RESEARCH EVALUATION FORM (AFTER CROWL, FIGURE 16.2, PAGES 350-1)

INCLUDE A COVER SHEET WITH THE TITLE OF THIS PROJECT -
RESEARCH EVALUATION FORM - THE  NAME OF THIS CLASS, YOUR NAME, AND THE
SEMESTER FOR WHICH THIS PAPER IS BEING PREPARED.  IT SHOULD LOOK
LIKE THIS: [delete these instructions in your actual paper!]

-----------------------------------------------------------

RESEARCH ARTICLE EVALUATION FORM

EDP 651, SECTION A

YOUR NAME: [LAWRENCE W. SHERMAN]

DATE: 6/16/2003

SUMMER, 2003

[this cover sheet will actually be the LAST sheet when you hand in the paper!]
[delete these two lines in your personal paper!]

----------------------------------------------------------

The next portion of your paper will be the xerox copy of the research article

you are reviewing.  To help answer the 8th section below, please see if you can

locate and copy the page from the journal that describes its mission and publication

policies.  Include this with your copy of the journal article.  I will actually

read the article first before I look at your evaulation.  I will then read your

evaluation of the research article next.  I won't know whose paper I am reading

until after I have assigned a grade to the paper.  

----------------------------------------------------------



RESEARCH ARTICLE EVALUATION FORM

[Form 16.2, p. 350-1: CROWL, 1996,]

Please use this template to evaluate the research article that you have retrieved

from King Library.  Write up a brief rationale explaining your answers (YES/NO) to

each of the items below.  Crowl (1996) suggests that "All of the questions below will

receive an answer of "yes" if the research is of high quality.  

Title of artile: _______________________________________________

Author(s): _____________________________________________________

Journal: _______________________________________________________

Volume # _______  Issue # _________  Date: ____________

1. Has the author stated the nature of the research question or the research hypotheses unambiguously?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 
 

2. Has the author(s) explained why it is important to carryout the study?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 
 

3. Has the author(s) related the importance of carrying out the study to information already known about the research question?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

4. Has the author(s) provided a logical, documented rationale for every hypothesis?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

5. Has the author developed each rationale in an unbiased manner?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

6. Can you identify clearly what variables are being investigated?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

7. Has the author(s) provided appropriate operational definitions for all variables?

2. PARTICIPANTS:

1. Has the author(s) explained how the participants in the study were selected?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

2. Has the author(s) explained how many of the participants originally selected to participate in the study actually did?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

3. Has the author(s) explained why participants originally selected may not have participated in the study?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

4. Has the author(s) selected the sample of participants in such a way that they accurately represent the population to which the findings of the study are to be applied?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

5. Has the author(s) stated the precise number of participants in the study?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

6. Has the author(s) provided sufficient demographic information about the participants, such as age, sex and other characteristics that might be relevant to the research question being investigated?

 3.  MATERIALS:

1. Has the author provided a description of all materials that have been used in the study?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

2. Has the author(s) given information concerning the validity and reliability of tests and measuring instruments in the study?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

3. Do the tests and measuring instruments have adequate validity and reliability?

 4.  PROCEDURES:

1. Is the procedure used to carry out the study described in sufficient detail that you could replicate the study if you had access to the same kinds of subjects and materials?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

2. Has the author used a research design appropriate for answering the research question?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

3. If the study is an experiment or a quasi-experiment, is it clear how subjects were assigned to experimental and control groups?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

4. Has the auathor designed the study in such a way to eliminate effects of possible confounding variables?

 5.  RESULTS:

1. Has the author used appropriate statistical techniques to analyze the data? While we are not using section IV of Crowl's book where statistics are the topic, simply report what the author(s) have said they used! Consult with me about their appropriateness!)


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

2. Has the author(s) accounted for every hypothesis by indicating which have been confirmed and which have not?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

3. Has the author refrained from analyzing data in ways that pertain to hypotheses other than the ones the author originally established?

 6.  DISCUSSION:

1. Has the author(s) related the study's findings to the existing literature, indicating in what ways the findings agre or disagree with previous findings?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

2. Has the author pointed out possible limitations of the study?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

3. Has the author(s) pointed out any practical or theoretical implications that the study's findings have?

 7.  REFERENCES:

1. Has the author included in the list of references all of the works cited in the study?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

2. Has the author(s) included recent as well as older references?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

3. Has the author(s) used mostly primary sources as references?

 8.  QUALITY OF THE JOURNAL IN WHICH THE STUDY APPEARED:

1. Does the journal in which the study appears have an editorial board comprised of people who appear to be competent professionals?


YES/NO: Your rationale here:
 

2. Does the journal in which the study appears follow a masked (blind) review policy?

  9. OVERALL CONCLUSION ABOUT THE ARTICLE:

• Now that you have completed answering all of the 8 parts of the evaluation form (above), what is your general impression of the level of quality of this journal article?

• Is it creditable (believable)?

• Would you recommend it to others?

• Do the findings positively inform you about your own practices?