- The Open University
- Student home
- Guest user / Sign out
- Study with The Open University
My OpenLearn Profile
Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning
- Education & Development
- Free courses
- Succeeding in postgraduate study
- 4.4 Applying critical and reflective ...
- 1 Important points to consider when ...
About this free course
Become an ou student, download this course, share this free course.
Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.
1 Important points to consider when critically evaluating published research papers
Simple review articles (also referred to as ‘narrative’ or ‘selective’ reviews), systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide rapid overviews and ‘snapshots’ of progress made within a field, summarising a given topic or research area. They can serve as useful guides, or as current and comprehensive ‘sources’ of information, and can act as a point of reference to relevant primary research studies within a given scientific area. Narrative or systematic reviews are often used as a first step towards a more detailed investigation of a topic or a specific enquiry (a hypothesis or research question), or to establish critical awareness of a rapidly-moving field (you will be required to demonstrate this as part of an assignment, an essay or a dissertation at postgraduate level).
The majority of primary ‘empirical’ research papers essentially follow the same structure (abbreviated here as IMRAD). There is a section on Introduction, followed by the Methods, then the Results, which includes figures and tables showing data described in the paper, and a Discussion. The paper typically ends with a Conclusion, and References and Acknowledgements sections.
The Title of the paper provides a concise first impression. The Abstract follows the basic structure of the extended article. It provides an ‘accessible’ and concise summary of the aims, methods, results and conclusions. The Introduction provides useful background information and context, and typically outlines the aims and objectives of the study. The Abstract can serve as a useful summary of the paper, presenting the purpose, scope and major findings. However, simply reading the abstract alone is not a substitute for critically reading the whole article. To really get a good understanding and to be able to critically evaluate a research study, it is necessary to read on.
While most research papers follow the above format, variations do exist. For example, the results and discussion sections may be combined. In some journals the materials and methods may follow the discussion, and in two of the most widely read journals, Science and Nature, the format does vary from the above due to restrictions on the length of articles. In addition, there may be supporting documents that accompany a paper, including supplementary materials such as supporting data, tables, figures, videos and so on. There may also be commentaries or editorials associated with a topical research paper, which provide an overview or critique of the study being presented.
Box 1 Key questions to ask when appraising a research paper
- Is the study’s research question relevant?
- Does the study add anything new to current knowledge and understanding?
- Does the study test a stated hypothesis?
- Is the design of the study appropriate to the research question?
- Do the study methods address key potential sources of bias?
- Were suitable ‘controls’ included in the study?
- Were the statistical analyses appropriate and applied correctly?
- Is there a clear statement of findings?
- Does the data support the authors’ conclusions?
- Are there any conflicts of interest or ethical concerns?
There are various strategies used in reading a scientific research paper, and one of these is to start with the title and the abstract, then look at the figures and tables, and move on to the introduction, before turning to the results and discussion, and finally, interrogating the methods.
Another strategy (outlined below) is to begin with the abstract and then the discussion, take a look at the methods, and then the results section (including any relevant tables and figures), before moving on to look more closely at the discussion and, finally, the conclusion. You should choose a strategy that works best for you. However, asking the ‘right’ questions is a central feature of critical appraisal, as with any enquiry, so where should you begin? Here are some critical questions to consider when evaluating a research paper.
Look at the Abstract and then the Discussion : Are these accessible and of general relevance or are they detailed, with far-reaching conclusions? Is it clear why the study was undertaken? Why are the conclusions important? Does the study add anything new to current knowledge and understanding? The reasons why a particular study design or statistical method were chosen should also be clear from reading a research paper. What is the research question being asked? Does the study test a stated hypothesis? Is the design of the study appropriate to the research question? Have the authors considered the limitations of their study and have they discussed these in context?
Take a look at the Methods : Were there any practical difficulties that could have compromised the study or its implementation? Were these considered in the protocol? Were there any missing values and, if so, was the number of missing values too large to permit meaningful analysis? Was the number of samples (cases or participants) too small to establish meaningful significance? Do the study methods address key potential sources of bias? Were suitable ‘controls’ included in the study? If controls are missing or not appropriate to the study design, we cannot be confident that the results really show what is happening in an experiment. Were the statistical analyses appropriate and applied correctly? Do the authors point out the limitations of methods or tests used? Were the methods referenced and described in sufficient detail for others to repeat or extend the study?
Take a look at the Results section and relevant tables and figures : Is there a clear statement of findings? Were the results expected? Do they make sense? What data supports them? Do the tables and figures clearly describe the data (highlighting trends etc.)? Try to distinguish between what the data show and what the authors say they show (i.e. their interpretation).
Moving on to look in greater depth at the Discussion and Conclusion : Are the results discussed in relation to similar (previous) studies? Do the authors indulge in excessive speculation? Are limitations of the study adequately addressed? Were the objectives of the study met and the hypothesis supported or refuted (and is a clear explanation provided)? Does the data support the authors’ conclusions? Maybe there is only one experiment to support a point. More often, several different experiments or approaches combine to support a particular conclusion. A rule of thumb here is that if multiple approaches and multiple lines of evidence from different directions are presented, and all point to the same conclusion, then the conclusions are more credible. But do question all assumptions. Identify any implicit or hidden assumptions that the authors may have used when interpreting their data. Be wary of data that is mixed up with interpretation and speculation! Remember, just because it is published, does not mean that it is right.
O ther points you should consider when evaluating a research paper : Are there any financial, ethical or other conflicts of interest associated with the study, its authors and sponsors? Are there ethical concerns with the study itself? Looking at the references, consider if the authors have preferentially cited their own previous publications (i.e. needlessly), and whether the list of references are recent (ensuring that the analysis is up-to-date). Finally, from a practical perspective, you should move beyond the text of a research paper, talk to your peers about it, consult available commentaries, online links to references and other external sources to help clarify any aspects you don’t understand.
The above can be taken as a general guide to help you begin to critically evaluate a scientific research paper, but only in the broadest sense. Do bear in mind that the way that research evidence is critiqued will also differ slightly according to the type of study being appraised, whether observational or experimental, and each study will have additional aspects that would need to be evaluated separately. For criteria recommended for the evaluation of qualitative research papers, see the article by Mildred Blaxter (1996), available online. Details are in the References.
Activity 1 Critical appraisal of a scientific research paper
A critical appraisal checklist, which you can download via the link below, can act as a useful tool to help you to interrogate research papers. The checklist is divided into four sections, broadly covering:
- some general aspects
- research design and methodology
- the results
- discussion, conclusion and references.
Science perspective – critical appraisal checklist [ Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. ( Hide tip ) ]
- Identify and obtain a research article based on a topic of your own choosing, using a search engine such as Google Scholar or PubMed (for example).
- The selection criteria for your target paper are as follows: the article must be an open access primary research paper (not a review) containing empirical data, published in the last 2–3 years, and preferably no more than 5–6 pages in length.
- Critically evaluate the research paper using the checklist provided, making notes on the key points and your overall impression.
Critical appraisal checklists are useful tools to help assess the quality of a study. Assessment of various factors, including the importance of the research question, the design and methodology of a study, the validity of the results and their usefulness (application or relevance), the legitimacy of the conclusions, and any potential conflicts of interest, are an important part of the critical appraisal process. Limitations and further improvements can then be considered.
- Bipolar Disorder
- Race and Identity
- Stress Management
- Brain Health
- Relationships
- Online Therapy
- History and Biographies
- Student Resources
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Self-Improvement
- Mental Strength
- Family & Relationships
- Anxiety & Depression
- Coronavirus
- Mental Health
- Verywell Mind Insights
- The Winter Issue
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
How to Write a Psychology Critique Paper
Kendra Cherry, MS, is the author of the "Everything Psychology Book (2nd Edition)" and has written thousands of articles on diverse psychology topics. Kendra holds a Master of Science degree in education from Boise State University with a primary research interest in educational psychology and a Bachelor of Science in psychology from Idaho State University with additional coursework in substance use and case management.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/IMG_9791-89504ab694d54b66bbd72cb84ffb860e.jpg "how to critically evaluate a research paper in psychology")
Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Emily-Swaim-1000-0f3197de18f74329aeffb690a177160c.jpg "how to critically evaluate a research paper in psychology")
Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images
Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay. No matter what your major is, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.
For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.
Steps for Writing an Effective Critique Paper
While these tips are designed to help students writing a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing critiques in other subject areas as well.
Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read—think in-depth with an eye toward key elements.
The following guideline can help you assess what you are reading and make better sense of the material.
- In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions that you have.
- Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.
- Make note of any questions you have or any information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.
- If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel that the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.
- Another alternative is to point out questions that the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.
Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper
Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.
Introduction
Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.
Thesis Statement
The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.
Article Summary
Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.
When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the content of the article.
Your Analysis
In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.
When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.
Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.
Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.
More Tips When Writing a Psychology Critique Paper
- As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
- Reading scientific articles can be difficult. You might want to read up on how to read (and understand) psychology journal articles .
- Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and make use of your university library's resources.
Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054
By Kendra Cherry Kendra Cherry, MS, is the author of the "Everything Psychology Book (2nd Edition)" and has written thousands of articles on diverse psychology topics. Kendra holds a Master of Science degree in education from Boise State University with a primary research interest in educational psychology and a Bachelor of Science in psychology from Idaho State University with additional coursework in substance use and case management.
By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
JEPS Bulletin
The Official Blog of the Journal of European Psychology Students
How to critically evaluate the quality of a research article?
So what’s the criteria to determine whether a result can be trusted? As it is taught in the first classes in psychology, errors may emerge from any phase of the research process. Therefore, it all boils down to how the research has been conducted and the results presented.
Meltzoff (2007) emphasizes the key issues that can produce flawed results and interpretations and should therefore be carefully considered when reading articles. Here is a reminder on what to bear in mind when reading a research article:
Research question The research must be clear in informing the reader of its aims. Terms should be clearly defined, even more so if they’re new or used in specific non-spread ways. You as a reader should pay particular attention should to errors in logic, especially those regarding causation, relationship or association.
Sample To provide trustworthy conclusions, a sample needs to be representative and adequate. Representativeness depends on the method of selection as well as the assignment. For example, random assignment has its advantages in front of systematic assignment in establishing group equivalence. The sample can be biased when researchers used volunteers or selective attrition. The adequate sample size can be determined by employing power analysis.
Control of confounding variables Extraneous variation can influence research findings, therefore methods to control relevant confounding variables should be applied.
Research designs The research design should be suitable to answer the research question. Readers should distinguish true experimental designs with random assignment from pre-experimental research designs.
Criteria and criteria measures The criteria measures must demonstrate reliability and validity for both, the independent and dependent variable.
Data analysis Appropriate statistical tests should be applied for the type of data obtained, and assumptions for their use met. Post hoc tests should be applied when multiple comparisons are performed. Tables and figures should be clearly labelled. Ideally, effect sizes shou
ld be included throughout giving a clear indication of the variables’ impact.
Discussion and conclusions Does the study allow generalization? Also, limitations of the study should be mentioned. The discussion and conclusions should be consistent with the study’s results. It’s a common mistake to emphasizing the results that are in accordance with the researcher’s expectations while not focusing on the ones that are not. Do the authors of the article you hold in hand do the same?
Ethics Last but not least, ere the ethical standards met? For more information, refer to the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2010).
References American Psychological Association (2010, June 1). American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct . Retrieved July 28, 2011 from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Meltzoff, J. (2007). Critical Thinking About Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Edited by: Maris Vainre
Zorana Zupan
Share this:
Related posts:.
- How to critically evaluate internet-based sources?
- How to write a good literature review article?
- How to Read and Get the Most Out of a Journal Article
- Can you find an article in 5 sec? The world of DOIs
The Essay Writing Experts UK Essay Experts
Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay. Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.
View full disclaimer
This essay may contain factual inaccuracies or out of date material. Please refer to an authoritative source if you require up-to-date information on any health or medical issue.
Critical Evaluation Of Research Papers Psychology Essay
Reference this
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Research Problem
Research questions, research objectives, significance of the study, literature review, theoretical framework, research methodology, research design, sample and sample size, instrument design.
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
Validity and Reliability
Data collection, data analysis, finding and recommendations, logical consistency, ethical considerations, cite this work.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related Services
Essay Writing Service
- Dissertation Writing Service
- Assignment Writing Service
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please:
Our academic writing and marking services can help you!
- Find out more about our Essay Writing Service
- Undergraduate 2:2
- 7 day delivery
- Marking Service
- Samples of our Service
- Full Service Portfolio
Humanity University
Dedicated to your worth and value as a human being!
Related Lectures
Study for free with our range of university lectures!
- All Available Lectures
Freelance Writing Jobs
Looking for a flexible role? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?
Study Resources
Free resources to assist you with your university studies!
- Dissertation Resources at UKDiss.com
- How to Write an Essay
- Essay Buyers Guide
- Referencing Tools
- Essay Writing Guides
- Masters Writing Guides
Search Support Articles
*You can also browse our support articles here >
Change Region / Country
Here you can choose which regional hub you wish to view, providing you with the most relevant information we have for your specific region. If your specific country is not listed, please select the UK version of the site, as this is best suited to international visitors.
United Kingdom
United States
United Arab Emirates
Saudi Arabia
- Directories
Current students
- Strategic initiatives
- Academic Colleges
- University Executive
- Strategic planning
- Global engagement
- Nobel Laureates
- Translational Fellowship Scheme
- Previous years' recipients
- Distinguished educators
- Education Fellowship Scheme
- Roll of honour
- Frameworks & disclosures
- Dates & deadlines
- Legislation
- ANU Council Statements
- Busiest office competition
- ATAR information
- Flexible degree options at ANU
- Professional development courses at ANU
- External scholarships
- Direct application scholarships
- Prestigious scholarships
- Applying to ANU - Application details
- Domestic undergraduate admission
- All programs and courses
- Domestic Applications - ANU Postgraduate Coursework
- Domestic landing page
- Future students vn
- Find an educational agent
- International students
- Subscribe for updates
- Short courses
- Accept your offer
- Fees & payments
- Student experience
- Student residences
- Compare residences
- Financial support
- Application advice
- Other accommodation options
- Support & resources
- Past events
- Undergraduate students
- Postgraduate students
- Postgrad research students
- Exchange and Study Abroad
- Prospective international students
- Parents & guardians
- Career advisors
- Agents representatives
- Our research
- Our Health in Our Hands
- Subscribe to TechPolicy Design Centre's newsletter
- Partner with us
- Publications
- Current researchers
- Current research students
- Future research students
- Engaged ANU
- Search fundraising projects
- Impact stories
- Report to donors
- Philanthropy at ANU
- Support students
- Kambri scholars
- Benefits & services
- Prominent alumni
- Golden Graduate profiles
- ANU75 features
- Events & stories
- Indigenous student support
- Leadership & volunteering
- Student communities
- Student experience research
- Accommodation
- Scholarships
- Program management
- Assessments & exams
- Timetabling
- Academic integrity
- Appointments
- Research writing
- Study skills
- Writing & assessment
- Peer mentoring
- Living well
- Feeling well
- Respectful relationships
- Spending well
- Living legally & safe
- Access & inclusion
- Living spiritually
- Getting help at ANU
- Applications & interviews
- Career resources
- Finding a job
- Planning your career
- Understanding overseas study
- Short course options
- Other semester-length options
- Funding information
- Volunteering
- New students
- Current International students
- Students with a disability
- Indigenous students
- For journalists
- Publications & social media
- News from the VC
- All podcasts
- University calendar
- Website directory
- Social channels
ANU is a world-leading university in Australia’s capital. Excellence is embedded in our approach to research and education.
- Campuses & facilities
- Awards & achievements
- Our history
Study with us
Choosing the right university is a defining decision. Discover why ANU is the right choice for you.
- Study options
- Apply to ANU
Information for
- Postgraduate research students
- Information for agents
Research & innovation
ANU research priorities address the challenges facing Australia and the world.
- Research initiatives
Resources for
Your donation will make a real difference to our community of researchers and students.
- How to give
- First Nations Portfolio
- Leading in our region
- Transforming our world
ANU graduates become lifelong members of our community. See what's on offer.
- Get involved
ANU has a huge variety of support services, programs and activities to enhance your student experience.
- Student life
- Program admin
- Academic skills
- Health, safety & wellbeing
- Careers & opportunities
- Learning platforms
- Higher Degree Research candidates
- Programs & courses
You are here
Writing in Psychology
Other assessments
- » Abstract
- » Annotated bibliography
- » Creative writing
- » Critical review
- » Policy brief
- » Writing in Law
- » Writing in Psychology
For most (if not all) your psychology assignments, you'll be required to critically analyse relevant psychological theory and research. If you're just starting out in psychology, you might not know what this involves. This guide will give you an idea of what it means to critically analyse research, along with some practical suggestions for how you can demonstrate your critical-thinking skills.
What is critical analysis, and why is it important?
Critical analysis involves thinking about the merits and drawbacks of what you're reading. It doesn't necessarily mean tearing apart what you've read-it could also involve highlighting what an author or researcher has done well, and thinking through the implications of a study on the broader research area.
Critical analysis is extremely important in evaluating published research: Psychology studies often build on the limitations of others, and it's important to assess the merits of a study before accepting its conclusions. Furthermore, as a student, your critical analysis of the literature is a way of showing your marker that you've engaged with the field.
What makes critical analysis in psychology different, and how do I critically analyse the literature?
In psychology, critical analysis typically involves evaluating both theory and empirical research (i.e., scientific studies). When critically analysing theory , relevant questions include:
- Does the theory make sense (i.e., is it logical)?
- Can the theory explain psychological phenomena (i.e., what we actually observe in terms of people's behaviour), or does it leave some things unexplained?
- Have any studies been conducted to specifically test this theory, and if so, what did they find? Can we believe this study's conclusions?
In terms of evaluating empirical research , relevant questions include:
- Does the study's research question come logically from the literature the authors have reviewed?
- Are there any issues with the participant sample (e.g., not representative of the population being studied)?
- Do the measures (e.g., questionnaires) actually assess the process of interest?
- Have the appropriate statistical analyses been conducted?
- Do the authors make appropriate conclusions based on their findings, or do they go beyond their findings (i.e., overstate their conclusions)?
Before you critically analyse research, it's important to make sure that you understand what is being argued. We have some resources that can help you get the most out of your reading ( R eading strategies ), as well as some note-taking strategies ( N ote-taking ). The Cornell method might be especially useful, since it involves jotting down your own thoughts/opinions as you're reading, rather than simply summarising information.
As you get more practise critically analysing the literature, you'll find that it starts to feel more natural, and becomes something that you engage in automatically. However, as you're starting out, deliberately thinking through some of the questions in the previous section can help add structure to this process.
What does critical analysis look like?
After you've had a think about the merits and drawbacks of a published piece of work, how do you actually show that you've engaged in critical analysis? Below are some examples of sentences where critical analysis has been demonstrated:
- "Although Brown's (1995) theory can account for [abc], it cannot explain [xyz]."
- "This study is a seminal one in the area, given that it was the first to investigate...".
- "In order to clarify the role of [abc], the study could have controlled for...".
- "This study was a significant improvement over earlier efforts to investigate this topic because...".
What these statements have in common is that they are evaluative : They show that you're making a judgment about the theory or empirical study you're discussing. In general, your marker will be able to tell whether you have engaged in critical analysis by seeing if you've made such statements throughout your work.
Critical analysis in psychology: Some common pitfalls
"The sample size of the study was too small."
Your critiques need to have evidence behind them. Making statements such as this is fine, as long as you follow them up with your reasoning (in this case, on what basis have you decided that the study didn't have enough participants?).
" The study didn't look at participants of [this age/this gender/this ethnic group]."
Traditionally, the area of psychology has tended to focus on WEIRD (white, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic) individuals. This is certainly an issue for the generalisability of research findings. However, if you make this type of statement, you can further demonstrate your critical-thinking skills by talking about why you think this is an issue for the particular topic you're researching: For example, how might the results of a study differ if a non-WEIRD participant sample had been recruited instead?
Being too critical.
Chances are that if a study is a highly cited one in your area, it probably has some merits (even if it's just that it drew attention to an important topic). You should always be on the lookout for strengths as well as limitations, be they theoretical (i.e., a cohesive, well-elaborated theory) or experimental (i.e., a clever study design).
- Contact ANU
- Freedom of Information
+61 2 6125 5111 The Australian National University, Canberra TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University) CRICOS Provider : 00120C ABN : 52 234 063 906
Rosie Psychology: Your online tutor
How to demonstrate critical evaluation in your psychology assignments
Thinking critically about psychology research
Critical thinking is often taught in undergraduate psychology degrees, and is a key marking criteria for higher marks in many assignments. But getting your head around how to write critically can sometimes be difficult. It can take practice. The aim of this short blog is to provide an introduction to critical evaluation, and how to start including evidence of critical evaluation in your psychology assignments.
So what does “critical evaluation” really mean?
Broadly speaking, critical evaluation is the process of thinking and writing critically about the quality of the sources of evidence used to support or refute an argument. By “ evidence “, I mean the literature you cite (e.g., a journal article or book chapter). By “ quality of the evidence “, I mean thinking about whether this topic has been tested is in a robust way. If the quality of the sources is poor, then this could suggest poor support for your argument, and vice versa. Even if the quality is poor, this is important to discuss in your assignments as evidence of critical thinking in this way!
In the rest of this blog, I outline a few different ways you can start to implement critical thinking into your work and reading of psychology. I talk about the quality of the evidence, a few pointers for critiquing the methods, theoretical and practical critical evaluation too. This is not an exhaustive list, but hopefully it’ll help you to start getting those higher-level marks in psychology. I also include an example write-up at the end to illustrate how to write all of this up!
The quality of the evidence
There are different types of study designs in psychology research, but some are of higher quality than others. The higher the quality of the evidence, the stronger the support for your argument the research offers, because the idea has been tested more rigorously. The pyramid image below can really help to explain what we mean by “quality of evidence”, by showing different study designs in the order of their quality.
Not every area of psychology is going to be full of high quality studies, and even the strongest sources of evidence (i.e., systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses) can have limitations! Because no study is perfect, it can be a good habit to tell the reader, in your report, (i) what the design of the study is that you’re citing, AND, (ii) how this affects your argument. Doing so would be evidence of critical thought. (See an example write-up below for implementing this, but do not copy and paste it!)
But first, what do I mean by “design”? The design of the study refers to how the study was carried out. There are sometimes broad categories of design that you’ll have heard of, like a ‘survey design’, ‘a review paper’, or an ‘experimental design’. Within these categories, though, there can be more specific types of design (e.g. a cross-sectional survey design, or a longitudinal survey design; a randomised controlled experiment or a simple pre-post experiment). Knowing these specific types of design is a good place to start when thinking about how to critique the evidence when citing your sources, and the image below can help with that.
Image source: https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/01/12/the-hierarchy-of-evidence-is-the-studys-design-robust/
In summary, there are various types of designs in psychology research. To name a few from the image above, we have: a meta-analysis or a systematic review (a review paper that summarises the research that explores the same research question); a cross-sectional survey study (a questionnaire that people complete once – these are really common in psychology!). If you’re not familiar with these, I would highly suggest doing a bit of reading around these methods and some of their general limitations – you can then use these limitation points in your assignments! To help with this, you could do a Google Scholar search for ‘limitations of a cross-sectional study’, or ‘why are randomised control trials gold standard?’. You can use any published papers as further support as a limitation.
Methodological critical evaluation
- Internal validity: Are the findings or the measures used in the study reliable (e.g., have they been replicated by another study, and is the reliability high)?
- External validity: Are there any biases in the study that might affect generalisability(e.g., gender bias, where one gender may be overrepresented for the population in the sample recruited)? Lack of generalisability is a common limitation that undergraduates tend to use by default as a limitation in their reports. It’s a perfectly valid limitation, but it can usually be made much more impactful by explaining exactly how it’s a problem for the topic of study. In some cases, this limitation may not be all that warranted; for example, a female bias may be expected in a sample of psychology students, because undergraduate courses tend to be filled mostly with females!
- What is the design of the study, and how it a good or bad quality design (randomised control trial, cross-sectional study)?
Theoretical critical evaluation
- Do the findings in the literature support the relevant psychological theories?
- Have the findings been replicated in another study? (If so, say so and add a reference!)
Practical critical evaluation
- In the real world, how easy would it be to implement these findings?
- Have these findings been implemented? (If so, you could find out if this has been done well!)
Summary points
In summary, there are various types of designs in psychology research. To name a few from the image above, we have: a meta-analysis or a systematic review (a review paper that summarises the research that explores the same research question); a cross-sectional survey study (a questionnaire that people complete once – these are really common in psychology!). If you’re not familiar with these, I would highly suggest doing a bit of reading around these methods and some of their general limitations – you can then use these limitation points in your assignments! To help with this, I would do a Google Scholar search for ‘limitations of a cross-sectional study’, or ‘why are randomised control trials gold standard?’. You can use these papers as further support as a limitation.
You don’t have to use all of these points in your writing, these are just examples of how you can demonstrate critical thinking in your work. Try to use at least a couple in any assignment. Here is an example of how to write these up:
An example write-up
“Depression and anxiety are generally associated with each other (see the meta-analysis by [reference here]). For example, one of these studies was a cross-sectional study [reference here] with 500 undergraduate psychology students. The researchers found that depression and anxiety (measured using the DASS-21 measure) were correlated at r = .76, indicating a strong effect. However, this one study is limited in that it used a cross-sectional design, which do not tell us whether depression causes anxiety or whether anxiety causes depression; it just tells us that they are correlated. It’s also limited in that the participants are not a clinical sample, which does not tell us about whether these are clinically co-morbid constructs. Finally, a strength of this study is that it used the DASS-21 which is generally found to be a reliable measure. Future studies would therefore benefit from using a longitudinal design to gain an idea as to how these variables are causally related to one another, and use more clinical samples to understand the implications for clinical practice. Overall, however, the research generally suggests that depression and anxiety are associated. That there is a meta-analysis on this topic [reference here], showing that there is lots of evidence, suggests that this finding is generally well-accepted.”
- Notice how I first found a review paper on the topic to broadly tell the reader how much evidence there is in the first place. I set the scene of the paragraph with the first sentence, and then the last sentence I brought it back, rounding the paragraph off.
- Notice how I then described one study from this paper in more detail. Specifically, I mentioned the participants, the design of the study and the measure the researchers used to assess these variables. Critically, I then described how each of these pieces of the method are disadvantages/strengths of the study. Sometimes, it’s enough to just say “the study was limited in that it was a cross-sectional study”, but it can really show that you are thinking critically, if you also add “… because it does not tell us….”.
- Notice how I added a statistic there to further illustrate my point (in this case, it was the correlation coefficient), showing that I didn’t just read the abstract of the paper. Doing this for the effect sizes in a study can also help demonstrate to a reader that you understand statistics (a higher-level marking criteria).
Are these points you can include in your own work?
Thanks for reading,
Share this:
Leave a reply cancel reply.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
- Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
- Follow Following
- Copy shortlink
- Report this content
- View post in Reader
- Manage subscriptions
- Collapse this bar
- Queen's University Library
- Research Guides
How to Critique an Article (Psychology)
- Introduction
The content of this guide has been developed by Dr. Elizabeth Kelley as a tool for psychology students who are required to critically evaluate the research literature. Navigate the guide using the links in the left-hand menu.
To illustrate points, screenshots have been taken from the following article:
T royb , E., Rosenthal, M., Eigsti, I., Kelley, E. , Tyson, K., Orinstein, A., . . . Fein, D. (2014). Executive functioning in individuals with a history of ASDs who have achieved optimal outcomes. Child Neuropsychology, 20 (4), 378-397. https://proxy.queensu.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2013.799644
- Last Updated: Nov 5, 2021 9:46 AM
- Subjects: Psychology
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Is it clear why the study was undertaken? Why are the conclusions important? Does the study add anything new to current knowledge and understanding? The reasons
Steps for Writing an Effective Critique Paper · Read the introduction section of the article. Is the hypothesis clearly stated? · Read the methods
How to critically evaluate the quality of a research article? · Research question. The research must be clear in informing the reader of its aims
[And please note that when you write your Term Paper and Summary, you should make sure that you avoid using any of these techniques yourself!] Research Studies.
It should look at the similarities and differences between the literature, as well as the strengths and limitations. It should illustrate how
How to Critically Analyse Psychological Research ... You should focus your comments on the research, not the research article.
Critical analysis involves thinking about the merits and drawbacks of what you're reading. It doesn't necessarily mean tearing apart what you've read-it could
Broadly speaking, critical evaluation is the process of thinking and writing critically about the quality of the sources of evidence used to
results of your literature search, critically evaluate the research articles found and presents brief guidelines on how to write a literature review.
Elizabeth Kelley as a tool for psychology students who are required to critically evaluate the research literature. Navigate the guide using the