developing
an outline for your critique. Carefully edit your written work. Consider having someone else
read your critique and provide you with feedback. Avoid wordiness. Be clear. Be concise,
but be thorough in your discussion of strengths and weaknesses.A copy of the research
article you are critiquing; the article should be in PDF formatYour article critique in Word
format(file name format: author’s last name and first initial_journal title abbreviation_year
of publication, e.g., SmithJ_MSSE_2007.pdf)(file name format: your last name, first
initial_artcritn_journal abbreviation_year of publication, e.g.,
EllingsonL_artcrit1_MSSE_2007.doc)**Following these file-naming guidelines helps me keep
your various documents organized.Suggested questions to drive your critique:Did the
authors convince you there was a need for the study? Was the research focus/purpose well
justified?Is the research question or purpose of significance, i.e., is it meaningful?If it is
significant, to whom is it significant and why?Is the study designed effectively to fulfill the
purpose and/or test hypotheses? If so, have the authors clearly stated reasonable
hypotheses? If not, should they have presented hypotheses?Was the research study
effective in addressing the authors’ purpose and hypotheses? Were the methods used
appropriate for answering the question?Are there notable strengths, weaknesses, and/or
limitations in the experimental design?Related to b and c above, did the authors present the
results clearly and are the results meaningful? If so, to whom and why?Does the discussion
provide a fair and effective interpretation of the results? Did the authors use existing
literature effectively to help put the results in perspective?Have the authors provided
conclusions, and if so, are they appropriate conclusions based on the study’s methods and

3. results?* Overall, does the study provide useful information? Does the study advance our
knowledge