Assignment 4 Reading and Critiquing Research

This assignment will have you develop your skills in both reading and critiquing literature. You will read and critique the Allor et al (2000) article and provide answers for all areas that are applicable. If an area was not addressed, make sure to put N/A in area.


  • What was the main purpose of the study?
  • Was there a testable hypothesis mentioned, or inferred?
  • Did the rationale lead up to the purpose in an effective manner?


  • What type of study design was used?
  • Subject selection issues? o Subject number, gender, age, etc?
    • Randomization?
    • Inclusion and exclusion criteria?
  • Any human subjects issues?
  • Any comment on subject number, and if it was adequate to answer the research questions?
  • Main treatments of interest?
  • Main outcome measures of interest?
  • Given the nature of the treatments and outcomes, were adequate control and/or blinding measure in place?
  • How were the treatments and outcomes measured?
  • Validity and reliability of measurement instruments?
  • Any major measurement limitations that may have affected the results?
  • Do the statistical techniques appear appropriate?
  • Were adequate statistical controls performed?
  • Overall, were the methods described adequately so others could replicate the study?


  • Were the results presented in a logical fashion?
  • Are the Tables and Figures helpful in understanding the results presented in the text? If not, how could they be improved?
  • Were there any findings presented that were not discussed in the methods section?


  • What were the major study findings?
  • Was the purpose accomplished?
  • Do the authors do an adequate job of discussing the findings with respect to previous literature?
  • What are the major strengths of the study and its results?
  • What are the major weaknesses of the study and its results? o How generalizable are the results of the study?
  • Do the data support the conclusion drawn by the authors, or is the conclusion more speculative in nature?
  • Are there alternative explanations that should/could have been mentioned, but were not?
  • Is there an obvious study that should be done next, given the results of this study?


  • After reading the paper thoroughly, does the abstract present an accurate representation of what was done in the study?


  • Any financial issues noted, or other potential conflicts of interest mentioned?