De Anza Status of Rhythm Associated Issues in Adults with ADHD Summary Study (Article) Review and Critique A major portion of research involves reading th

De Anza Status of Rhythm Associated Issues in Adults with ADHD Summary Study (Article) Review and Critique

A major portion of research involves reading the research of other professionals to 1) learn new knowledge 2) inform your research and 3) for peer review.
Reading the research of others is how you learn and maintain knowledge in a specific area of study within the field. It also allows you to see what areas are NOT being addressed and allows you to form questions you want to ask in your own research.
Peer review is the process of scientists evaluating the work of others within their field to check for quality. An example of this when research articles are submitted to academic journals for publication, the journal sends to article to 3-5 anonymous scientists within the same field to rate the article and determine if it is valuable enough research to publish, or if the authors need to improve their study and writing.
This assignment will allow you to practice reviewing research from both these perspectives. You will find and read interesting research which will hopefully help you with building knowledge for your midterm and final projects. You will also practice evaluating the quality of the research (strengths and weaknesses) using the process below:
Notes on Grading:
1) Quality of review is considered much more than length. Length should be no less than 1.5 pages and no more than 3 pages. 2 pages is probably perfect.
2) Write in APA format, write as an essay. DO NOT address in bullet points. Use a title page. Have a reference section. Cite properly in text. (HINT: this will be a good portion of your grade)
3) Try to focus extra attention on the Hypotheses and Methods/Procedures used in carrying out the study, as this is the most relevant aspect of the review to this course.
4) Submit a PDF of the article along with the assignment.
Step 1. Select a study/manuscript for review
-Select a topic that you are interested in and you think would be a good topic for your final research proposal paper. It is fine if the topic changes. This is just meant to make things easier for you over the course.
-Search for original research articles as you have previously learned through the Foothill College Library databases or Google Scholar. If you need additional assistance please see my handout and video on finding research articles posted in CANVAS. Make sure the article is a research study and not a literature review, meta-analysis, etc. Check this by making sure they study has hypotheses, methods section that includes how they got their sample participants, how they got their data, statistical analysis of the data, and conclusions. Pick only one article.
-Submit your article along with your review
Step 2. Review the study and write summary/review. The specific contents of the review paper should address the following areas:
Before conducting the review:
A) Philosophical Statement Regarding your Role in Reviewing (1/2 paragraph)
– What are your beliefs regarding what differentiates a well-done article from one that is not well done?
Content of the Review:
B) Summary (1-2 paragraphs)
Start with a brief summary to describe your understanding of what the article/study is about (including for instance, what you understand the authors are attempting to accomplish, and considering whether appropriate methods are used given the perceived aims of the study) and identifying the key findings that appear to advance science, practice, and/or policy related to the field of psychology or sociology.

– Indicate the overall significance of the work and whether it is novel or mainly confirmatory of prior findings.

– Give an idea of the quality and completeness of the work; indicate its strengths.
– You may address each section if you wish: Abstract, Introduction, Purpose/Hypotheses, Methods (Participants/Recruitment, Measures Used, Procedure), Results, Conclusions, References.

– State whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses (briefly describe here and go into greater detail in the subsequent section).

– Note any special considerations – for example if previously held theories are being overturned.

– Briefly summarize your recommendation and analysis of the work relative to suitability for publication. Would you publish this research if you were an academic journal? Why or why not?

C) Major issues (1-1.5 pages)

– Are there any flaws (technological, design, statistical, analytical, or interpretation), what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the findings?

-Critique the research methodology and design using references to key course concepts from your readings thus far (HINT: THIS IS A HUGE PART OF YOUR GRADE. Demonstrate your knowledge to me.)

– If no major flaws, highlight strengths, explaining why they are important

– Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this and how does the current study relate to the published study (or studies)?

– Does it present similar results that reinforce any other studies, or results that contradict them?

– If the authors are presenting findings that contradict current thinking, have they presented strong enough evidence to substantiate their case? If not, what additional data do you think would be required? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?

– If you think major revisions are required, what are they?

– Are there major presentational problems? What are they? Are they serious enough to prevent you carrying out an accurate assessment of the work or to prevent readers understanding it? Are the problems related to language, manuscript structure, or data presentation?

– Are there any ethical issues? If there are, what are they?

D) Minor issues (As needed)
– Are there any places where meaning is unclear or ambiguous? How can this be corrected?

– Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead?

– Are there any factual errors? What are these?

-Are there any grammatical or spelling errors? What are these?

-Are there any APA formatting errors? What are these?

– Are the figures/diagrams/tables appropriate, sufficient, and properly labeled? If not, indicate which are not.

– Are there any numerical or unit errors? What are these?

After completing the review:
E) Reflections (1/2-1 paragraph)
– What did you learn through this process that you could/will use as a researcher?