FORMAT FOR THE
CRITIQUE OF JOURNAL ARTICLES
1. Reference Information in APA Format
2. Problem:A summary(three sentences or less) of what was
previously known about the problem.
3. Subjects: Who were they and how were they selected?
4. Procedure:
Briefly describe the important aspects of the
research. What were the major independent and dependent
variables? How were data recorded and for how long? Was this a
field study or a laboratory study? What was the nature of the
research strategy? Was it an experiment, a correlational
study,
or something else?
5. Did you see any major methodological or
ethical flaws in
the
study?
6. Summarize the results and conclusions
of the study
(4 sentences or less).
A sample critique:
Sally Knoxstudent, Psych 100, Spring, 1998.
Baer, S.T., and Panda,
L.L.(1991). Ursal defecation.
Journal of Animal Behavior, 88,
13-36.
Problem: While it was widely believed that bears prefer to perform most normal
bodily functions in wooded areas, no empirical data had yet been gathered to
test this hypothesis.
Subjects: The subjects in this study were 42 North American Black bears captured
via tranquilizer gun in the state of Maine.
Procedure: This was a field study in which captured bears were tagged and
released. The radio collar that
was attached to the bear contained a sensing device that emitted a signal whenever
the bear defecated. The location
of the bear was automatically recorded by a microcomputer that monitored the radio
signal transmitted from the radio collar.
An experimenter later determined whether the location was a wooded or
non-wooded area. Observations were
recorded for a period of 21 days, and the number of ursal defecation episodes
occurring in wooded vs. non-wooded areas were compared.
Methodological/Ethical
Flaws: Almost all of the bears were captured and released
in wooded areas, increasing the likelihood of the bears depositing feces in the
woods. There were no apparent
ethical problems.
Results and
Conclusions: Given a choice of a woods vs. non-woods condition,
the bears in this study preferred to shit in the woods. Methodological shortcomings in this preliminary
study require that the effect be replicated under more controlled conditions in
future research.