You will choose 1 article from a peer reviewed journal related to a topic that aligns with the course objectives. Please review the posted link in the project tab on Blackboard to determine where to locate peer reviewed journal articles.  You may want to avoid systematic reviews, literature reviews, meta-analyses or qualitative studies as these will not lend well to the critique process. 

You will critically review 1 peer reviewed article related to nutrition.

Critique Instructions: 

Address all points clearly and concisely to stay within the page limit.   When submitting this you will also need to attach the original article that you are reviewing.   Use the drop off link to attach both files. 

At minimum your critique should address these elements: 

0.5 pt – APA citation of article

Section 1 – Elements influencing the believability of the research: 

0.5 pt – Writing Style – describe the writing style

0.5 pt – Author(s), credibility of the author(s)

0.5 pt – Report title – does the title match the report? length? attracting?

1.5 pts – Abstract – does the abstract summarize the research question, methods, data analysis, results and conclusion?

Section 2 – Elements influencing the robustness of the research: 

2.5 pts – Purpose/research problem – What is the research problem or research hypothesis?  Is the problem clearly identified? Is the significance of the problem noted and described?  Does the paper clarify the aim of the study?  Is there a clear link between the conceptual theory and the research question? Is the study practical?  

1 pts – Logical consistency – is there good flow? Organization? Are ideas presented clearly and well defined? 

2.5 pts – Literature review – Describe the review of the literature.   Are the references up to date? How is the literature organized?  Do previous studies lead toward the study or research question? Is the rationale and direction for the study indicated in the lit review? 

1.5 pts – Theoretical Framework – Are any models, theories, constructs used or presented in the development of the framework for this study? Is it logical?  

1.5 pts – Aims/objectives – are the aims of the study well established? Does this align with the theoretical framework?

2 pts – Sample – who, sample size, exclusion criteria, inclusion criteria, generalizability to the population

2 pts – Ethical Consideration – does the study describe ethical concerns? IRB approval, steps described?

1 pts – Operational Definitions – are new terms, definitions clearly defined in a logical manner for the reader?

3 pts – Methodology – what were the methods? Can you reproduce this study? Are there any concerns with the methods? 

2 pts – Data analysis/results – describe the data analysis procedures and results – were any results significant?

2 pts – Discussion/Conclusion – does the discussion add to the topic and the results section? Does this include implications for further research? Does the conclusion discuss limitations of the study? 

0.5 pt – References – were references up to date, from credible source 

Hello i need a Good and Positive Comment related with this argument .A paragraph  with no more  90 words.

 Deactivated

Debbieann Hylton 

1 posts

Re:Topic 5 DQ 2

I have come across an example of an article (“Quiz”, rather) that asks participants “What Is More Likely to Kill You? Some of the comparisons are cheetahs (1) to falling out of bed (600); vending machines (2) to volcanoes (200); falls (8.8/100,000) to accidental poisonings (11.6/ 100,000), and icicles (100/ year) to lightning (51/ year). This article does use a few reputable sources- the falls to accidental poisoning ratios reference the CDC (which is an acceptable source for the American population. Of note, this article was obtained on the internet with the question “What is more likely to kill you?” The article caters to a worldwide audience, not just to Americans. The world hosts many different interfering independent variables that are not considered). 
In some cases, the author makes a generalization about (the whole of) what is likely to kill you, by comparing 2 completely different populations. For example, the comparison between icicles and lightning cites an article in the British newspaper Telegraph regarding Russian icicle fatalities (reported at 5 in one year; not 100 per year as the “quiz” purports) compared with lightning fatality statistics reported by the (US) NOAA. Not only are the sources statistically incompatible (regarding reputability and sampling techniques used), but the separate populations are not further compared for all variables. For example, statistics are not presented on lightning strikes in Russia, or icicle-related deaths in America (and from an Alaskan, trust me, they occur); nor does the article obtain a sample of any other population in the world. However, the story makes generalizations regarding the larger population from isolated occurrences and samples, and presents flawed “statistics” to a world-wide-web audience. 
Speaking of audiences, Wong & Hockenberry et. al (2005) stated that falls and trauma-related accidents kill the most toddlers and pre-schoolers per year; not accidental poisonings as the author Perry maintains (Perry cites the CDC, for adult American deaths). As a geriatric nurse, I also believe that falls kill more elderly people than poisonings. I’m assuming that the article makes assumptions that the audience is American and middle-aged, judging by the way that “facts” are presented that are relevant to this audience only. It fails to account for the population or audience as a whole. Furthermore, generalizations that are made do not hold true for all age-groups (or even geographical) categories of the “population”, or audience