article critique research essay

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
PMID: 16114192
DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

Publication types

Data Interpretation, Statistical
Research Design
Review Literature as Topic

All eBooks & Audiobooks
Academic eBook Collection
Home Grown eBook Collection
Off-Campus Access
Literature Resource Center
Opposing Viewpoints
ProQuest Central
Course Guides
Citing Sources
Library Research
Websites by Topic
Book-a-Librarian
Research Tutorials
Use the Catalog
Use Databases
Use Films on Demand
Use Home Grown eBooks
Use NC LIVE
Evaluating Sources
Primary vs. Secondary
Scholarly vs. Popular
Make an Appointment
Writing Tools
Annotated Bibliographies
Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

Writing an article SUMMARY
Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
Was the sample too small to generalize from?
Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

<< Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
Next: Citing Sources >>
Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

IOE Writing Centre

Writing a Critical Review

Writing a Critique

A critique (or critical review) is not to be mistaken for a literature review. A 'critical review', or 'critique', is a complete type of text (or genre), discussing one particular article or book in detail. In some instances, you may be asked to write a critique of two or three articles (e.g. a comparative critical review). In contrast, a 'literature review', which also needs to be 'critical', is a part of a larger type of text, such as a chapter of your dissertation.

Most importantly: Read your article / book as many times as possible, as this will make the critical review much easier.

1. Read and take notes 2. Organising your writing 3. Summary 4. Evaluation 5. Linguistic features of a critical review 6. Summary language 7. Evaluation language 8. Conclusion language 9. Example extracts from a critical review 10. Further resources

Read and Take Notes

To improve your reading confidence and efficiency, visit our pages on reading.

Organising your writing

You first need to summarise the text that you have read. One reason to summarise the text is that the reader may not have read the text. In your summary, you will

focus on points within the article that you think are interesting
summarise the author(s) main ideas or argument
explain how these ideas / argument have been constructed. (For example, is the author basing her arguments on data that they have collected? Are the main ideas / argument purely theoretical?)

In your summary you might answer the following questions: Why is this topic important? Where can this text be located? For example, does it address policy studies? What other prominent authors also write about this?

Evaluation is the most important part in a critical review.

Use the literature to support your views. You may also use your knowledge of conducting research, and your own experience. Evaluation can be explicit or implicit.

Explicit evaluation

Explicit evaluation involves stating directly (explicitly) how you intend to evaluate the text. e.g. "I will review this article by focusing on the following questions. First, I will examine the extent to which the authors contribute to current thought on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) pedagogy. After that, I will analyse whether the authors' propositions are feasible within overseas SLA classrooms."

Implicit evaluation

Implicit evaluation is less direct. The following section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review contains language that evaluates the text. A difficult part of evaluation of a published text (and a professional author) is how to do this as a student. There is nothing wrong with making your position as a student explicit and incorporating it into your evaluation. Examples of how you might do this can be found in the section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review. You need to remember to locate and analyse the author's argument when you are writing your critical review. For example, you need to locate the authors' view of classroom pedagogy as presented in the book / article and not present a critique of views of classroom pedagogy in general.

Linguistic features of a critical review

The following examples come from published critical reviews. Some of them have been adapted for student use.

Summary language

This article / book is divided into two / three parts. First...
While the title might suggest...
The tone appears to be...
Title is the first / second volume in the series Title, edited by...The books / articles in this series address...
The second / third claim is based on...
The author challenges the notion that...
The author tries to find a more middle ground / make more modest claims...
The article / book begins with a short historical overview of...
Numerous authors have recently suggested that...(see Author, Year; Author, Year). Author would also be once such author. With his / her argument that...
To refer to title as a...is not to say that it is...
This book / article is aimed at... This intended readership...
The author's book / article examines the...To do this, the author first...
The author develops / suggests a theoretical / pedagogical model to…
This book / article positions itself firmly within the field of...
The author in a series of subtle arguments, indicates that he / she...
The argument is therefore...
The author asks "..."
With a purely critical / postmodern take on...
Topic, as the author points out, can be viewed as...
In this recent contribution to the field of...this British author...
As a leading author in the field of...
This book / article nicely contributes to the field of...and complements other work by this author...
The second / third part of...provides / questions / asks the reader...
Title is intended to encourage students / researchers to...
The approach taken by the author provides the opportunity to examine...in a qualitative / quantitative research framework that nicely complements...
The author notes / claims that state support / a focus on pedagogy / the adoption of...remains vital if...
According to Author (Year) teaching towards examinations is not as effective as it is in other areas of the curriculum. This is because, as Author (Year) claims that examinations have undue status within the curriculum.
According to Author (Year)…is not as effective in some areas of the curriculum / syllabus as others. Therefore the author believes that this is a reason for some school's…

Evaluation language

This argument is not entirely convincing, as...furthermore it commodifies / rationalises the...
Over the last five / ten years the view of...has increasingly been viewed as 'complicated' (see Author, Year; Author, Year).
However, through trying to integrate...with...the author...
There are difficulties with such a position.
Inevitably, several crucial questions are left unanswered / glossed over by this insightful / timely / interesting / stimulating book / article. Why should...
It might have been more relevant for the author to have written this book / article as...
This article / book is not without disappointment from those who would view...as...
This chosen framework enlightens / clouds...
This analysis intends to be...but falls a little short as...
The authors rightly conclude that if...
A detailed, well-written and rigorous account of...
As a Korean student I feel that this article / book very clearly illustrates...
The beginning of...provides an informative overview into...
The tables / figures do little to help / greatly help the reader...
The reaction by scholars who take a...approach might not be so favourable (e.g. Author, Year).
This explanation has a few weaknesses that other researchers have pointed out (see Author, Year; Author, Year). The first is...
On the other hand, the author wisely suggests / proposes that...By combining these two dimensions...
The author's brief introduction to...may leave the intended reader confused as it fails to properly...
Despite my inability to...I was greatly interested in...
Even where this reader / I disagree(s), the author's effort to...
The author thus combines...with...to argue...which seems quite improbable for a number of reasons. First...
Perhaps this aversion to...would explain the author's reluctance to...
As a second language student from ...I find it slightly ironic that such an anglo-centric view is...
The reader is rewarded with...
Less convincing is the broad-sweeping generalisation that...
There is no denying the author's subject knowledge nor his / her...
The author's prose is dense and littered with unnecessary jargon...
The author's critique of...might seem harsh but is well supported within the literature (see Author, Year; Author, Year; Author, Year). Aligning herself with the author, Author (Year) states that...
As it stands, the central focus of Title is well / poorly supported by its empirical findings...
Given the hesitation to generalise to...the limitation of...does not seem problematic...
For instance, the term...is never properly defined and the reader left to guess as to whether...
Furthermore, to label...as...inadvertently misguides...
In addition, this research proves to be timely / especially significant to... as recent government policy / proposals has / have been enacted to...
On this well researched / documented basis the author emphasises / proposes that...
Nonetheless, other research / scholarship / data tend to counter / contradict this possible trend / assumption...(see Author, Year; Author, Year).
Without entering into detail of the..., it should be stated that Title should be read by...others will see little value in...
As experimental conditions were not used in the study the word 'significant' misleads the reader.
The article / book becomes repetitious in its assertion that...
The thread of the author's argument becomes lost in an overuse of empirical data...
Almost every argument presented in the final section is largely derivative, providing little to say about...
She / he does not seem to take into consideration; however, that there are fundamental differences in the conditions of…
As Author (Year) points out, however, it seems to be necessary to look at…
This suggest that having low…does not necessarily indicate that…is ineffective.
Therefore, the suggestion made by Author (Year)…is difficult to support.
When considering all the data presented…it is not clear that the low scores of some students, indeed, reflects…

Conclusion language

Overall this article / book is an analytical look at...which within the field of...is often overlooked.
Despite its problems, Title offers valuable theoretical insights / interesting examples / a contribution to pedagogy and a starting point for students / researchers of...with an interest in...
This detailed and rigorously argued...
This first / second volume / book / article by...with an interest in...is highly informative...

Example extracts from a critical review

Writing critically.

If you have been told your writing is not critical enough, it probably means that your writing treats the knowledge claims as if they are true, well supported, and applicable in the context you are writing about. This may not always be the case.

In these two examples, the extracts refer to the same section of text. In each example, the section that refers to a source has been highlighted in bold. The note below the example then explains how the writer has used the source material.

There is a strong positive effect on students, both educationally and emotionally, when the instructors try to learn to say students' names without making pronunciation errors (Kiang, 2004).

Use of source material in example a:

This is a simple paraphrase with no critical comment. It looks like the writer agrees with Kiang. (This is not a good example for critical writing, as the writer has not made any critical comment).

Kiang (2004) gives various examples to support his claim that "the positive emotional and educational impact on students is clear" (p.210) when instructors try to pronounce students' names in the correct way. He quotes one student, Nguyet, as saying that he "felt surprised and happy" (p.211) when the tutor said his name clearly . The emotional effect claimed by Kiang is illustrated in quotes such as these, although the educational impact is supported more indirectly through the chapter. Overall, he provides more examples of students being negatively affected by incorrect pronunciation, and it is difficult to find examples within the text of a positive educational impact as such.

Use of source material in example b:

The writer describes Kiang's (2004) claim and the examples which he uses to try to support it. The writer then comments that the examples do not seem balanced and may not be enough to support the claims fully. This is a better example of writing which expresses criticality.

^Back to top

Further resources

You may also be interested in our page on criticality, which covers criticality in general, and includes more critical reading questions.

Further reading: Read and Write Critically

We recommend that you do not search for other university guidelines on critical reviews. This is because the expectations may be different at other institutions. Ask your tutor for more guidance or examples if you have further questions.

IOE Writing Centre Online

Self-access resources from the Academic Writing Centre at the UCL Institute of Education.

Anonymous Suggestions Box

Information for Staff

Academic Writing Centre

Academic Writing Centre, UCL Institute of Education [email protected] Twitter: @AWC_IOE Skype: awc.ioe

Writing a Critique

About this Guide
What Is a Critique?
Getting Started
Components of a Critique Essay

Parts of a Critique Essay

There are 4 distinct components to a critique, and those are the:

Introduction

Each of these components is described in further detail in the boxes on this page of the guide.

An effective introduction:

Provides a quick snapshot of background information readers may need in order to follow along with the argument
Defines key terminology as needed
Ends with a strong argument (thesis)

For additional guidance on writing introduction paragraphs, librarians recommend:

Need some extra help on thesis statements? Check out our Writing Effective Thesis Statements guide .

A summary is a broad overview of what is discussed in a source. In a critique essay, writers should always assume that those reading the essay may be unfamiliar with the work being examined. For that reason, the following should be included early in the paper:

The name of the author(s) of the work
The title of the work
Main ideas presented in the work
Arguments presented in the work
Any conclusions presented in the work

Depending on the requirements of your particular assignment, the summary may appear as part of the introduction, or it may be a separate paragraph. The summary should always be included before the analysis, as readers need a base-level familiarity of the resource before you can effectively present an argument about what the source does well and where improvements are needed.

More information about summaries can be found on our Writing an Effective Summary guide .

The critique is your evaluation of the resource. A strong critique:

Discusses the strengths of the resource
Discusses the weaknesses of the resource
Provides specific examples (direct quotes, with proper citation) as needed to support your evaluation
The accuracy of the resource
Any bias found within the resource
The relevance of the resource
The clarity of the resource

A critique is your opinion of the text, supported by evidence from the text.

If you need further guidance on how to evaluate your source, you can also consult our Evaluating Your Sources guide .

Need help with citation?

Compose papers in pre-formatted APA templates. Manage references in forms that help craft APA citations. Learn the rules of APA style through tutorials and practice quizzes.

Academic Writer will continue to use the 6th edition guidelines until August 2020. A preview of the 7th edition is available in the footer of the resource's site. Previously known as APA Style Central.

APA Style Help Learn more about APA style through our research guide.

A conclusion has three main functions in an essay. A conclusion will:

Summarize the main ideas presented in the essay
Remind readers of the thesis (argument)
Draw the paper to a close

For additional guidance, the library recommends:

<< Previous: Getting Started
Next: Examples >>
Last Updated: May 22, 2023 10:46 AM
URL: https://library.tiffin.edu/critique

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Verywell Mind Insights
2023 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

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.

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

How to Write It
Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, 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.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

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. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

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.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
Did the results support their hypothesis?
Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions 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 article's content.

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.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews . Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

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

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles . Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

SPH Writing Support Services

Appointment System
ESL Conversation Group
Mini-Courses
Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group
Career Writing
Citing Sources
Critiquing Research Articles
Project Planning for the Beginner This link opens in a new window
Grant Writing
Publishing in the Sciences
Systematic Review Overview
Systematic Review Resources This link opens in a new window
Writing Across Borders / Writing Across the Curriculum
Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.)
Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon)
The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill)
Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.)
Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research (Coughlan et al.)

Guidelines:

Critiquing Research Articles (Flinders University)
Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study (American Nurses Association)
How to Critique a Journal Article (UIS)
How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan)
How to Write an Article Critique
Research Article Critique Form
Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article (University of Calgary)

Presentations:

The Critique Process: Reviewing and Critiquing Research
Writing a Critique
<< Previous: Citing Sources
Next: Project Planning for the Beginner >>
Last Updated: Feb 12, 2024 1:11 PM
URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services

How to Critique an Article: Mastering the Article Evaluation Process

Did you know that approximately 4.6 billion pieces of content are produced every day? From news articles and blog posts to scholarly papers and social media updates, the digital landscape is flooded with information at an unprecedented rate. In this age of information overload, honing the skill of articles critique has never been more crucial. Whether you're seeking to bolster your academic prowess, stay well-informed, or improve your writing, mastering the art of article critique is a powerful tool to navigate the vast sea of information and discern the pearls of wisdom.

How to Critique an Article: Short Description

In this article, we will equip you with valuable tips and techniques to become an insightful evaluator of written content. We present a real-life article critique example to guide your learning process and help you develop your unique critique style. Additionally, we explore the key differences between critiquing scientific articles and journals. Whether you're a student, researcher, or avid reader, this guide will empower you to navigate the vast ocean of information with confidence and discernment. Still, have questions? Don't worry! We've got you covered with a helpful FAQ section to address any lingering doubts. Get ready to unleash your analytical prowess and uncover the true potential of every article that comes your way!

What Is an Article Critique: Understanding The Power of Evaluation

An article critique is a valuable skill that involves carefully analyzing and evaluating a written piece, such as a journal article, blog post, or news article. It goes beyond mere summarization and delves into the deeper layers of the content, examining its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. Think of it as an engaging conversation with the author, where you provide constructive feedback and insights.

For instance, let's consider a scenario where you're critiquing a research paper on climate change. Instead of simply summarizing the findings, you would scrutinize the methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases, offering thoughtful observations to enrich the discussion. Through the process of writing an article critique, you develop a critical eye, honing your ability to appreciate well-crafted work while also identifying areas for improvement.

In the following sections, our ' write my paper ' experts will uncover valuable tips on and key points on how to write a stellar critique, so let's explore more!

Unveiling the Key Aims of Writing an Article Critique

Writing an article critique serves several essential purposes that go beyond a simple review or summary. When engaging in the art of critique, as when you learn how to write a review article , you embark on a journey of in-depth analysis, sharpening your critical thinking skills and contributing to the academic and intellectual discourse. Primarily, an article critique allows you to:

Evaluate the Content : By critiquing an article, you delve into its content, structure, and arguments, assessing its credibility and relevance.
Strengthen Your Critical Thinking : This practice hones your ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in written works, fostering a deeper understanding of complex topics and critical evaluation skills.
Engage in Scholarly Dialogue : Your critique contributes to the ongoing academic conversation, offering valuable insights and thoughtful observations to the existing body of knowledge.
Enhance Writing Skills : By analyzing and providing feedback, you develop a keen eye for effective writing techniques, benefiting your own writing endeavors.
Promote Continuous Learning : Through the writing process, you continually refine your analytical abilities, becoming an avid and astute learner in the pursuit of knowledge.

How to Critique an Article: Steps to Follow

The process of crafting an article critique may seem overwhelming, especially when dealing with intricate academic writing. However, fear not, for it is more straightforward than it appears! To excel in this art, all you require is a clear starting point and the skill to align your critique with the complexities of the content. To help you on your journey, follow these 3 simple steps and unlock the potential to provide insightful evaluations:

Step 1: Read the Article

The first and most crucial step when wondering how to do an article critique is to thoroughly read and absorb its content. As you delve into the written piece, consider these valuable tips from our custom essay writer to make your reading process more effective:

Take Notes : Keep a notebook or digital document handy while reading. Jot down key points, noteworthy arguments, and any questions or observations that arise.
Annotate the Text : Underline or highlight significant passages, quotes, or sections that stand out to you. Use different colors to differentiate between positive aspects and areas that may need improvement.
Consider the Author's Purpose : Reflect on the author's main critical point and the intended audience. Much like an explanatory essay , evaluate how effectively the article conveys its message to the target readership.

Now, let's say you are writing an article critique on climate change. While reading, you come across a compelling quote from a renowned environmental scientist highlighting the urgency of addressing global warming. By taking notes and underlining this impactful quote, you can later incorporate it into your critique as evidence of the article's effectiveness in conveying the severity of the issue.

Step 2: Take Notes/ Make sketches

Once you've thoroughly read the article, it's time to capture your thoughts and observations by taking comprehensive notes or creating sketches. This step plays a crucial role in organizing your critique and ensuring you don't miss any critical points. Here's how to make the most out of this process:

Highlight Key Arguments : Identify the main arguments presented by the author and highlight them in your notes. This will help you focus on the core ideas that shape the article.
Record Supporting Evidence : Take note of any evidence, examples, or data the author uses to support their arguments. Assess the credibility and effectiveness of this evidence in bolstering their claims.
Examine Structure and Flow : Pay attention to the article's structure and how each section flows into the next. Analyze how well the author transitions between ideas and whether the organization enhances or hinders the reader's understanding.
Create Visual Aids : If you're a visual learner, consider using sketches or diagrams to map out the article's key points and their relationships. Visual representations can aid in better grasping the content's structure and complexities.

Step 3: Format Your Paper

Once you've gathered your notes and insights, it's time to give structure to your article critique. Proper formatting ensures your critique is organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Here are essential tips for formatting an article critique effectively:

Introduction : Begin with a clear and engaging introduction that provides context for the article you are critiquing. Include the article's title, author's name, publication details, and a brief overview of the main theme or thesis.
Thesis Statement : Present a strong and concise thesis statement that conveys your overall assessment of the article. Your thesis should reflect whether you found the article compelling, convincing, or in need of improvement.
Body Paragraphs : Organize your critique into well-structured body paragraphs. Each paragraph should address a specific point or aspect of the article, supported by evidence and examples from your notes.
Use Evidence : Back up your critique with evidence from the article itself. Quote relevant passages, cite examples, and reference data to strengthen your analysis and demonstrate your understanding of the article's content.
Conclusion : Conclude your critique by summarizing your main points and reiterating your overall evaluation. Avoid introducing new arguments in the conclusion and instead provide a concise and compelling closing statement.
Citation Style : If required, adhere to the specific citation style guidelines (e.g., APA, MLA) for in-text citations and the reference list. Properly crediting the original article and any additional sources you use in your critique is essential.

How to Critique a Journal Article: Mastering the Steps

So, you've been assigned the task of critiquing a journal article, and not sure where to start? Worry not, as we've prepared a comprehensive guide with different steps to help you navigate this process with confidence. Journal articles are esteemed sources of scholarly knowledge, and effectively critiquing them requires a systematic approach. Let's dive into the steps to expertly evaluate and analyze a journal article:

Step 1: Understanding the Research Context

Begin by familiarizing yourself with the broader research context in which the journal article is situated. Learn about the field, the topic's significance, and any previous relevant research. This foundational knowledge will provide a valuable backdrop for your journal article critique example.

Step 2: Evaluating the Article's Structure

Assess the article's overall structure and organization. Examine how the introduction sets the stage for the research and how the discussion flows logically from the methodology and results. A well-structured article enhances readability and comprehension.

Step 3: Analyzing the Research Methodology

Dive into the research methodology section, which outlines the approach used to gather and analyze data. Scrutinize the study's design, data collection methods, sample size, and any potential biases or limitations. Understanding the research process will enable you to gauge the article's reliability.

Step 4: Assessing the Data and Results

Examine the presentation of data and results in the article. Are the findings clear and effectively communicated? Look for any discrepancies between the data presented and the interpretations made by the authors.

Step 5: Analyzing the Discussion and Conclusions

Evaluate the discussion section, where the authors interpret their findings and place them in the broader context. Assess the soundness of their conclusions, considering whether they are adequately supported by the data.

Step 6: Considering Ethical Considerations

Reflect on any ethical considerations raised by the research. Assess whether the study respects the rights and privacy of participants and adheres to ethical guidelines.

Step 7: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses

Identify the article's strengths, such as well-designed experiments, comprehensive, relevant literature reviews, or innovative approaches. Also, pinpoint any weaknesses, like gaps in the research, unclear explanations, or insufficient evidence.

Step 8: Offering Constructive Feedback

Provide constructive feedback to the authors, highlighting both positive aspects and areas for improvement for future research. Suggest ways to enhance the research methods, data analysis, or discussion to bolster its overall quality.

Step 9: Presenting Your Critique

Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.

By following these steps on how to critique a journal article, you'll be well-equipped to craft a thoughtful and insightful piece, contributing to the scholarly discourse in your field of study!

Got an Article that Needs Some Serious Critiquing?

Don't sweat it! Our critique maestros are armed with wit, wisdom, and a dash of magic to whip that piece into shape.

An Article Critique: Journal Vs. Research

In the realm of academic writing, the terms 'journal article' and 'research paper' are often used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion about their differences. Understanding the distinctions between critiquing a research article and a journal piece is essential. Let's delve into the key characteristics that set apart a journal article from a research paper and explore how the critique process may differ for each:

Publication Scope:

Journal Article: Presents focused and concise research findings or new insights within a specific subject area.
Research Paper: Explores a broader range of topics and can cover extensive research on a particular subject.

Format and Structure:

Journal Article: Follows a standardized format with sections such as abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Research Paper: May not adhere to a specific format and allows flexibility in organizing content based on the research scope.

Depth of Analysis:

Journal Article: Provides a more concise and targeted analysis of the research topic or findings.
Research Paper: Offers a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis, often including extensive literature reviews and data analyses.
Journal Article: Typically shorter in length, ranging from a few pages to around 10-15 pages.
Research Paper: Tends to be longer, spanning from 20 to several hundred pages, depending on the research complexity.

Publication Type:

Journal Article: Published in academic journals after undergoing rigorous peer review.
Research Paper: May be published as a standalone work or as part of a thesis, dissertation, or academic report.
Journal Article: Targeted at academics, researchers, and professionals within the specific field of study.
Research Paper: Can cater to a broader audience, including students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public.
Journal Article: Primarily aimed at sharing new research findings, contributing to academic discourse, and advancing knowledge in the field.
Research Paper: Focuses on comprehensive exploration and analysis of a research topic, aiming to make a substantial contribution to the body of knowledge.

Appreciating these differences becomes paramount when engaging in the critique of these two forms of scholarly publications, as they each demand a unique approach and thoughtful consideration of their distinctive attributes. And if you find yourself desiring a flawlessly crafted research article critique example, entrusting the task to professional writers is always an excellent option – you can easily order essay that meets your needs.

Article Critique Example

Our collection of essay samples offers a comprehensive and practical illustration of the critique process, granting you access to valuable insights.

Tips on How to Critique an Article

Critiquing an article requires a keen eye, critical thinking, and a thoughtful approach to evaluating its content. To enhance your article critique skills and provide insightful analyses, consider incorporating these five original and practical tips into your process:

1. Analyze the Author's Bias : Be mindful of potential biases in the article, whether they are political, cultural, or personal. Consider how these biases may influence the author's perspective and the presentation of information. Evaluating the presence of bias enables you to discern the objectivity and credibility of the article's arguments.

2. Examine the Supporting Evidence : Scrutinize the quality and relevance of the evidence used to support the article's claims. Look for well-researched data, credible sources, and up-to-date statistics. Assess how effectively the author integrates evidence to build a compelling case for their arguments.

3. Consider the Audience's Perspective : Put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience and assess how well the article communicates its ideas. Consider whether the language, tone, and level of complexity are appropriate for the target readership. A well-tailored article is more likely to engage and resonate with its audience.

4. Investigate the Research Methodology : If the article involves research or empirical data, delve into the methodology used to gather and analyze the information. Evaluate the soundness of the study design, sample size, and data collection methods. Understanding the research process adds depth to your critique.

5. Discuss the Implications and Application : Consider the broader implications of the article's findings or arguments. Discuss how the insights presented in the article could impact the field of study or have practical applications in real-world scenarios. Identifying the potential consequences of the article's content strengthens your critique's depth and relevance.

Wrapping Up

In a nutshell, article critique is an essential skill that helps us grow as critical thinkers and active participants in academia. Embrace the opportunity to analyze and offer constructive feedback, contributing to a brighter future of knowledge and understanding. Remember, each critique is a chance to engage with new ideas and expand our horizons. So, keep honing your critique skills and enjoy the journey of discovery in the world of academic exploration!

Tired of Ordinary Critiques?

Brace yourself for an extraordinary experience! Our critique geniuses are on standby, ready to unleash their extraordinary skills on your article!

What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?

What is the recommended length for an article critique, related articles.

How to Write a Policy Analysis Paper Step-by-Step

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Writing Critiques

Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people’s work in their academic area. Search for a “manuscript reviewer guide” in your own discipline to guide your analysis of the content. Use this handout as an orientation to the audience and purpose of different types of critiques and to the linguistic strategies appropriate to all of them.

Types of critique

Article or book review assignment in an academic class.

Text: Article or book that has already been published Audience: Professors Purpose:

to demonstrate your skills for close reading and analysis
to show that you understand key concepts in your field
to learn how to review a manuscript for your future professional work

Published book review

Text: Book that has already been published Audience: Disciplinary colleagues Purpose:

to describe the book’s contents
to summarize the book’s strengths and weaknesses
to provide a reliable recommendation to read (or not read) the book

Manuscript review

Text: Manuscript that has been submitted but has not been published yet Audience: Journal editor and manuscript authors Purpose:

to provide the editor with an evaluation of the manuscript
to recommend to the editor that the article be published, revised, or rejected
to provide the authors with constructive feedback and reasonable suggestions for revision

Language strategies for critiquing

For each type of critique, it’s important to state your praise, criticism, and suggestions politely, but with the appropriate level of strength. The following language structures should help you achieve this challenging task.

Offering Praise and Criticism

A strategy called “hedging” will help you express praise or criticism with varying levels of strength. It will also help you express varying levels of certainty in your own assertions. Grammatical structures used for hedging include:

Modal verbs Using modal verbs (could, can, may, might, etc.) allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This text is inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field. This text may be inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field.

Qualifying adjectives and adverbs Using qualifying adjectives and adverbs (possible, likely, possibly, somewhat, etc.) allows you to introduce a level of probability into your comments. Compare:

Readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will probably find the theoretical model somewhat difficult to understand completely.

Note: You can see from the last example that too many qualifiers makes the idea sound undesirably weak.

Tentative verbs Using tentative verbs (seems, indicates, suggests, etc.) also allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This omission shows that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission indicates that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission seems to suggest that the authors are not aware of the current literature.

Offering suggestions

Whether you are critiquing a published or unpublished text, you are expected to point out problems and suggest solutions. If you are critiquing an unpublished manuscript, the author can use your suggestions to revise. Your suggestions have the potential to become real actions. If you are critiquing a published text, the author cannot revise, so your suggestions are purely hypothetical. These two situations require slightly different grammar.

Unpublished manuscripts: “would be X if they did Y” Reviewers commonly point out weakness by pointing toward improvement. For instance, if the problem is “unclear methodology,” reviewers may write that “the methodology would be more clear if …” plus a suggestion. If the author can use the suggestions to revise, the grammar is “X would be better if the authors did Y” (would be + simple past suggestion).

The tables would be clearer if the authors highlighted the key results. The discussion would be more persuasive if the authors accounted for the discrepancies in the data.

Published manuscripts: “would have been X if they had done Y” If the authors cannot revise based on your suggestions, use the past unreal conditional form “X would have been better if the authors had done Y” (would have been + past perfect suggestion).

The tables would have been clearer if the authors had highlighted key results. The discussion would have been more persuasive if the authors had accounted for discrepancies in the data.

Note: For more information on conditional structures, see our Conditionals handout .

Make a Gift

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Can Med Educ J
v.12(3); 2021 Jun

Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

Écrire, lire et revue critique, douglas archibald.

1 University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;

Maria Athina Martimianakis

2 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why reviews matter

What do all authors of the CMEJ have in common? For that matter what do all health professions education scholars have in common? We all engage with literature. When you have an idea or question the first thing you do is find out what has been published on the topic of interest. Literature reviews are foundational to any study. They describe what is known about given topic and lead us to identify a knowledge gap to study. All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1 , 2 In fact, for this editorial we have had to review the literature on reviews . Knowledge and evidence are expanding in our field of health professions education at an ever increasing rate and so to help keep pace, well written reviews are essential. Though reviews may be difficult to write, they will always be read. In this editorial we survey the various forms review articles can take. As well we want to provide authors and reviewers at CMEJ with some guidance and resources to be able write and/or review a review article.

What are the types of reviews conducted in Health Professions Education?

Health professions education attracts scholars from across disciplines and professions. For this reason, there are numerous ways to conduct reviews and it is important to familiarize oneself with these different forms to be able to effectively situate your work and write a compelling rationale for choosing your review methodology. 1 , 2 To do this, authors must contend with an ever-increasing lexicon of review type articles. In 2009 Grant and colleagues conducted a typology of reviews to aid readers makes sense of the different review types, listing fourteen different ways of conducting reviews, not all of which are mutually exclusive. 3 Interestingly, in their typology they did not include narrative reviews which are often used by authors in health professions education. In Table 1 , we offer a short description of three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ.

Three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ

More recently, authors such as Greenhalgh 4 have drawn attention to the perceived hierarchy of systematic reviews over scoping and narrative reviews. Like Greenhalgh, 4 we argue that systematic reviews are not to be seen as the gold standard of all reviews. Instead, it is important to align the method of review to what the authors hope to achieve, and pursue the review rigorously, according to the tenets of the chosen review type. Sometimes it is helpful to read part of the literature on your topic before deciding on a methodology for organizing and assessing its usefulness. Importantly, whether you are conducting a review or reading reviews, appreciating the differences between different types of reviews can also help you weigh the author’s interpretation of their findings.

In the next section we summarize some general tips for conducting successful reviews.

How to write and review a review article

In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are conducting. Systematic reviews tend to address very focused questions often summarizing the evidence of your topic. Other types of reviews tend to have broader questions and are more exploratory in nature.

Following your question, choose an approach and plan your methods to match your question…just like you would for a research study. Fortunately, there are guidelines for many types of reviews. As Cook points out the most important consideration is to be sure that the methods you follow lead to a defensible answer to your review question. To help you prepare for a defensible answer there are many guides available. For systematic reviews consult PRISMA guidelines ; 13 for scoping reviews PRISMA-ScR ; 14 and SANRA 15 for narrative reviews. It is also important to explain to readers why you have chosen to conduct a review. You may be introducing a new way for addressing an old problem, drawing links across literatures, filling in gaps in our knowledge about a phenomenon or educational practice. Cook refers to this as setting the stage. Linking back to the literature is important. In systematic reviews for example, you must be clear in explaining how your review builds on existing literature and previous reviews. This is your opportunity to be critical. What are the gaps and limitations of previous reviews? So, how will your systematic review resolve the shortcomings of previous work? In other types of reviews, such as narrative reviews, its less about filling a specific knowledge gap, and more about generating new research topic areas, exposing blind spots in our thinking, or making creative new links across issues. Whatever, type of review paper you are working on, the next steps are ones that can be applied to any scholarly writing. Be clear and offer insight. What is your main message? A review is more than just listing studies or referencing literature on your topic. Lead your readers to a convincing message. Provide commentary and interpretation for the studies in your review that will help you to inform your conclusions. For systematic reviews, Cook’s final tip is most likely the most important– report completely. You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review article is because authors do not follow these last tips. In these instances authors do not provide the readers with enough detail to substantiate their interpretations or the message is not clear. Our recommendation for writing a great review is to ensure you have followed the previous tips and to have colleagues read over your paper to ensure you have provided a clear, detailed description and interpretation.

Finally, we leave you with some resources to guide your review writing. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 We look forward to seeing your future work. One thing is certain, a better appreciation of what different reviews provide to the field will contribute to more purposeful exploration of the literature and better manuscript writing in general.

In this issue we present many interesting and worthwhile papers, two of which are, in fact, reviews.

Major Contributions

A chance for reform: the environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews by Fung et al. 18 estimated the CO 2 emissions associated with traveling for residency position interviews. Due to the high emissions levels (mean 1.82 tonnes per applicant), they called for the consideration of alternative options such as videoconference interviews.

Understanding community family medicine preceptors’ involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action by Ward and team 19 identified barriers, enablers, and opportunities to grow educational scholarship at community-based teaching sites. They discovered a growing interest in educational scholarship among community-based family medicine preceptors and hope the identification of successful processes will be beneficial for other community-based Family Medicine preceptors.

Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners by Allison Brown and team 20 studied the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners around the world. There were different concerns depending on the levels of training, such as residents’ concerns with career timeline compared to trainees’ concerns with the quality of learning. Overall, the learners negatively perceived the disruption at all levels and geographic regions.

The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment? by Susan Humphrey-Murto and co-authors 21 considered factors that lead to the publication of studies supported by local medical education grants. They identified several factors associated with publication success, including previous oral or poster presentations. They hope their results will be valuable for Canadian centres with local grant programs.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions by Stephana Cherak and team 22 studied learner-wellness in various training environments disrupted by the pandemic. They reported a negative impact on learner wellness at all stages of training. Their results can benefit the development of future wellness interventions.

Program directors’ reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework by Dore, Bogie, et al. 23 invited program directors to reflect on the introduction of the CanMEDS framework into Canadian postgraduate medical education programs. Their survey revealed that while program directors (PDs) recognized the necessity of the accreditation process, they did not feel they had a voice when the change occurred. The authors concluded that collaborations with PDs would lead to more successful outcomes.

Experiential learning, collaboration and reflection: key ingredients in longitudinal faculty development by Laura Farrell and team 24 stressed several elements for effective longitudinal faculty development (LFD) initiatives. They found that participants benefited from a supportive and collaborative environment while trying to learn a new skill or concept.

Brief Reports

The effect of COVID-19 on medical students’ education and wellbeing: a cross-sectional survey by Stephanie Thibaudeau and team 25 assessed the impact of COVID-19 on medical students. They reported an overall perceived negative impact, including increased depressive symptoms, increased anxiety, and reduced quality of education.

In Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum? Meshkat and co-authors 26 recorded the number of adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine residents to compare them to the Competence by Design requirements. Their study underscored the importance of monitoring collection against pre-set targets. They concluded that residency program curricula should be regularly reviewed to allow for adequate clinical experiences.

Rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults by Anita Cheng and team 27 studied whether rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults helped residents prepare for difficult conversations with parents expecting complications with their baby before birth. They found that while rehearsal simulation improved residents’ confidence and communication techniques, it did not prepare them for unexpected parent responses.

Review Papers and Meta-Analyses

Peer support programs in the fields of medicine and nursing: a systematic search and narrative review by Haykal and co-authors 28 described and evaluated peer support programs in the medical field published in the literature. They found numerous diverse programs and concluded that including a variety of delivery methods to meet the needs of all participants is a key aspect for future peer-support initiatives.

Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review by Bahji et al. 6 identified addiction interventions to build competency for psychiatry residents and fellows. They found that current psychiatry entrustable professional activities need to be better identified and evaluated to ensure sustained competence in addictions.

Six ways to get a grip on leveraging the expertise of Instructional Design and Technology professionals by Chen and Kleinheksel 29 provided ways to improve technology implementation by clarifying the role that Instructional Design and Technology professionals can play in technology initiatives and technology-enhanced learning. They concluded that a strong collaboration is to the benefit of both the learners and their future patients.

In his article, Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process, 30 Simon Field provided guidelines for maximizing opportunities for successful promotion experiences. His seven tips included creating a rubric for both self-assessment of likeliness of success and adjudication by the committee.

Six ways to get a grip on your first health education leadership role by Stasiuk and Scott 31 provided tips for considering a health education leadership position. They advised readers to be intentional and methodical in accepting or rejecting positions.

Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education by Dagnone and team 32 described the excitement and controversy surrounding the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs. They proposed observing which elements of CBME had a positive impact on various outcomes.

You Should Try This

In their work, Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan, Lieffers et al. 33 described the implementation of interprofessional culinary education workshops that were designed to provide health professions students with an experiential and cooperative learning experience while learning about important topics in nutrition. They reported an enthusiastic response and cooperation among students from different health professional programs.

In their article, Physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal education: an innovative approach to teach medical students musculoskeletal assessment techniques, Boulila and team 34 described the implementation of physiotherapist-led workshops, whether the workshops increased medical students’ musculoskeletal knowledge, and if they increased confidence in assessment techniques.

Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students by Karly Pippitt and team 35 used social media as a platform for showcasing artwork done by first-year medical students. They described this shift to online learning due to COVID-19. Using Instagram was cost-saving and widely accessible. They intend to continue with both online and in-person displays in the future.

Adapting clinical skills volunteer patient recruitment and retention during COVID-19 by Nazerali-Maitland et al. 36 proposed a SLIM-COVID framework as a solution to the problem of dwindling volunteer patients due to COVID-19. Their framework is intended to provide actionable solutions to recruit and engage volunteers in a challenging environment.

In Quick Response codes for virtual learner evaluation of teaching and attendance monitoring, Roxana Mo and co-authors 37 used Quick Response (QR) codes to monitor attendance and obtain evaluations for virtual teaching sessions. They found QR codes valuable for quick and simple feedback that could be used for many educational applications.

In Creation and implementation of the Ottawa Handbook of Emergency Medicine Kaitlin Endres and team 38 described the creation of a handbook they made as an academic resource for medical students as they shift to clerkship. It includes relevant content encountered in Emergency Medicine. While they intended it for medical students, they also see its value for nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals.

Commentary and Opinions

The alarming situation of medical student mental health by D’Eon and team 39 appealed to medical education leaders to respond to the high numbers of mental health concerns among medical students. They urged leaders to address the underlying problems, such as the excessive demands of the curriculum.

In the shadows: medical student clinical observerships and career exploration in the face of COVID-19 by Law and co-authors 40 offered potential solutions to replace in-person shadowing that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They hope the alternatives such as virtual shadowing will close the gap in learning caused by the pandemic.

Letters to the Editor

Canadian Federation of Medical Students' response to “ The alarming situation of medical student mental health” King et al. 41 on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (CFMS) responded to the commentary by D’Eon and team 39 on medical students' mental health. King called upon the medical education community to join the CFMS in its commitment to improving medical student wellbeing.

Re: “Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology” 42 was written by Kirubarajan in response to the article by Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology by Black and team. 43 Kirubarajan applauded the development of the podcast to meet a need in medical education, and suggested potential future topics such as interventions to prevent learner burnout.

Response to “First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity” by Kumar and Hassan 44 acknowledged the previously published article by Biro et al. 45 that explored limitations in medical training for the LGBTQ2S community. However, Kumar and Hassen advocated for further progress and reform for medical training to address the health requirements for sexual and gender minorities.

In her letter, Journey to the unknown: road closed!, 46 Rosemary Pawliuk responded to the article, Journey into the unknown: considering the international medical graduate perspective on the road to Canadian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Gutman et al. 47 Pawliuk agreed that international medical students (IMGs) do not have adequate formal representation when it comes to residency training decisions. Therefore, Pawliuk challenged health organizations to make changes to give a voice in decision-making to the organizations representing IMGs.

In Connections, 48 Sara Guzman created a digital painting to portray her approach to learning. Her image of a hand touching a neuron showed her desire to physically see and touch an active neuron in order to further understand the brain and its connections.

How To Write an Article Critique: 4 Steps To Follow

If you need to know how to write an article critique, keep reading for our step-by-step guide.

In an article critique, you will be asked to critically read a research article, reflect on the article, and identify the strong and weak points of that piece. Whether you have been asked to critique a research paper, an essay, or an entire book, it would be best if you reflected on the argument’s effectiveness and validity. The key point to writing a solid article critique is to think critically.

Every author or researcher tries to convince you of the correctness of their point of view. However, even if that point of view is flawed, the author is trying to make it look good. Therefore, your job is to critique the paper critically, identifying its strong and weak points. There are several steps involved in the process.

Materials Needed

Step 1: read the piece, step 2: gather evidence to support your article critique, step 3: format your paper, step 4. proofread your article critique, what is the format of an article critique, what is the difference between a critique and a review, what are the components of a critique .

To write an article critique, there are several materials you need to have. They include:

The paper, book, or article you are going to be critiquing
A computer or a notepad you can use to take notes
Writing materials, such as pens and pencils
Highlighters and tabs you can use to keep the information organized

How To Write an Article Critique: Read the piece

If you want to write a decisive critique, you need to read the piece first. On the other hand, you don’t want to try to read a summary and grasp everything from the article. Otherwise, you risk losing a significant amount of context from the article.

As you read the article or book, there are several questions you need to answer. They include:

If the author is considered an expert or authority in the field, why is that the case?
What is the thesis statement or hypothesis the author is presenting? Does the author have enough evidence to support their point of view?
Who is the target audience of the article? For example, is the target audience people with a specific viewpoint, people of a particular background, or people with a predetermined point of view?
Are the arguments presented in the article valid? Does it seem like the sources have been cherry-picked? Or does the author appear to consider all possible answers to the question?
Does the author appear to have any flaws in the argument? Is the author overlooking something important?
Does the author appear to reach a logical conclusion based on the evidence in the paper?

As you read through the article, you should take notes and answer the questions above. This will give you plenty of information you can use to craft your article critique.

You need to note the author’s sources as you read the paper. These could include footnotes, endnotes, quotes, and other sources referenced in the paper. You may want to review the sources to ensure the author has drawn an appropriate conclusion based on the information in the source. You may also want to do your research to identify other sources that either support the author’s point of view or refute it.

You should also go to the article to see if there are any biased opinions. It is not unusual for someone to pick a side and not even consider the opposing point of view. If you believe you can draw a different logical conclusion based on the same evidence, you should include that in your article critique.

Remember that the language of the article will also play a vital role. You should pay close attention to word choice, particularly if the language is politically charged. Readers can interpret words differently, and you will need to explain the interpretation of the language in the article.

You may also want to identify any logical fallacies in the article. Some of the most common fallacies people use in their writing include:

Ad Hominem: This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the individual instead of the substance of their point of view. Discrediting the person does not necessarily discredit the argument.
Correlation and Causation: Correlation does not always equal causation. Just because something came first doesn’t mean it caused the second action.
Slippery Slope: Many people will make the “slippery slope” argument. Just because one action takes place doesn’t mean it will end up in the worst-case scenario.

If you notice these logical fallacies, you should use them in your article critique. You might also be interested in learning how to write a case study .

You may be asked to follow APA format in your article critique. In general, there will be four separate parts to your article. They include:

The Introduction: In the introduction, you need to include the author’s name and the title of the piece you are critiquing. You should also mention the core idea or point of view that the author has. It would be best if you also had a clear thesis reflecting your article critique’s direction.
The Summary: In the summary, you need to include the main points of the article. If there are central arguments in the article, you should present them. Then, be sure to include the article’s main conclusion as well.
The Critique: In your critique, you need to include both the strong and weak points of the article. Mention what the article does well, and mention what the article does poorly. You should discuss the evidence in the article and any other evidence you might have gathered.
The Conclusion: Again, you should summarize the article’s key points. Conclude the validity of the piece you have analyzed. You may want to include some future directions that merit further research.

Once you have finished your article critique, be sure to proofread it before you submit it.

Once you have finished your article critique, be sure to proofread it before you submit it. Check for spelling, grammar, and syntax errors when proofreading your article.

Frequently Asked Questions

In academic writing, the format of an article critique includes an introduction, a brief summary, the critique itself, and the conclusion. In your critique, you should include everything from the title of the article and the author’s ideas to the research methods and research questions (or journalistic questions), depending on whether you are critiquing a research paper or a journal article.

Generally, a good critique is written by someone considered an expert in that field. In contrast, a review is written by someone interested in that field but is not necessarily considered an expert.

The components of a critique paper include the background information and author’s main point (in the introduction), a summary in the body paragraphs, a critical evaluation in the critique section, and future research or following questions in conclusion.

If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Meet Rachael, the editor at Become a Writer Today. With years of experience in the field, she is passionate about language and dedicated to producing high-quality content that engages and informs readers. When she's not editing or writing, you can find her exploring the great outdoors, finding inspiration for her next project.

View all posts

Disclaimer » Advertising

HealthyChildren.org

Selection Criteria

Search strategy, data extraction, risk of bias and applicability, data synthesis and analysis, parent ratings, teacher ratings, youth self-reports, combined rating scales, additional clinician tools, neuropsychological tests, biospecimen, neuroimaging, variation in diagnostic accuracy with clinical setting or patient subgroup, measures for diagnostic performance, available tools, importance of the comparator sample, clinical implications, future research, conclusions, acknowledgments, tools for the diagnosis of adhd in children and adolescents: a systematic review.

Split-Screen
Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data
Peer Review
CME Quiz Close Quiz
Open the PDF for in another window
Get Permissions
Cite Icon Cite
Search Site

Bradley S. Peterson , Joey Trampush , Morah Brown , Margaret Maglione , Maria Bolshakova , Mary Rozelle , Jeremy Miles , Sheila Pakdaman , Sachi Yagyu , Aneesa Motala , Susanne Hempel; Tools for the Diagnosis of ADHD in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics April 2024; 153 (4): e2024065854. 10.1542/peds.2024-065854

Download citation file:

Ris (Zotero)
Reference Manager

Correct diagnosis is essential for the appropriate clinical management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents.

This systematic review provides an overview of the available diagnostic tools.

We identified diagnostic accuracy studies in 12 databases published from 1980 through June 2023.

Any ADHD tool evaluation for the diagnosis of ADHD, requiring a reference standard of a clinical diagnosis by a mental health specialist.

Data were abstracted and critically appraised by 1 reviewer and checked by a methodologist. Strength of evidence and applicability assessments followed Evidence-based Practice Center standards.

In total, 231 studies met eligibility criteria. Studies evaluated parental ratings, teacher ratings, youth self-reports, clinician tools, neuropsychological tests, biospecimen, EEG, and neuroimaging. Multiple tools showed promising diagnostic performance, but estimates varied considerably across studies, with a generally low strength of evidence. Performance depended on whether ADHD youth were being differentiated from neurotypically developing children or from clinically referred children.

Studies used different components of available tools and did not report sufficient data for meta-analytic models.

A valid and reliable diagnosis of ADHD requires the judgment of a clinician who is experienced in the evaluation of youth with and without ADHD, along with the aid of standardized rating scales and input from multiple informants across multiple settings, including parents, teachers, and youth themselves.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prevalent neurodevelopmental conditions in youth. Its prevalence has remained constant at ∼5.3% worldwide over the years, and diagnostic criteria have remained constant when based on rigorous diagnostic procedures. 1 Clinical diagnoses, however, have increased steadily over time, 2 and currently, ∼10% of US children receive an ADHD diagnosis. 3 Higher rates of clinical compared with research-based diagnoses are because of an increasing clinician recognition of youth who have ADHD symptoms that are functionally impairing but do not fully meet formal diagnostic criteria. 4 The higher diagnostic rates over time in clinical samples also results from youth receiving a diagnosis incorrectly. Some youth, for example, are misdiagnosed as having ADHD when they have symptoms of other disorders that overlap with ADHD symptoms, such as difficulty concentrating, which occurs in many other conditions. 5 Moreover, ADHD is more than twice as likely to be diagnosed in boys than in girls, 3 in lower-income families, 6 and in white compared with nonwhite youth 7 ; differences that derive at least in part from diagnostic and cultural biases. 8 – 11

Improving clinical diagnostic accuracy is essential to ensure that youth who truly have ADHD benefit from receiving treatment without delay. Similarly, youth who do not have ADHD should not be diagnosed since an incorrect diagnosis risks exposing them to unbeneficial treatments. 12 , 13 Clinician judgement alone, however, especially by nonspecialist clinicians, is poor in diagnosing ADHD 14 compared with expert, research-grade diagnoses made by mental health clinicians. 15 Accurately diagnosing ADHD is difficult because diagnoses are often made using subjective clinical impressions, and putative diagnostic tools have a confusing, diverse, and poorly described evidence base that is not widely accessible. The availability of valid diagnostic tools would especially help to reduce misdiagnoses from cultural biases and symptom overlap with ADHD. 12 , 16 – 19

This review summarizes evidence for the performance of tools for children and adolescents with ADHD. We did not restrict to a set of known diagnostic tools but instead explored the range of available diagnostic tools, including machine-learning assisted and virtual reality-based tools. The review aimed to assess how diagnostic performance varies by clinical setting and patient characteristics.

The review aims were developed in consultation with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the topic nominator American Academy of Pediatrics, key informants, a technical expert panel (TEP), and public input. The TEP reviewed the protocol and advised on key outcomes. Subgroup analyses and key outcomes were prespecified. The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022312656) and the protocol is available on the AHRQ Web site as part of a larger evidence report on ADHD. The systematic review followed Methods of the (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center Program. 20

Population: age <18 years.

Interventions: any ADHD tool for the diagnosis of ADHD.

Comparators: diagnosis by a mental health specialist, such as a psychologist, psychiatrist, or other provider, who often used published scales or semistructured diagnostic interviews to ensure a reliable DSM-based diagnosis of ADHD.

Key outcomes: diagnostic accuracy (eg, sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve).

Setting: any.

Study design: diagnostic accuracy studies.

Other: English language, published from 1980 to June 2023.

We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We identified reviews for reference-mining through PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Campbell Collaboration, What Works in Education, PROSPERO, ECRI Guidelines Trust, G-I-N, and ClinicalKey. The peer reviewed strategy is in the Supplemental Appendix . All citations were screened by trained literature reviewers supported by machine learning ( Fig 1 ). Two independent reviewers assessed full text studies for eligibility. The TEP reviewed studies to ensure all were captured. Publications reporting on the same participants were consolidated into 1 record.

Literature flow diagram.

The data abstraction form included extensive guidance to aid reproducibility and standardization in recording study details, results, risk of bias, and applicability. One reviewer abstracted data and a methodologist checked accuracy and completeness. Data are publicly available in the Systematic Review Data Repository.

We assessed characteristics pertaining to patient selection, index test, reference standard, flow and timing that may have introduced bias, and evaluated applicability of study results, such as whether the test, its conduct, or interpretation differed from how the test is used in clinical practice. 21 , 22

We differentiated parent, teacher, and youth self-report ratings; tools for clinicians; neuropsychological tests; biospecimens; EEG; and neuroimaging. We organized analyses according to prespecified outcome measures. A narrative overview summarized the range of diagnostic performance for key outcomes. Because lack of reported detail in many individual studies hindered use of meta-analytic models, we created summary figures to document the diagnostic performance reported in each study. We used meta-regressions across studies to assess the effects of age, comorbidities, racial and ethnic composition, and diagnostic setting (differentiating primary care, specialty care, school settings, mixed settings, and not reported) on diagnostic performance. One researcher with experience in use of specified standardized criteria 23 initially assessed the overall strength of evidence (SoE) (see Supplemental Appendix ) for each study, then discussed it with the study team to communicate our confidence in each finding.

We screened 23 139 citations and 7534 publications retrieved as full text against the eligibility criteria. In total, 231 studies reported in 290 publications met the eligibility criteria (see Fig 1 ).

Methodological quality of the studies varied. Selection bias was likely in two-thirds of studies; several were determined to be problematic in terms of reported study flow and timing of assessments (eg, not stating whether diagnosis was known before the results of the index test); and several lacked details on diagnosticians or diagnostic procedures ( Supplemental Fig 1 ). Applicability concerns limited the generalizability of findings ( Supplemental Fig 2 ), usually because youth with comorbidities were excluded. Many different tools were assessed within the broader categories (eg, within neuropsychological tests), and even when reporting on the same diagnostic tool, studies often used different components of the tool (eg, different subscales of rating scales), or they combined components in a variety of ways (eg, across different neuropsychological test parameters).

The evidence table ( Supplemental Table 10 , Supplemental Appendix ) shows each study’s finding. The following highlights key findings across studies.

Fifty-nine studies used parent ratings to diagnose ADHD ( Fig 2 ). The most frequently evaluated tool was the CBCL (Child Behavior Checklist), alone or in combination with other tools, often using different score cutoffs for diagnosis, and evaluating different subscales (most frequently the attention deficit/hyperactivity problems subscale). Sensitivities ranged from 38% (corresponding specificity = 96%) to 100% (specificity = 4% to 92%). 24 , 25

Diagnostic performance parent and teacher ratings. For a complete list of scales see Supplemental Appendix .

Area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operator characteristic curves ranged widely from 0.55 to 0.95 but 3 CBCL studies reported AUCs of 0.83 to 0.84. 26 – 28 Few studies reported measurement of reliability. SoE was downgraded for study limitation (lack of detailed reporting), imprecision (large performance variability), and inconsistent findings ( Supplemental Table 1 ).

Twenty-three studies used teacher ratings to diagnose ADHD ( Fig 2 ). No 2 studies reported on rater agreement, internal consistency, or test-retest reliability for the same teacher rating scale. The highest sensitivity was 97% (specificity = 26%). 25 The Teacher Report Form, alone or in combination with Conners teacher rating scales, yielded sensitivities of 72% to 79% 29 and specificities of 64% to 76%. 30 , 32 reported AUCs ranged from 0.65 to 0.84. 32 SoE was downgraded to low for imprecision (large performance variability) and inconsistency (results for specific tools not replicated), see Supplemental Table 2 .

Six studies used youth self-reports to diagnose ADHD. No 2 studies used the same instrument. Sensitivities ranged from 53% (specificity = 98%) to 86% (specificity = 70%). 35 AUCs ranged from 0.56 to 0.85. 36 We downgraded SoE for domain inconsistency (only 1 study reported on a given tool and outcome), see Supplemental Table 3 .

Thirteen studies assessed diagnostic performance of ratings combined across informants, often using machine learning for variable selection. Only 1 study compared performance of combined data to performance from single informants, finding negligible improvement (AUC youth = 0.71; parent = 0.85; combined = 0.86). 37 Other studies reported on limited outcome measures and used ad hoc methods to combine information from multiple informants. The best AUC was reported by a machine learning supported study combining parent and teacher ratings (AUC = 0.98). 38

Twenty-four studies assessed additional tools, such as interview guides, that can be used by clinicians to aid diagnosis of ADHD. Sensitivities varied, ranging from 67% (specificity = 65%) to 98% (specificity = 100%); specificities ranged from 36% (sensitivity = 89%) to 100% (sensitivity = 98%). 39 Some of the tools measured activity levels objectively using an actometer or commercially available activity tracker, either alone or as part of a diagnostic test battery. Reported performance was variable (sensitivity range 25% to 100%, 40 specificity range 66% to 100%, 40 AUCs range 0.75–0.9996 41 ). SoE was downgraded for imprecision (large performance variability) and inconsistency (outcomes and results not replicated), see Supplemental Table 4 .

Seventy-four studies used measures from various neuropsychological tests, including continuous performance tests (CPTs). Four of these included 3- and 4-year-old children. 42 – 44 A large majority used a CPT, which assessed omission errors (reflecting inattention), commission errors (impulsivity), and reaction time SD (response time variability). Studies varied in use of traditional visual CPTs, such as the Test of Variables of Attention, more novel, multifaceted “hybrid” CPT paradigms, and virtual reality CPTs built upon environments designed to emulate real-world classroom distractibility. Studies used idiosyncratic combinations of individual cognitive measures to achieve the best performance, though many reported on CPT attention and impulsivity measures.

Sensitivity for all neuropsychological tests ranged from 22% (specificity = 96%) to 100% (specificity = 100%) 45 ( Fig 3 ), though the latter study reported performance for unique composite measures without replication. Specificities ranged from 22% (sensitivity = 91%) 46 to 100% (sensitivity = 100% to 75%). 45 , 47 AUCs ranged from 0.59 to 0.93. 48 Sensitivity for all CPT studies ranged from 22% ( specificity = 96) to 100% (specificity = 75%). 49 Specificities for CPTs ranged from 22% (sensitivity = 91%) to 100% (sensitivity = 89%) 47 ( Fig 3 ). AUCs ranged from 0.59 to 0.93. 50 , 51 SoE was deemed low for imprecise studies (large performance variability), see Supplemental Table 5.

Diagnostic performance neuropsychological tests, CPTs, activity monitors, biospecimen, EEG.

Seven studies assessed blood or urine biomarkers to diagnose ADHD. These measured erythropoietin or erythropoietin receptor, membrane potential ratio, micro RNA levels, or urine metabolites. Sensitivities ranged from 56% (specificity = 95%) to 100% (specificity = 100% for erythropoietin and erythropoietin receptors levels). 52 Specificities ranged from 25% (sensitivity = 79%) to 100% (sensitivity = 100%). 52 AUCs ranged from 0.68 to 1.00. 52 Little information was provided on reliability of markers or their combinations. SoE was downgraded for inconsistent and imprecise studies ( Supplemental Table 6 ).

Forty-five studies used EEG markers to diagnose ADHD. EEG signals were obtained in a variety of patient states, even during neuropsychological test performance. Two-thirds used machine learning algorithms to select classification parameters. Several combined EEG with demographic variables or rating scales. Sensitivity ranged widely from 46% to 100% (corresponding specificities 74 and 71%). 53 , 54 One study that combined EEG with demographics data supported by machine learning reported perfect sensitivity and specificity. 54 Specificity was also variable and ranged from 38% (sensitivity = 95%) to 100% (specificities = 71% or 100%). 53 – 56 Reported AUCs ranged from 0.63 to 1.0. 57 , 58 SoE was downgraded for study imprecision (large performance variability) and limitations (diagnostic approaches poorly described), see Supplemental Table 7 .

Nineteen studies used neuroimaging for diagnosis. One public data set (ADHD-200) produced several analyses. All but 2 used MRI: some functional MRI (fMRI), some structural, and some in combination, with or without magnetic resonance spectroscopy (2 used near-infrared spectroscopy). Most employed machine learning to detect markers that optimized diagnostic classifications. Some combined imaging measures with demographic or other clinical data in the prediction model. Sensitivities ranged from 42% (specificity = 95%) to 99% (specificity = 100%) using resting state fMRI and a complex machine learning algorithm 56 to differentiate ADHD from neurotypical youth. Specificities ranged from 55% (sensitivity = 95%) to 100% 56 using resting state fMRI data. AUCs ranged from 0.58 to over 0.99, 57 SoE was downgraded for imprecision (large performance variability) and study limitations (diagnostic models are often not well described, and the number and type of predictor variables entering the model were unclear). Studies generally did not validate diagnostic algorithms or assess performance measures in an independent sample ( Supplemental Table 8 ).

Regression analyses indicated that setting was associated with both sensitivity ( P = .03) and accuracy ( P = .006) but not specificity ( P = .68) or AUC ( P = .28), with sensitivities lowest in primary care ( Fig 4 ). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were also lower when differentiating youth with ADHD from a clinical sample than from typically developing youth (sensitivity P = .04, specificity P < .001, AUC P < .001) ( Fig 4 ), suggesting that clinical population is a source of heterogeneity in diagnostic performance. Findings should be interpreted with caution, however, as they were not obtained in meta-analytic models and, consequently, do not take into account study size or quality.

Diagnostic performance by setting and population.

Supplemental Figs 3–5 in the Supplemental Appendix document effects by age and gender. We did not detect statistically significant associations of age with sensitivity ( P = .54) or specificity ( P = .37), or associations of the proportion of girls with sensitivity ( P = .63), specificity ( P = .80), accuracy ( P = .34), or AUC ( P = .90).

We identified a large number of publications reporting on ADHD diagnostic tools. To our knowledge, no prior review of ADHD diagnostic tools has been as comprehensive in the range of tools, outcomes, participant ages, and publication years. Despite the large number of studies, we deemed the strength of evidence for the reported performance measures across all categories of diagnostic tools to be low because of large performance variability across studies and various limitations within and across studies.

We required that studies report diagnoses when using the tool compared with diagnoses made by expert mental health clinicians. Studies most commonly reported sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate) when a study-specific diagnostic threshold was applied to measures from the tool being assessed. Sensitivity and specificity depend critically on that study-specific threshold, and their values are inherently a trade-off, such that varying the threshold to increase either sensitivity or specificity reduces the other. Interpreting diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity, and comparing those performance measures across studies, is therefore challenging. Consequently, researchers more recently often report performance for sensitivity and specificity in terms of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves, a plot of sensitivity versus specificity across the entire range of possible diagnostic thresholds. The area under this ROC curve (AUC) provides an overall, single index of performance that ranges from 0.5 (indicating that the tool provides no information above chance for classification) to 1.0 (indicating a perfect test that can correctly classify all participants as having ADHD and all non-ADHD participants as not having it). AUC values of 90 to 100 are commonly classified as excellent performance; 80 to 90 as good; 70 to 80 as fair; 60 to 70 as poor; and 50 to 60 failed performance.

Most research is available on parental ratings. Overall, AUCs for parent rating scales ranged widely from “poor” 58 to “excellent.” 59 Analyses restricted to the CBCL, the most commonly evaluated scale, yielded more consistent “good” AUCs for differentiating youth with ADHD from others in clinical samples, but the number of studies contributing data were small. Internal consistency for rating scale items was generally high across most rating scales. Test-retest reliability was good, though only 2 studies reported it. One study reported moderate rater agreement between mothers and fathers for inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity symptoms. Few studies included youth under 7 years of age.

AUCs for teacher rating scales ranged from “failed” 33 to “good.” 34 Internal consistency for scale items was generally high. Teacher ratings demonstrated very low rater agreement with corresponding parent scales, suggesting either a problem with the instruments or a large variability in symptom presentation with environmental context (home or school).

Though data were limited, self-reports from youth seemed to perform less well than corresponding parent and teacher reports, with AUCs ranging from “failed” for CBCL or ASEBA when distinguishing ADHD from other patients 33 to “good” for the SWAN in distinguishing ADHD from neurotypical controls. 36 , 37

Studies evaluating neuropsychological tests yielded AUCs ranging from “poor” 60 , 61 to “excellent.” 50 Many used idiosyncratic combinations of cognitive measures, which complicates interpretation of the results across studies. Nevertheless, extracting specific, comparable measures of inattention and impulsivity from CPTs yielded diagnostic performance ranging from “poor” to “excellent” in differentiating ADHD youth from neurotypical controls and “fair” in differentiating ADHD youth from other patients. 42 , 60 , 62 No studies provided an independent replication of diagnosis using the same measure.

Blood biomarkers yielded AUCs ranging from “poor” (serum miRNAs) 63 to “excellent” (erythropoietin and erythropoietin receptors levels) 52 in differentiating ADHD from neurotypical youth. None have been independently replicated, and test-retest reliability was not reported. Most EEG studies used machine learning for diagnostic classification. AUCs ranged from “poor” 64 to “excellent” when differentiating ADHD youth from neurotypical controls. 65 Diagnostic performance was not prospectively replicated in any independent samples.

Most neuroimaging studies relied on machine learning to develop diagnostic algorithms. AUCs ranged from “poor” 66 to “excellent” for distinguishing ADHD youth from neurotypically developing controls. 57 Most studies used pre-existing data sets or repositories to retrospectively discriminate youths with ADHD from neurotypical controls, not from other clinical populations and not prospectively, and none assessed test-retest reliability or the independent reproducibility of findings. Reporting of final mathematical models or algorithms for diagnosis was limited. Activity monitors have the advantage of providing inexpensive, objective, easily obtained, and quantified measures that can potentially be widely disseminated and scaled.

Studies of combined approaches, such as integrating diagnostic tools with clinician impressions, were limited. One study reported increased sensitivity and specificity when an initial clinician diagnosis combined EEG indicators (the reference standard was a consensus diagnosis from a panel of ADHD experts). 67 These findings were not independently replicated, however, and no test-retest reliability was reported.

Many studies aimed to distinguish ADHD youth from neurotypical controls, which is a distinction of limited clinical relevance. In clinically referred youth, most parents, teachers, and clinicians are reasonably confident that something is wrong, even if they are unsure whether the cause of their concern is ADHD. To be informed by a tool that the child is not typically developing is not particularly helpful. Moreover, we cannot know whether diagnostic performance for tools that discriminate ADHD youth only from neurotypical controls is determined by the presence of ADHD or by the presence of any other characteristics that accompany clinical “caseness,” such as the presence of comorbid illnesses or symptoms shared or easily confused with those of other conditions, or the effects of chronic stress or current or past treatment. The clinically more relevant and difficult question is, therefore, how well the tool distinguishes youth with ADHD from those who have other emotional and behavioral problems. Consistent with these conceptual considerations that argue for assessing diagnostic performance in differentiating youth with ADHD from those with other clinical conditions, we found significant evidence that, across all studies, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were all lower when differentiating youth with ADHD from a clinical sample than when differentiating them from neurotypical youth. These findings also suggest that the comparison population was a significant source of heterogeneity in diagnostic performance.

Despite the large number of studies on diagnostic tools, a valid and reliable diagnosis of ADHD ultimately still requires the judgement of a clinician who is experienced in the evaluation of youth with and without ADHD, along with the aid of standardized rating scales and input from multiple informants across multiple settings, including parents, teachers, and youth themselves. Diagnostic tools perform best when the clinical question is whether a youth has ADHD or is healthy and typically developing, rather than when the clinical question is whether a youth has ADHD or another mental health or behavioral problem. Diagnostic tools yield more false-positive and false-negative diagnoses of ADHD when differentiating youth with ADHD from youth with another mental health problem than when differentiating them from neurotypically developing youth.

Scores for rating scales tended to correlate poorly across raters, and ADHD symptoms in the same child varied across settings, indicating that no single informant in a single setting is a gold-standard for diagnosis. Therefore, diagnosis using rating scales will likely benefit from a more complete representation of symptom expression across multiple informants (parents, school personnel, clinicians, and youth) across more than 1 setting (home, school, and clinic) to inform clinical judgement when making a diagnosis, thus, consistent with current guidelines. 68 – 70 Unfortunately, methods for combining scores across raters and settings that improve diagnosis compared with scores from single raters have not been developed or prospectively replicated.

Despite the widespread use of neuropsychological testing to “diagnose” youth with ADHD, often at considerable expense, indirect comparisons of AUCs suggest that performance of neuropsychological test measures in diagnosing ADHD is comparable to the diagnostic performance of ADHD rating scales from a single informant. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of parent rating scales is typically better than neuropsychological test measures in head-to-head comparisons. 44 , 71 Furthermore, the overall SoE for estimates of diagnostic performance with neuropsychological testing is low. Use of neuropsychological test measures of executive functioning, such as the CPT, may help inform a clinical diagnosis, but they are not definitive either in ruling in or ruling out a diagnosis of ADHD. The sole use of CPTs and other neuropsychological tests to diagnose ADHD, therefore, cannot be recommended. We note that this conclusion regarding diagnostic value is not relevant to any other clinical utility that testing may have.

No independent replication studies have been conducted to validate EEG, neuroimaging, or biospecimen to diagnose ADHD, and no clinical effectiveness studies have been conducted using these tools to diagnose ADHD in the real world. Thus, these tools do not seem remotely close to being ready for clinical application to aid diagnosis, despite US Food and Drug Administration approval of 1 EEG measure as a purported diagnostic aid. 67 , 72

All studies of diagnostic tools should report data in more detail (ie, clearly report false-positive and -negative rates, the diagnostic thresholds used, and any data manipulation undertaken to achieve the result) to support meta-analytic methods. Studies should include ROC analyses to support comparisons of test performance across studies that are independent of the diagnostic threshold applied to measures from the tool. They should also include assessment of test-retest reliability to help discern whether variability in measures and test performance is a function of setting or of measurement variability over time. Future studies should address the influence of co-occurring disorders on diagnostic performance and how well the tools distinguish youth with ADHD from youth with other emotional and behavioral problems, not simply from healthy controls. More studies should compare the diagnostic accuracy of different test modalities, head-to-head. Independent, prospective replication of performance measures of diagnostic tools in real-world settings is essential before US Food and Drug Administration approval and before recommendations for widespread clinical use.

Research is needed to identify consensus algorithms that combine rating scale data from multiple informants to improve the clinical diagnosis of ADHD, which at present is often unguided, ad hoc, and suboptimal. Diagnostic studies using EEG, neuroimaging, and neuropsychological tests should report precise operational definitions and measurements of the variable(s) used for diagnosis, any diagnostic algorithm employed, the selected statistical cut-offs, and the number of false-positives and false-negatives the diagnostic tool yields to support future efforts at synthetic analyses.

Objective, quantitative neuropsychological test measures of executive functioning correlate only weakly with the clinical symptoms that define ADHD. 73 Thus, many youth with ADHD have normal executive functioning profiles on neuropsychological testing, and many who have impaired executive functioning on testing do not have ADHD. 74 Future research is needed to understand how test measures of executive functioning and the real-world functional problems that define ADHD map on to one another and how that mapping can be improved.

One of the most important potential uses of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in improving the clinical diagnosis of ADHD and treatment planning would be identification of effect modifiers for the performance of diagnostic tools: determining, for example, whether tools perform better in patients who are younger or older, in ethnic minorities, or those experiencing material hardship, or who have a comorbid illness or specific ADHD presentation. Future studies of ADHD should more systematically address the modifier effects of these patient characteristics. They should make available in public repositories the raw, individual-level data and the algorithms or computer code that will aid future efforts at replication, synthesis, and new discovery for diagnostic tools across data sets and studies.

Finally, no studies meeting our inclusion criteria assessed the consequences of being misdiagnosed or labeled as either having or not having ADHD, the diagnosis of ADHD specifically in preschool-aged children, or the potential adverse consequences of youth being incorrectly diagnosed with or without ADHD. This work is urgently needed.

We thank Cynthia Ramirez, Erin Tokutomi, Jennifer Rivera, Coleman Schaefer, Jerusalem Belay, Anne Onyekwuluje, and Mario Gastelum for help with data acquisition. We thank Kymika Okechukwu, Lauren Pilcher, Joanna King, and Robyn Wheatley from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Jennie Dalton and Paula Eguino Medina from PCORI, Christine Chang and Kim Wittenberg from AHRQ, and Mary Butler from the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center. We thank Glendy Burnett, Eugenia Chan, MD, MPH, Matthew J. Gormley, PhD, Laurence Greenhill, MD, Joseph Hagan, Jr, MD, Cecil Reynolds, PhD, Le'Ann Solmonson, PhD, LPC-S, CSC, and Peter Ziemkowski, MD, FAAFP who served as key informants. We thank Angelika Claussen, PhD, Alysa Doyle, PhD, Tiffany Farchione, MD, Matthew J. Gormley, PhD, Laurence Greenhill, MD, Jeffrey M. Halperin, PhD, Marisa Perez-Martin, MS, LMFT, Russell Schachar, MD, Le'Ann Solmonson, PhD, LPC-S, CSC, and James Swanson, PhD who served as a technical expert panel. Finally, we thank Joel Nigg, PhD, and Peter S. Jensen, MD for their peer review of the data.

Drs Peterson and Hempel conceptualized and designed the study, collected data, conducted the analyses, drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Trampush conducted the critical appraisal; Ms Brown, Ms Maglione, Drs Bolshakova and Padkaman, and Ms Rozelle screened citations and abstracted the data; Dr Miles conducted the analyses; Ms Yagyu designed and executed the search strategy; Ms Motala served as data manager; and all authors provided critical input for the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

This trial has been registered at PROSPERO (identifier CRD42022312656).

COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2024-065787 .

Data Sharing: Data are available in SRDRPlus.

FUNDING: The work is based on research conducted by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract 75Q80120D00009). The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded the research (PCORI Publication No. 2023-SR-03). The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ or PCORI, its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of PCORI, AHRQ or of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: The authors have indicated they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

area under the curve

Child Behavior Checklist

continuous performance test

functional magnetic resonance imaging

receiver operating characteristics

strength of evidence

technical expert panel

Supplementary data

Advertising Disclaimer »

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Affiliations

Editorial Board
Editorial Policies
Journal Blogs
Pediatrics On Call
Online ISSN 1098-4275
Print ISSN 0031-4005
Pediatrics Open Science
Hospital Pediatrics
Pediatrics in Review
AAP Grand Rounds
Latest News
Pediatric Care Online
Red Book Online
Pediatric Patient Education
AAP Toolkits
AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management

Mark C. Bolino,
Jacob M. Whitney,
Sarah E. Henry

Lessons from 69 articles published in top management and applied psychology journals.

Researchers recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic that were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology. The review highlights the numerous ways in which employees, teams, leaders, organizations, and societies were impacted and offers lessons for managing through future pandemics or other events of mass disruption.

The recent pandemic disrupted life as we know it, including for employees and organizations around the world. To understand such changes, we recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic. These papers were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology.

Mark C. Bolino is the David L. Boren Professor and the Michael F. Price Chair in International Business at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business. His research focuses on understanding how an organization can inspire its employees to go the extra mile without compromising their personal well-being.
JW Jacob M. Whitney is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at Kennesaw State University. His research interests include leadership, teams, and organizational citizenship behavior.
SH Sarah E. Henry is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include organizational citizenship behaviors, workplace interpersonal dynamics, and international management.

Partner Center

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

A.I.-Generated Garbage Is Polluting Our Culture

A colorful illustration of a series of blue figures lined up on a bright pink floor with a red background. The farthest-left figure is that of a robot; every subsequent figure is slightly more mutated until the final figure at the right is strangely disfigured.

By Erik Hoel

Mr. Hoel is a neuroscientist and novelist and the author of The Intrinsic Perspective newsletter.

Increasingly, mounds of synthetic A.I.-generated outputs drift across our feeds and our searches. The stakes go far beyond what’s on our screens. The entire culture is becoming affected by A.I.’s runoff, an insidious creep into our most important institutions.

Consider science. Right after the blockbuster release of GPT-4, the latest artificial intelligence model from OpenAI and one of the most advanced in existence, the language of scientific research began to mutate. Especially within the field of A.I. itself.

Adjectives associated with A.I.-generated text have increased in peer reviews of scientific papers about A.I.

Frequency of adjectives per one million words

Commendable

A study published this month examined scientists’ peer reviews — researchers’ official pronouncements on others’ work that form the bedrock of scientific progress — across a number of high-profile and prestigious scientific conferences studying A.I. At one such conference, those peer reviews used the word “meticulous” more than 34 times as often as reviews did the previous year. Use of “commendable” was around 10 times as frequent, and “intricate,” 11 times. Other major conferences showed similar patterns.

Such phrasings are, of course, some of the favorite buzzwords of modern large language models like ChatGPT. In other words, significant numbers of researchers at A.I. conferences were caught handing their peer review of others’ work over to A.I. — or, at minimum, writing them with lots of A.I. assistance. And the closer to the deadline the submitted reviews were received, the more A.I. usage was found in them.

If this makes you uncomfortable — especially given A.I.’s current unreliability — or if you think that maybe it shouldn’t be A.I.s reviewing science but the scientists themselves, those feelings highlight the paradox at the core of this technology: It’s unclear what the ethical line is between scam and regular usage. Some A.I.-generated scams are easy to identify, like the medical journal paper featuring a cartoon rat sporting enormous genitalia. Many others are more insidious, like the mislabeled and hallucinated regulatory pathway described in that same paper — a paper that was peer reviewed as well (perhaps, one might speculate, by another A.I.?).

What about when A.I. is used in one of its intended ways — to assist with writing? Recently, there was an uproar when it became obvious that simple searches of scientific databases returned phrases like “As an A.I. language model” in places where authors relying on A.I. had forgotten to cover their tracks. If the same authors had simply deleted those accidental watermarks, would their use of A.I. to write their papers have been fine?

What’s going on in science is a microcosm of a much bigger problem. Post on social media? Any viral post on X now almost certainly includes A.I.-generated replies, from summaries of the original post to reactions written in ChatGPT’s bland Wikipedia-voice, all to farm for follows. Instagram is filling up with A.I.-generated models, Spotify with A.I.-generated songs. Publish a book? Soon after, on Amazon there will often appear A.I.-generated “workbooks” for sale that supposedly accompany your book (which are incorrect in their content; I know because this happened to me). Top Google search results are now often A.I.-generated images or articles. Major media outlets like Sports Illustrated have been creating A.I.-generated articles attributed to equally fake author profiles. Marketers who sell search engine optimization methods openly brag about using A.I. to create thousands of spammed articles to steal traffic from competitors.

Then there is the growing use of generative A.I. to scale the creation of cheap synthetic videos for children on YouTube. Some example outputs are Lovecraftian horrors, like music videos about parrots in which the birds have eyes within eyes, beaks within beaks, morphing unfathomably while singing in an artificial voice, “The parrot in the tree says hello, hello!” The narratives make no sense, characters appear and disappear randomly, and basic facts like the names of shapes are wrong. After I identified a number of such suspicious channels on my newsletter, The Intrinsic Perspective, Wired found evidence of generative A.I. use in the production pipelines of some accounts with hundreds of thousands or even millions of subscribers.

As a neuroscientist, this worries me. Isn’t it possible that human culture contains within it cognitive micronutrients — things like cohesive sentences, narrations and character continuity — that developing brains need? Einstein supposedly said : “If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be very intelligent, read them more fairy tales.” But what happens when a toddler is consuming mostly A.I.-generated dream-slop? We find ourselves in the midst of a vast developmental experiment.

There’s so much synthetic garbage on the internet now that A.I. companies and researchers are themselves worried, not about the health of the culture, but about what’s going to happen with their models. As A.I. capabilities ramped up in 2022, I wrote on the risk of culture’s becoming so inundated with A.I. creations that when future A.I.s are trained, the previous A.I. output will leak into the training set, leading to a future of copies of copies of copies, as content became ever more stereotyped and predictable. In 2023 researchers introduced a technical term for how this risk affected A.I. training: model collapse . In a way, we and these companies are in the same boat, paddling through the same sludge streaming into our cultural ocean.

With that unpleasant analogy in mind, it’s worth looking to what is arguably the clearest historical analogy for our current situation: the environmental movement and climate change. For just as companies and individuals were driven to pollute by the inexorable economics of it, so, too, is A.I.’s cultural pollution driven by a rational decision to fill the internet’s voracious appetite for content as cheaply as possible. While environmental problems are nowhere near solved, there has been undeniable progress that has kept our cities mostly free of smog and our lakes mostly free of sewage. How?

Before any specific policy solution was the acknowledgment that environmental pollution was a problem in need of outside legislation. Influential to this view was a perspective developed in 1968 by Garrett Hardin, a biologist and ecologist. Dr. Hardin emphasized that the problem of pollution was driven by people acting in their own interest, and that therefore “we are locked into a system of ‘fouling our own nest,’ so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.” He summed up the problem as a “tragedy of the commons.” This framing was instrumental for the environmental movement, which would come to rely on government regulation to do what companies alone could or would not.

Once again we find ourselves enacting a tragedy of the commons: short-term economic self-interest encourages using cheap A.I. content to maximize clicks and views, which in turn pollutes our culture and even weakens our grasp on reality. And so far, major A.I. companies are refusing to pursue advanced ways to identify A.I.’s handiwork — which they could do by adding subtle statistical patterns hidden in word use or in the pixels of images.

A common justification for inaction is that human editors can always fiddle around with whatever patterns are used if they know enough. Yet many of the issues we’re experiencing are not caused by motivated and technically skilled malicious actors; they’re caused mostly by regular users’ not adhering to a line of ethical use so fine as to be nigh nonexistent. Most would be uninterested in advanced countermeasures to statistical patterns enforced into outputs that should, ideally, mark them as A.I.-generated.

That’s why the independent researchers were able to detect A.I. outputs in the peer review system with surprisingly high accuracy: They actually tried. Similarly, right now teachers across the nation have created home-brewed output-side detection methods , like adding hidden requests for patterns of word use to essay prompts that appear only when copied and pasted.

In particular, A.I. companies appear opposed to any patterns baked into their output that can improve A.I.-detection efforts to reasonable levels, perhaps because they fear that enforcing such patterns might interfere with the model’s performance by constraining its outputs too much — although there is no current evidence this is a risk. Despite public pledges to develop more advanced watermarking, it’s increasingly clear that the companies are dragging their feet because it goes against the A.I. industry’s bottom line to have detectable products.

To deal with this corporate refusal to act we need the equivalent of a Clean Air Act: a Clean Internet Act. Perhaps the simplest solution would be to legislatively force advanced watermarking intrinsic to generated outputs, like patterns not easily removable. Just as the 20th century required extensive interventions to protect the shared environment, the 21st century is going to require extensive interventions to protect a different, but equally critical, common resource, one we haven’t noticed up until now since it was never under threat: our shared human culture.

Erik Hoel is a neuroscientist, a novelist and the author of The Intrinsic Perspective newsletter.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Frontiers in Dental Medicine
Systems Integration
Research Topics

Craniofacial Defects: Advancing Functional Reconstruction Strategies for Improved Outcomes

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Craniofacial defects encompass a range of deformities affecting the skull, facial bones, and soft tissues, often resulting from trauma, genetic diseases, or abnormal embryonic development. These defects can have severe implications, including intellectual disability and visual impairment, necessitating functional reconstruction for optimal patient outcomes. However, despite extensive research in both clinical and basic sciences, the development of novel and effective strategies for craniofacial defect reconstruction remains an ongoing challenge. To address this gap in knowledge, we invite original research, case reports, and review papers that explore various aspects of functional reconstruction for craniofacial defects. Specifically, we seek contributions that delve into the following areas: -Advanced clinical investigations, showcasing current functional reconstruction strategies and surgical techniques, and their efficacy in treating craniofacial defects -Cell biology and biomedical technology for reconstructing craniofacial defects -Immunotherapeutic strategy to manipulate oral inflammation-caused craniofacial defects, such as maxillofacial bone loss, craniofacial muscle fibrosis, facial skin scar, etc -Application of computational technology, artificial intelligence, and additive manufacturing technology in treating craniofacial defects, including the defects that happen after oral oncology treatment. -Advancements in basic science research, investigating the genetic changes, etiology, and pathogenesis of craniofacial defects to facilitate the exploration of new therapeutic strategies. -Other related research and reviews that contribute to our understanding of craniofacial defects and their management. By collating and sharing the latest insights in this field, we aim to accelerate progress in functional reconstruction, ultimately improving the quality of life for individuals with craniofacial defects.

Keywords : craniofacial defects, genetic disease, embryonic development, trauma

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, submission deadlines, participating journals.

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

Biomaterials Science

Highly-ordered assembled organic fluorescent materials for high-resolution bio-sensing: a review.

* Corresponding authors

a Key Laboratory of Rubber-Plastics of Ministry of Education/Shandong Province (QUST), School of Polymer Science & Engineering, Qingdao University of Science & Technology, 53-Zhengzhou Road, Qingdao, PR China E-mail: [email protected]

Organic fluorescent materials (OFMs) play a crucial role in the development of biosensors, enabling the extraction of biochemical information within cells and organisms, extending to the human body. Concurrently, OFM biosensors contribute significantly to the progress of modern medical and biological research. However, the practical applications of OFM biosensors face challenges, including issues related to low resolution, dispersivity, and stability. To overcome these challenges, scientists have introduced interactive elements to enhance the order of OFMs. Highly-ordered assembled OFMs represent a novel material type applied to biosensors. In comparison to conventional fluorescent materials, highly-ordered assembled OFMs typically exhibit robust anti-diffusion properties, high imaging contrast, and excellent stability. This approach has emerged as a promising method for effectively tracking bio-signals, particularly in the non-invasive monitoring of chronic diseases. This review introduces several highly-ordered assembled OFMs used in biosensors and also discusses various interactions that are responsible for their assembly, such as hydrogen bonding, π–π interaction, dipole–dipole interaction, and ion electrostatic interaction. Furthermore, it delves into the various applications of these biosensors while addressing the drawbacks that currently limit their commercial application. This review aims to provide a theoretical foundation for designing high-performance, highly-ordered assembled OFM biosensors suitable for practical applications. Additionally, it sheds light on the evolving trends in OFM biosensors and their application fields, offering valuable insights into the future of this dynamic research area.

Graphical abstract: Highly-ordered assembled organic fluorescent materials for high-resolution bio-sensing: a review

This article is part of the themed collection: Biomaterials Science Recent Review Articles, 2024

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

Z. Wang, Z. Chen, Z. Zhang, H. Wang and H. Zhang, Biomater. Sci. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3BM02070C

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

IMAGES

How to Write an Article Critique
Research Article Critique
A Critique Paper on the Article Free Essay Example
How to Write an Article Critique in Five Simple Steps
Article critique. Article Critique Examples: Topics, Outlines, Titles
Research Article Critique Sample

VIDEO

Research Critique of Methodology/Chapter-3
How to write an article review 1
Research Essay
How to write essays, thesis and research
'What is Criticism?' by Roland Barthes, Notes and Summary, MA English SEM 2, Poststructuralism, UGC
Research Essay Writing PPWVIDEO pptx

COMMENTS

Writing an Article Critique
An article critique requires you to critically read a piece of research and identify and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the article. How is a critique different from a summary? A summary of a research article requires you to share the key points of the article so your reader can get a clear picture of what the article is about.
PDF Topic 8: How to critique a research paper 1
1. Use these guidelines to critique your selected research article to be included in your research proposal. You do not need to address all the questions indicated in this guideline, and only include the questions that apply. 2. Prepare your report as a paper with appropriate headings and use APA format 5th edition.
PDF Critique/Review of Research Article
1. for Writing a Research Critique. of or by identifying the publication (see Table 1). If the of the publication in which it appeared published it title, author(s), date of publication, and the name in In credentials (and a peer-reviewed applicable, introduction, you should also its consider theoretical of framework credibility researchers.
Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper
Abstract. Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and ...
Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author's argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher's claims. Introduction. Give an overview of the author's main points and how the author supports those ...
Writing a Critique
A 'critical review', or 'critique', is a complete type of text (or genre), discussing one particular article or book in detail. In some instances, you may be asked to write a critique of two or three articles (e.g. a comparative critical review). In contrast, a 'literature review', which also needs to be 'critical', is a part of a larger type ...
Components of a Critique Essay
Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers. Nursing : Research and Reviews, 2013, 67-75. Parts of a Critique Essay. There are 4 distinct components to a critique, and those are the: Introduction; ... In a critique essay, writers should always assume that those ...
How to Write an Article Critique Psychology Paper
To write an article critique, you should: Read the article, noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations. Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas. Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance. Critically evaluate the contents of the article ...
Critiquing Research Articles
Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.) Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon) The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
PDF Helpful Hints for Writing A Critique
Successful critiquing begins with the READING: ̈ Read the entire article, trying to identify the writer's main point. Underline any unfamiliar words as. you read, but do not stop to look them up until you have finished reading. ̈ Look up the unfamiliar words, and then carefully and slowly read the article again. This time look.
How to Critique an Article: Unleashing Your Inner Critic
Step 9: Presenting Your Critique. Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.
Writing Critiques
Writing Critiques. Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people's work in their academic area.
Critiquing a research article
Abstract. This article explores certain concepts relating to critiquing research papers. These include considering the peer review process for publication, demonstrating the need for critiquing, providing a way to carefully evaluate research papers and exploring the role of impact factors. Whilst all these features are considered in this ...
PDF CRITIQUING LITERATURE
CRITIQUING ARGUMENT . Most academic articles or books will put forward a claim or an argument of some kind. This might be explicit, such as those in argumentative papers, or the authors might use argumentative techniques in their discussion of data and results. When critiquing an argumentative article or book, which do not follow a research
(PDF) Critiquing A Research Paper A Practical Example
Critiquing a research paper is an important skill. It helps in the evaluation of the available research and its application to evidence-based medicine, However, it requires a systematic approach.
Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews
Scoping Review: Aims to quickly map a research area, documenting key concepts, sources of evidence, methodologies used. Typically, scoping reviews do not judge the quality of the papers included in the review. They tend to produce descriptive accounts of a topic area. Kalun P, Dunn K, Wagner N, Pulakunta T, Sonnadara R.
Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study
Because there are few published examples of critique examples, this article provides the practical points of conducting a formally written quantitative research article critique while providing a ...
PDF Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article
also need to consider where and when the article was published and who wrote it. This handout presents guidelines for writing a research critique and questions to consider in writing a critique. Guidelines for Writing a Research Critique 1. Begin your critique by identifying the article's title, author(s), date of publication, and the name of
Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study
However, a fundamental knowledge of research methods is still needed in order to be successful. Because there are few published examples of critique examples, this article provides the practical points of conducting a formally written quantitative research article critique while providing a brief example to demonstrate the principles and form.
How To Write An Article Critique: 4 Steps To Follow
Step 1: Read the Piece. As you read through the article, you should take notes and answer the questions above. If you want to write a decisive critique, you need to read the piece first. On the other hand, you don't want to try to read a summary and grasp everything from the article. Otherwise, you risk losing a significant amount of context ...
Critiquing Research Evidence for Use in Practice: Revisited
APPRAISING THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE. Some aspects of appraising a research article are the same whether the study is quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods (Dale, 2005, Gray and Grove, 2017).Caldwell, Henshaw, and Taylor (2011) described the development of a framework for critiquing health research, addressing both quantitative and qualitative research with one list of questions.
PDF How to Write an Article Critique
How to Write an Article Critique o 1 Read the article. Try not to make any notes when you read the article for the first time. o 2 Read the article again, paying close attention to the main point or thesis of the article and the supporting points that the article uses. o 3 Read the article again. To write a thorough article critique you must ...
Tools for the Diagnosis of ADHD in Children and Adolescents: A
The review aims were developed in consultation with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the topic nominator American Academy of Pediatrics, key informants, a technical expert panel (TEP), and public input. The TEP reviewed the protocol and advised on key outcomes.
Critique Of A Research Article Nursing Essay
Critique research articles mean careful and critical appraisal of strength and limitations of a piece of research, rather than hunting for and exposing mistake (Polt and Beck 2008). A critical review is an evaluation of an academic article or essay. It makes judgment, positive or negative, about the text using various criteria.
Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management
The review highlights the numerous ways in which employees, teams, leaders, organizations, and societies were impacted and offers lessons for managing through future pandemics or other events of ...
Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR): A PRISMA-guided systematic
The present PRISMA-guided article systematically reviews the current state of research on the autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR). A systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science (last search: March 2022) selecting all studies that conducted quantitative scientific research on the ASMR phenomenon. Fifty-four studies focusing on ASMR were retrieved ...
Daniel Kahneman, pioneering behavioral psychologist
Daniel Kahneman, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, professor of psychology and public affairs, emeritus, and a Nobel laureate in economics whose groundbreaking behavioral science research changed our understanding of how people think and make decisions, died on March 27. He was 90. Kahneman joined the Princeton University faculty in 1993, following appointments at Hebrew ...
AI Garbage Is Already Polluting the Internet
A.I.-Generated Garbage Is Polluting Our Culture. Mr. Hoel is a neuroscientist and novelist and the author of The Intrinsic Perspective newsletter. Increasingly, mounds of synthetic A.I.-generated ...
Craniofacial Defects: Advancing Functional Reconstruction Strategies
However, despite extensive research in both clinical and basic sciences, the development of novel and effective strategies for craniofacial defect reconstruction remains an ongoing challenge.To address this gap in knowledge, we invite original research, case reports, and review papers that explore various aspects of functional reconstruction ...
Highly-ordered assembled organic fluorescent materials for high
Organic fluorescent materials (OFMs) play a crucial role in the development of biosensors, enabling the extraction of biochemical information within cells and organisms, extending to the human body. Concurrently, OFM biosensors contribute significantly to the progress of modern medical and biological research. Howe Biomaterials Science Recent Review Articles, 2024

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Publication types

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

Writing an article CRITIQUE

Writing a Critique

Read and Take Notes

Organising your writing

Explicit evaluation

Implicit evaluation

Linguistic features of a critical review

Summary language

Evaluation language

Conclusion language

Example extracts from a critical review

Use of source material in example a:

Use of source material in example b:

Further resources

IOE Writing Centre Online

Writing a Critique

Further Reading

Parts of a Critique Essay

Introduction

How to Write an Article Critique

Evaluating the Article

At a Glance

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Read the Results Section of the Article

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Introduction

Thesis Statement

Article Summary

Your Analysis

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

What This Means For You

SPH Writing Support Services

How to Critique an Article: Mastering the Article Evaluation Process

How to Critique an Article: Short Description

What Is an Article Critique: Understanding The Power of Evaluation

Unveiling the Key Aims of Writing an Article Critique

How to Critique an Article: Steps to Follow

Step 1: Read the Article

Step 2: Take Notes/ Make sketches

Step 3: Format Your Paper

How to Critique a Journal Article: Mastering the Steps

Got an Article that Needs Some Serious Critiquing?

An Article Critique: Journal Vs. Research

Article Critique Example

Tips on How to Critique an Article

Wrapping Up

Tired of Ordinary Critiques?

What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?

Writing Critiques

Types of critique

Published book review

Manuscript review

Language strategies for critiquing

Offering Praise and Criticism

Offering suggestions

Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

Maria Athina Martimianakis

Why reviews matter

What are the types of reviews conducted in Health Professions Education?

How to write and review a review article

Major Contributions

Brief Reports

Review Papers and Meta-Analyses

You Should Try This

Commentary and Opinions

Letters to the Editor

How To Write an Article Critique: 4 Steps To Follow

Materials Needed

Frequently Asked Questions

Selection Criteria

Supplementary data

Citing articles via

Affiliations

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center