There are going to be two articles, one is the Social Anxiety Disorder and Memory for Positive Feedback which you will be the critiquing, the second one is the article that will help you understand what I am looking for
1. Project 1: Critique an empirical article
All I want you to do is critique the Social Anxiety Disorder and Memory for Positive Feedback article, summary the main point and answer the bulletin point questions.
The critique will be 1-2 pages in length, typed, and double-spaced, 1-inch margins. Please make sure your full name, the class number, and Article Critique appear at the top of the page (nothing else). The body of the critique will begin with a summary paragraph of between 5-8 sentences, summarizing the major points of your critique. Below that, you will provide bullet points that address the following:
· What was the major research question or questions the authors were interested in examining?
· What were the independent and dependent variables in the study?
· What kind of research design was used in this study?
· What were major strengths of the research design?
· What were limitations of the research design?
· Describe all threats to internal validity that you can identify.
· Describe all threats to external validity that you can identify.
· Were the conclusions of the study in the Discussion section appropriate given the threats to validity you listed?
· If you were to change one aspect of the design or conduct of this study, what would you change and why?
Things to consider when critiquing the work of others
· Tone: Be respectful, sensitive, and positive where you can. Never demean someone, nor act as if you know all the answers. Avoid all superlatives
· Purpose: Try to understand what the researcher is trying to do. Make specific and clear constructive criticisms and suggestions based on that understanding. Avoid generalities.
· Balance: Put all specific criticisms in the context of an appreciation for the big picture, the overall purpose of the research. Also, make note of strengths and the positive aspects of the study and write-up.
· Rationale: Are you clear from the introduction what the rationale for the study is, and is the rationale logical and clear? If not, why, what is missing?
· Method: Is the method clear, appropriate, and adequate? What are the major potential confounds given these method choices?
· Discussion: Does the author properly explain the results without excessive certainty? Do they clearly sum up the major findings? Are the limitations of the results, given their design decisions, appropriate? Do they suggest future directions and are those directions logical and clear based on the results?
