257
\nSpeaking of research
\nGuidelines for evaluating research articles
\nPhillip Rumrill\u2217, Shawn Fitzgerald and
\nMegen Ware
\nKent State University, Department of Educational
\nFoundations and Special Services Center for
\nDisability Studies, 405 White Hall, P.O. Box 5190,
\nKent, OH 44242-0001, USA
\nThe article describes the components and composition of
\njournal articles that report empirical research findings in the
\nfield of rehabilitation. The authors delineate technical writing
\nstrategies and discuss the contents of research manuscripts,
\nincluding the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results,
\nDiscussion, and References. The article concludes with a
\nscale that practitioners, manuscript reviewers, educators, and
\nstudents can use in critically analyzing the content and scientific merits of published rehabilitation research.
\nKeywords: Assessment, research articles, guidelines for critique
\n1. Introduction
\nThe purpose of this article is to examine the components of a research article and provide guidelines
\nfor conducting critical analyses of published works.
\nDistilled from the American Psychological Association\u2019s [1] Publication Manual and related descriptions
\nin several research design texts [4,8,9,12,15], descriptions of how authors in rehabilitation and disability
\nstudies address each section of a research article are
\nfeatured. The article concludes with a framework that
\nrehabilitation educators, graduate students, practitioners, and other Work readers can use in critiquing research articles on the basis of their scientific merits and
\npractical utility.
\n\u2217Corresponding author: Tel.: +1 330 672 2294; Fax: +1 330 672
\n2512; E-mail: prumrill@educ.kent.edu.
\n2. Anatomy of a research article
\nFor nearly 50 years, the American Psychological Association has presented guidelines for authors to follow
\nin composing manuscripts for publication in professional journals [1]. Most journals in disability studies
\nand rehabilitation adhere to those style and formatting
\nguidelines. In the paragraphs to follow, descriptions
\nof each section of a standard research article are presented: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results,
\nDiscussion, and References.
\n2.1. Title
\nAs with other kinds of literature, the title of a scientific or scholarly journal article is a very important feature. At the risk of contravening the age-old adage \u201cYou
\ncan\u2019t judge a book by its cover,\u201d Bellini and Rumrill [4]
\nspeculated that most articles in rehabilitation journals
\nare either read or not read based upon the prospective
\nreader\u2019s perusal of the title. Therefore, developing a
\nclear, concise title that conveys the article\u2019s key concepts, hypotheses, methods, and variables under study
\nis critical for researchers wishing to share their findings
\nwith a large, professional audience. A standard-length
\ntitle for a journal article in the social sciences is 12\u201315
\nwords, including a sub-title if appropriate. Because social science and medical indexing systems rely heavily
\non titles in their codification schemes to track and categorize journal articles by topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), providing a title that
\nclearly delineates a general research domain or topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service)
\narea is of utmost importance. If the title is vague or
\nambiguous, chances are that the prospective reader will
\nnot continue to read through the document to establish
\nwhere it might fit in terms of a specific research domain
\nor topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) area. Examples of clearly descriptive titles
\nthat can be found in the contemporary rehabilitation
\nliterature include:
\n\u201cRehabilitation Counselors\u2019 Assessments of Applicants\u2019 Functional Limitations as Predictors of Rehabilitation Services Provided\u201d [3].
\nWork 14 (2000) 257\u2013263
\nISSN 1051-9815 \/ $8.00 \uf6d9 2000, IOS Press. All rights reserved
\n258 P. Rumrill et al. \/ Guidelines for evaluating research articles
\n\u201cEmployer Concerns About Hiring Persons with
\nPsychiatric Disabilities: Results of the Employer Attitude Questionnaire\u201d [6].
\n\u201cSelf-Perceived Reasons for Unemployment Cited
\nby Persons with Spinal Cord Injury: Relationship to
\nGender, Race, Age, and Level of Injury\u201d [13].
\n\u201cVocational Rehabilitation Counselors\u2019 Attitudes
\nToward Self-Employment Outcomes\u201d [18].
\n\u201cSurveying the Employment Concerns of People
\nwith Multiple Sclerosis: A Participatory Action Research Approach\u201d [20].
\n\u201cEffect of Graduate Research Instruction on Perceived Research Anxiety, Research Utility, and Confidence in Research Skills\u201d [21].
\nBefore we move into descriptions of the content sections of a research article, we want to briefly address
\nthe concept of technical writing as it applies to the composition of academic manuscripts. Journals adhering
\nto the American Psychological Association\u2019s [1] publication guidelines favor manuscripts that are written
\nin direct, uncomplicated sentences. Editors prefer that
\ntext be written in the \u201cactive voice\u201d; whenever possible,
\nsentences should begin with their subjects and follow
\nwith verbs and objects (e.g., \u201cThe researcher conducted
\nan experiment\u201d rather than \u201cAn experiment was conducted by the researcher\u201d). Technical writing is marked
\nby the \u201cless is more\u201d maxim; extraneous phrases and
\nclauses that add words to the sentence without enhancing the overall statement should be avoided (e.g., \u201cIn
\norder to… \u201d, \u201cFor purposes of… \u201d, \u201cAs far as… is
\nconcerned… \u201d). Another element of sound technical
\nwriting is the sparing use of adverbs (e.g., very, somewhat, strikingly) and adjectives that do not serve to further define or specify the terms that they are modifying
\n(e.g., interesting, important, good, noteworthy).
\nIn addition to the American Psychological Association\u2019s guidelines for technical writing, authors should
\nconsider these six criteria for effective composition
\nprovided by George Orwell (1946) in Politics and the
\nEnglish Language:
\n1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of
\nspeech which you are used to seeing in print.
\n2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
\n3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it
\nout.
\n4. Never use the passive (voice) where you can use
\nthe active.
\n5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or
\njargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
\n6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything
\noutright barbarous (p. 170).
\nOrganization is also key in preparing an effectively
\ncomposed journal manuscript, with multi-level headings serving to guide the flow of text and keep the
\nreader on track. For authoritative information regarding the style and formatting guidelines for submitting
\nmanuscripts to most journals in social science fields,
\nreaders should consult the American Psychological Association\u2019s [1] Publication Manual. For information
\nconcerning the style and formatting requirements of
\nWork and other journals published by IOS Press, see
\nthe Guidelines for Authors section included in the beginning of this edition.
\n2.2. Abstract
\nNext to the title, the abstract is the most widely read
\nsection of a journal article. In an empirical article, the
\nabstract should be a succinct, 100\u2013150 word summary
\nof the investigation\u2019s key features, including purpose,
\nobjectives, research questions\/hypotheses, sample, scientific procedures, independent and dependent variables, and salient results. Results of the study should
\nbe summarized in full in the abstract; authors should
\ndescribe both significant and non-significant findings,
\nnot only those which upheld their hypotheses or expectations. The abstract serves as an advance organizer
\nfor the article, and it should include every important
\npremise, method, and result of the investigation. Like
\nthe Preface that commonly orients readers to full-length
\ntextbooks, the abstract provides a complete, albeit summary, preview of the article. Some journals, including Work and the Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
\nask authors to list key descriptors on the abstract page,
\nwhich are then used for purposes of indexing. In most
\ncases, the title is what determines whether a reader will
\nread the abstract; the abstract determines whether the
\nreader will read the body of the article.
\n2.3. Introduction
\nImmediately following the abstract, the introductory
\nsection of the article sets the stage for the study upon
\nwhich the article was based. It orients the reader to the
\nproblem or issue being addressed, develops the logic
\nand rationale for conducting the investigation, and almost always expresses the empirical hypotheses or research questions. Heppner et al. [9] suggested that
\nthe introduction should answer questions such as why
\nthe topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) is an important one to study, what previous
\nP. Rumrill et al. \/ Guidelines for evaluating research articles 259
\nwork bears on the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), how existing work logically
\nconnects to the author\u2019s research questions and\/or hypotheses, how the question will be researched,and what
\npredictions can be made.
\nTo answer these questions, authors typically address
\nthree major elements in the introductory section of an
\narticle: (1) The Research Problem, (2) The Framework
\nfor the Study, and (3) The Research Questions and Hypotheses [8,15]. We will describe each of these introductory elements in linear fashion, but we do not mean
\nto imply an order in terms of how they should be addressed. Many (if not most) authors blend these considerations to fit the flow and logic of their respective
\nmanuscripts.
\nThe research problem. Usually in the very first sentences of an empirical journal article, the author draws
\nthe reader\u2019s attention to the scope, impact, and current
\nstatus of the problem or issue being investigated. This
\norientation is most effectively achieved by applying the
\nbroadest-possible perspective to the concern. A study
\nof success rates among participants in a stress inoculation program for people with diabetes mellitus might be
\nintroduced by citing national statistics concerning the
\nincidence and prevalence of this very common disease.
\nAn article describing the effects of a model job placement program for women with breast cancer might begin with a review of existing literature concerning employment and breast cancer, with a particular focus on
\nthe difficulties that women have in re-entering the labor force following diagnosis and treatment. Authors
\nreporting a longitudinal study of the post- school employment outcomes of secondary students with developmental disabilities would likely introduce their article with a review of the disappointing adult outcomes
\nwhich that population has experienced since the inception of formalized transition services in the mid\u20131980s.
\nThe framework for the study. The specific theoretical and empirical framework for the particular investigation is another important part of the Introduction.
\nAuthors summarize existing literature related to the
\nidentified problem, then build a logical rationale for a
\nstudy that addresses gaps or inconsistencies in the literature. The author should present the theoretical or
\nconceptual model that informs the inquiry and provides
\nenough background to enable the reader to appreciate
\nthe rationale of the current study. This framework elucidates the purpose of the current study (e.g., to evaluate the effectiveness of a job placement program for
\nwomen with breast cancer), which is then operationalized in the research questions or hypotheses. Social
\nscientific theories which have figured pominently in
\nthe frameworks of recent rehabilitation investigations
\ninclude Hershenson\u2019s [10] model of work adjustment,
\nBandura\u2019s [2] concept of situational self-efficacy, and
\nBolton and Brookings\u2019 [5] integrated model of empowerment.
\nThe research questions and hypotheses. The Introduction section of a research article typically includes
\na statement of the research questions and\/or hypotheses that served to guide the study. A more speculative research question tends to be used in descriptive
\nresearch designs (e.g., surveys, program Assessments,
\nempirical literature reviews) or in qualitative studies.
\nExamples of research questions could include: \u201cWhat
\nconcerns do college students with disabilities have regarding their future career prospects?\u201d; \u201cWhat themes
\nare evident in the psycholinguistic development of deaf
\nwomen?\u201d; and \u201cWhat steps are Fortune 500 employers taking to provide on-the-job accommodations for
\nworkers with disabilities?\u201d.
\nThe hypothesis, on the other hand, is predictive by
\ndesign. Its specificity is dependent upon the theory underlying it or previous, relevant research, but it should
\ninclude the direction of the expected results whenever possible. Independent and dependent variables
\nneed not be operationalized in theory-based hypotheses
\n(because this is done in the Method section), but the
\nexpected relationship among study variables must be
\nclearly articulated. Examples of directional hypotheses
\ncould include: \u201cParticipation in a cognitive-behavioral
\nstress inoculation program will decrease symptom onset and magnification\u201d; \u201cAnxiety, depression, and low
\nself-esteem will be collectively, positively, and significantly related to work interference\u201d; and \u201cRehabilitation counselors will rate people with severe disabilities as less favorable candidates for employment than
\nsimilarly qualified people with mild or no disabilities\u201d.
\n2.4. Method
\nThe Method section delineates how the research
\nquestions were addressed and\/or how the hypotheses
\nwere tested. It should provide the reader with sufficient
\ninformation so that one could replicate the investigation, and it should leave no question as to what was
\n\u201cdone\u201d to the participants. Because the Method section
\nis the primary source for determining the validity of the
\nstudy [4], the quality and clarity of this section are generally regarded as the strongest determinants of whether
\nan empirically-based manuscript will be accepted for
\npublication [9,16].
\n260 P. Rumrill et al. \/ Guidelines for evaluating research articles
\nAlthough the type and order of sub-sections found
\nin the Method section of a research article vary depending upon the design of the study and the author\u2019s
\njudgement related to the flow of text, most articles include descriptions of the study\u2019s subjects\/participants,
\ninstruments\/measures\/variables, materials, design, and
\nprocedures.
\nSubjects\/participants. According to Heppner et
\nal. [8,9], the Method section should include (a) the total
\nnumber of subjects and numbers assigned to groups, if
\napplicable; (b) how subjects were selected and\/or assigned; and (c) demographic and other characteristics
\nof the sample relevant to the study\u2019s purpose. Some authors also include a description of the population from
\nwhich the study sample was drawn, a description of the
\nspecific sampling procedure used (e.g., simple random,
\nstratified, cluster; [4]), an indication of the representativeness of the sample vis a vis the broader population, the circumstances under which subjects participated (e.g., whether they were compensated, what risks
\nthey assumed), statistical power analyses, and response
\nrates (if applicable).
\nInstruments\/measures\/variables. The Method section must include a detailed description of how all study
\nvariables were operationalized, measured, scored, and
\ninterpreted. All instruments or measures that were used
\nin sampling, conducting the study, and evaluating results must be specified in terms of content (e.g., number of items, response sets), how measures were administered, scoring procedures, relationship to study
\nvariables, and psychometric properties (e.g., standardization, reliability, validity). Authors should also include a rationale for selecting each instrument, that is,
\nwhy that instrument was the best choice for measuring
\na particular construct.
\nMaterials. Researchers should also include a description of any materials that were used to carry out
\nthe investigation. Written guides for participants, instructional manuals, media or technology, and scientific apparatus or equipment should be described in detail. Some authors include a description of the setting
\nin which the study was executed or data were collected.
\nDesign. One of the most important features of the
\nMethod section is a clear description of the design of
\nthe study. This is essential because the design serves as
\nthe link between (a) the research questions\/hypotheses
\nand the scientific procedures used in carrying out the
\nstudy and (b) the findings of the study and how these
\nare interpreted. Authors typically label their designs
\nin terms of how variables were manipulated, observed,
\nand analyzed. Thereby, the design is the unifying force
\nin connecting the research objectives to both the results
\nand the knowledge claim that is made. To every extent
\npossible, a direct reference to the hypotheses should
\nbe made when authors identify the design of a particular investigation. For example, Rumrill, Roessler, and
\nDenny [19] described their design as follows: \u201cThe researchers selected a three-group, posttest-only (experimental) design to assess the intervention\u2019s univariate
\nand multivariate effects on (a) self-reported attitudes
\n(situational self-efficacy and acceptance of disability)
\nand (b) participation in the accommodation request process.\u201d
\nProcedures. The most important component of the
\nMethod section is the easiest to describe. In chronological order, authors simply list every step they took
\nin developing, administering, and evaluating the study.
\nBeginning with the recruitment of participants, following the study through collection of the last datum, and
\nincluding everything in-between \u2013 the Procedures subsection should provide the reader with a step-by-step
\nprotocol that could serve as a guide for replicating the
\nstudy. Descriptions of any interventions should be provided in detail, along with summaries of the qualifications of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) personnel who were instrumental in
\nexecuting the investigation. Procedures should also include how the investigation ended, along with a statement of any debriefing or follow-up services provided
\nto participants.
\n2.5. Results
\nThe Results section of a research article should include a complete inventory of all relevant findings obtained by the investigators. In articles that report quantitative studies, results are typically presented in two
\nparts \u2013 (a) summary, or descriptive, statistics related
\nto participants\u2019 performance on the measures that were
\ntaken (e.g., means, standard deviations, frequencies,
\npercentages) and (b) statistical analyses related to the
\nspecific hypotheses of the study (e.g., analysis of variance, multiple regression, factor analysis). We believe
\nthat all analyses conducted as part of the investigation
\nshould be reported in full, not only those which yielded
\nstatistically significant results. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association [1] provides considerable guidance related to how statistics
\nshould be presented in the Results section, but it does
\nnot always provide adequate guidelines regarding what
\nstatistical information should be included. Heppner et
\nal. [9] identified a pattern in recent social science literature whereby researchers tend to err on the side of
\n262 P. Rumrill et al. \/ Guidelines for evaluating research articles
\nproviding too little statistical information: \u201cThe trend
\nhas been to report less; for example, one rarely sees
\nanalysis of variance source tables anymore. More disturbing is the tendency not to report important information (such as size of test statistic and probability levels)
\nwhen results are non-significant. This minimalist point
\nof view puts the emphasis on statistical significance and
\nignores concepts such as effect size, estimation, and
\npower.\u201d
\nIn recent years, the \u201cminimalist\u201d perspective (in
\nterms of reporting statisitical findings) has been challenged by numerous researchers and statisticians [11,
\n14,22]. The most serious argument against this perspective relates to the influence that sample size has
\nin determining the significance of any statistical test.
\nHayes [7], for example, pointed out that virtually any
\nstudy can be made to yield statistically significant results if the researcher includes enough subjects. To
\navoid the possibility of misleading research consumers,
\nthe latest edition of the Publication Manual [1] suggests
\nthat all authors provide estimates of practical or clinical
\nsignificance along with all statistical significance tests
\nreported in the Results section.
\nA quantitative Results section should be limited to
\nthe findings obtained by the researcher(s) in the current investigation. Speculation concerning what those
\nfindings mean in a larger context is reserved for the
\nDiscussion section.
\nThe Results sections of qualitatively oriented articles
\ndisplay much more variety in the content and manner of
\npresentation than is found in quantitative studies. Because the researcher\u2019s subjective interpretations help to
\nshape the processes and outcomes of qualitative investigations, results are often framed in broad, interpretive
\ncontexts. In that regard, the lines between the Results
\nand Discussion sections are often blurred in qualitative
\nresearch.
\nResearchers (qualitative and quantitative) commonly
\nuse tables and figures to summarize and\/or graphically
\npresent their results. There is wide variability in the
\ncontent and presentation of tables and figures, with
\nthe most important universal requirement being easy
\ninterpretability for the reader.
\n2.6. Discussion
\nThe Discussion section serves as the researcher\u2019s forum to go beyond the current investigation and discuss
\nthe contributions of study findings to existing literature, theory, and professional practices. The first part
\nof a thoughtful Discussion is often an analysis of the
\nstudy\u2019s results vis a vis the research questions and hypotheses. Researchers should begin with a discussion
\nof whether the hypotheses were upheld, posit possible
\nexplanations for those outcomes,and draw implications
\nfrom the findings back to the research problem that was
\nidentified in the Introduction. If the results provide
\na warrant for modifying or re-testing the conceptual
\nframework upon which the investigation was based, the
\nDiscussion section is the place to suggest a reformulation of the underlying theory. Researchers should also
\ninclude a statement of the scientific limitations of the
\ncurrent study, along with specific recommendations for
\nfuture research. Finally, the researcher ends the article with a cogent summary of the conclusions, in the
\nmost general sense, that can be drawn from the methods
\nand findings of the current study. Some authors use a
\nseparate Conclusion section for this purpose.
\n2.7. References
\nThe final section of a research article is always a
\nlisting of the references that were cited in the body of
\nthe text. References are listed in alphabetical order,
\naccording to authors\u2019 last names. Most rehabilitation
\njournals require adherence to the American Psychological Association\u2019s [1] guidelines regarding the composition of the References section.
\n3. A scale for critiquing research manuscript and
\narticles
\nUnderstanding the components, organization, and
\ncomposition of a research article will help make Work
\nsubscribers better informed consumers as they read empirically based publications. As readers digest the contents of research articles and apply them to their practices, the \u201canatomy\u201d of research reports can serve as a
\nuseful rubric for critically analyzing the quality, content, and practical significance of published articles.
\nTable 1 presents specific questions for conducting a
\nsection-by-section critique of a rehabilitation research
\narticle.
\n4. Conclusion
\nThis article examined the components of a research
\narticle and provided guidelines for conducting a critical
\nanalysis of published research. Although the descriptions of the components of a research article provide
\nP. Rumrill et al. \/ Guidelines for evaluating research articles 263
\nonly a skeletal summary of what should be included
\nin a published research article, they should provide the
\nreader enough information to both prepare manuscripts
\nfor publication and evaluate the empirical research that
\nappears in Work and other rehabilitation journals.
\nReferences
\n[1] Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association,
\n(Fourth Edition), 1994.
\n[2] Bandura, A., Social foundations of thought and action: A
\nsocial cognitive theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
\n1986.
\n[3] Bellini, J., Bolton, B. and Neath, J., Rehabilitation counselors
\nassessments of applicants functional limitations as predictors
\nof rehabilitation services provided, Rehabilitation Counseling
\nBulletin 41(4) (1998), 242\u2013258.
\n[4] Bellini, J. and Rumrill, P., Research in rehabilitation counseling: A guide to design, methodology, and utilization, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers, 1999.
\n[5] Bolton, B. and Brookings, J., Development of a multifaceted
\ndefinition of empowerment, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 39(4) (1996), 256\u2013264.
\n[6] Diksa, E. and Rogers, E., Employer concerns about hiring persons with psychiatric disability: Results of the employer attitude questionnaire, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 40(1)
\n(1996), 31\u201344.
\n[7] Hayes, W., Statistics for psychologists, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1981.
\n[8] Heppner, P., Kivlighan, D. and Wampold, B., Research design
\nin counseling, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks\/Cole, 1992.
\n[9] Heppner, P., Kivlighan, D. and Wampold, B., Research design
\nin counseling, (2nd Edition), Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks\/Cole,
\n1999.
\n[10] Hershenson, D., A systems reformulation of a developmental
\nmodel of work adjustment, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin
\n40(1) (1996), 2\u201310.
\n[11] Hunter, J., Needed: A ban on the significance test, Psychological Science 8 (1997), 3\u20137.
\n[12] Kazdin, A., Research design in clinical psychology, (2nd Edition), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1998.
\n[13] Krause, J. and Anson, C., Self-perceived reasons for unemployment cited by persons with spinal cord injury: Relationship to gender, race, age, and level of injury, Rehabilitation
\nCounseling Bulletin 39(3) (1996), 217\u2013227.
\n[14] McClure, P., Determining the significance of significance: Pvalues, effect size, and clinical judgement, Journal of Hand
\nTherapy 12 (1999), 40\u201341.
\n[15] McMillan, J. and Schumacher, S., Research in education: A
\nconceptual introduction, (Fourth Edition), New York: Longman, 1997.
\n[16] Munley, P., Sharkin, B. and Gelso, C., Reviewer ratings
\nand agreement on manuscripts reviewed for the Journal of
\nCounseling Psychology, Journal of Counseling Psychology 35
\n(1988), 198\u2013202.
\n[17] Orwell, G., Politics and the English language, in: A collection
\nof essays, G. Orwell ed., San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, and
\nJovanovich, 1946, pp. 156\u2013171.
\n[18] Ravesloot, C. and Seekins, T., Vocational rehabilitation counselors\u2019 attitudes toward self-employment outcomes, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 39(3) (1996), 189\u2013201.
\n[19] Rumrill, P., Roessler, R. and Denny, G., Increasing confidence
\nin the accommodation request process among persons with
\nmultiple sclerosis: A career maintenance self-efficacy intervention, Journal of Job Placement 13(1) (1997), 5\u20139.
\n[20] Rumrill, P., Roessler, R. and Koch, L., Surveying the employment concerns of people with multiple sclerosis: A participatory action research approach, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 12(2) (1999), 75\u201382.
\n[21] Schaller, J. and Parker, R., Effect of graduate research instruction on perceived research anxiety, research utility, and
\nconfidence in research skills, Rehabilitation Education 11(4)
\n(1997), 273\u2013287.
\n[22] Thompson, B., AERA editorial policies regarding statistical
\nsignificance testing: Three suggested reforms, Educational
\nResearcher 25(2) (1996), 26\u201330.
\nP. Rumrill et al. \/ Guidelines for evaluating research articles 261
\nTable 1
\nA scale for critiquing research articles
\nInstructions: Answer the following questions regarding the article, \u201c \u201d. Use examples
\nfrom the article to support your analyses.
\nA. Title
\n1. Does the title describe the study?
\n2. Do the key words of the title serve as key elements of the article?
\n3. Is the title concise, i.e., free of distracting or extraneous phrases?
\nB. Abstract
\n4. Does the abstract summarize the study\u2019s purpose, methods, and findings?
\n5. Does the abstract reveal the independent and dependent variables under study?
\n6. Are there any major premises or findings presented in the article that are not mentioned in the abstract?
\n7. Does the abstract provide you with sufficient information to determine whether you would be interested in reading
\nthe entire article?
\nC. Introduction
\n8. Is the research problem clearly identified?
\n9. Is the problem significant enough to warrant the study that was conducted?
\n10. Do the authors present a theoretical rationale for the study?
\n11. Is the conceptual framework of the study appropriate in light of the research problem?
\n12. Do the author\u2019s hypotheses and\/or research questions seem logical in light of the conceptual framework and research
\nproblem?
\n13. Are hypotheses and research questions clearly stated? Are they directional?
\n14. Overall, does the literature review lead logically into the Method section?
\nD. Method
\n15. Is the sample clearly described, in terms of size, relevant characteristics, selection and assignment procedures, and
\nwhether any inducements were used to solicit subjects?
\n16. Do the instruments described seem appropriate as meausres of the variables under study?
\n17. Have the authors included sufficient information about the psychometric properties (e.g., reliability and validity) of
\nthe instruments?
\n18. Are the materials used in conducting the study or in collecting data clearly described?
\n19. Are the study\u2019s scientific procedures thoroughly described in chronological order?
\n20. Is the design of the study identified (or made evident)?
\n21. Do the design and procedures seem appropriate in light of the research problem, conceptual framework, and research
\nquestions\/hypotheses?
\n22. Overall, does the method section provide sufficient information to replicate the study?
\nE. Results
\n23. Is the Results section clearly written and well organized?
\n24. Are data coding and analysis appropriate in light of the study\u2019s design and hypotheses?
\n25. Are salient results connected directly to hypotheses?
\n26. Are tables and figures clearly labeled? Well organized? Necessary (non-duplicative of text)?
\nF. Discussion and Conclusion
\n27. Are the limitations of the study delineated?
\n28. Are findings discussed in terms of the research problem, conceptual framework, and hypotheses?
\n29. Are implications for future research and\/or rehabilitation counseling practice identified?
\n30. Are the author\u2019s general conclusions warranted in light of the results?
\nG. References
\n31. Is the reference list sufficiently current?
\n32. Do works cited reflect the breadth of existing literature regarding the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) of the study?
\n33. Are bibliographic citations used appropriately in the text?
\nH. General Impressions
\n34. Is the article well written and organized?
\n35. Does the study address an important problem in the lives of people with disabilities?
\n36. What are the most important things you learned from this article?
\n37. What do you see as the most compelling strengths of this study?
\n38. How might this study be improved?
\nCopyright of Work is the property of IOS Press and its content may not be copied or emailed
\nto multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written
\npermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
257 Speaking of research Guidelines for evaluating research articles Phillip Rumrill\u2217, Shawn Fitzgerald and Megen Ware Kent State University, Department of Educational Foundations and Special\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7316,7318,7317,7315,7319,7321],"tags":[642,618,8825,576,116,631,19,643,473,633,630,628,450,597,594,626,635,574,622,624,620,621,619,623,617,625,627,634,629,632,644,645,42,66],"class_list":["post-113128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-best-dissertation-writers-uk","category-british-dissertation-writers","category-dissertation-help-online","category-dissertation-writing-services-uk","category-help-with-dissertation-writing","category-uk-dissertation-help","tag-apps-that-write-essays-for-you-free","tag-assignment-writing-services-in-usa","tag-bes","tag-best-dissertation-writing-services","tag-best-essay-writing-service","tag-best-paper-writing-services","tag-best-research-paper-writing-services-in-usa","tag-best-website-to-write-my-essay","tag-cheap-essay-writing-service","tag-cheap-research-paper-writing-service","tag-college-paper-writing-service","tag-dissertation-help-online","tag-dissertation-writing-services","tag-dissertation-writing-services-illegal","tag-dissertation-writing-services-near-me","tag-dissertation-writing-services-usa","tag-essay-writing-service","tag-free-dissertation-writing-services","tag-homework-essay-writer","tag-homework-essay-writer-free","tag-homework-help-global","tag-homework-help-services","tag-homework-help-usa","tag-homework-writing-help","tag-homework-writing-service","tag-legit-research-paper-writing-services","tag-legitimate-dissertation-writing-services","tag-research-paper-writer-online-free","tag-research-paper-writing-services-online","tag-research-paper-writing-websites","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-cheap","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-tik-tok","tag-write-my-essay-free","tag-write-my-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113128","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113128"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113128\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}