U.S. flag

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

Logo of cmej

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.

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

Banner

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: Apr 30, 2024 12:52 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services
  • 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
  • Guided Meditations
  • Verywell Mind Insights
  • 2024 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."

tips for critiquing a research article

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.

tips for critiquing a research article

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.

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

  • As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
  • Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the more that you read.
  • Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and use your university library's resources.

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."

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Published: 01 October 2023

tips for critiquing a research article

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

  • Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
  • Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
  • Hypothesis or aims of the study
  • Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

woman researching

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

  • What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
  • What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
  • Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
  • What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
  • Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
  • Were there any obvious biases?
  • If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

  • There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
  • Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
  • The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

  • Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Sarah Vogel View profile

Help and feedback, publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

  • 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

logo

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

Banner

  • Queen's University Library
  • Research Guides

How to Critique an Article (Psychology)

Introduction.

  • The introduction is a justification for why the study was conducted.
  • By the end of the introduction you should have a very good idea of what the researchers are going to study, and be convinced that the study is absolutely necessary to advance the field.
  • The justification should be a combination of improving on previous research and good theoretical reasons and practical reasons for why the study is important.
  • If the authors are talking about a controversial issue, are they presenting both sides in a reasonable way? Is their choice of one side over the other based on hard evidence?
  • Do you understand what their hypotheses are e.g. what they expect to find?
  • It is not good enough just to say that the study has not been done before. There are plenty of topics that have not been scientifically researched before but that doesn't mean that they should be. For example, I doubt that anyone has ever looked at the correlation between favorite color of Skittles and personality, but that doesn't mean that it should be researched unless there is a good theoretical reason for why we would expect a relationship and a good reason to think that knowing the relationship would advance our understanding of personality in some meaningful way.

tips for critiquing a research article

  • Last Updated: Nov 5, 2021 9:46 AM
  • Subjects: Psychology

Banner

Reading and Critiquing Research

  • Resources for Critiquing
  • Structure of a Research Article
  • Tips for Reading a Journal Article
  • At a loss for words?

Additional Research Starters

  • Literature Reviews by Cynthia Hunt Last Updated Jun 26, 2023 40 views this year

Assistant Director of Library Services

Profile Photo

Reading & Critiquing Research Articles

Reading and critiquing scholarly research articles is a skill developed with time and practice. As you read more within your discipline you'll likely discover patterns in the structure of the journal articles. You'll also get more experienced at differentiating between good and bad articles.

Critique is a synonym for evaluation. A critique is a critical analysis or evaluation of a subject, situation, literary work, or other type of evaluand. It is critical in the sense of being characterized by careful analysis and judgment and analytic in the sense of a separating or breaking up of a whole into its parts, especially for examination of these parts to find their nature, proportion, function, interrelationship, and so on. A common fallacy is equating critique with critical or negative , neither of which is implied. Source: Mathison, S. (2005). Encyclopedia of evaluation Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781412950558

Critical appraisal is a crucial part of evidence-based medicine, yet reading and critiquing a journal article can seem like a daunting and complex task. Breaking the process down into steps should enable you to build up the necessary skills, such as:

- Skimming the article in the first instance to look for the author's main points and conclusions

- Being familiar with the way that many journal articles are structured (abstract, method, results, discussion etc)

- Reflecting on and being critical of what you are reading

A checklist or toolkit such as those found in this research starter will guide you through this process in a structured way. This research starter will also direct you to articles, web pages, online guides and books to guide you toward effectively appraising scientific articles.

If you have any questions, suggestions for helpful books, links, or resources about critical appraisal please email [email protected]

So you've Found an Article! Great! Now What?

  • Questions to Ask
  • Toolkits and checklists for critical appraisal

The following questions may be helpful in determining whether you are reading a good scholarly article:

  • Is the research question clearly stated ? Does it seem significant?
  • Has the new research been framed well within the existing research? In other words, is there evidence of a literature review and does it seem complete?
  • Is the researcher's methodology clearly laid out? Does it seem appropriate for the research problem?
  • Do the researcher's conclusions make sense, given the results reported or the evidence presented? Are there any inconsistencies? Any apparent biases in the data or evidence?
  • Have limitations to the research or argument been identified?
  • Does the References list appear accurate and complete?
  • Next: Resources for Critiquing >>
  • Last Updated: Nov 15, 2022 2:43 PM
  • URL: https://goodwin.libguides.com/critiquing

Library homepage

  • school Campus Bookshelves
  • menu_book Bookshelves
  • perm_media Learning Objects
  • login Login
  • how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
  • hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

  • Download Page (PDF)
  • Download Full Book (PDF)
  • Periodic Table
  • Physics Constants
  • Scientific Calculator
  • Reference & Cite
  • Tools expand_more
  • Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

Humanities LibreTexts

8.1: What’s a Critique and Why Does it Matter?

  • Last updated
  • Save as PDF
  • Page ID 6510

  • Steven D. Krause
  • Eastern Michigan University

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Critiques evaluate and analyze a wide variety of things (texts, images, performances, etc.) based on reasons or criteria. Sometimes, people equate the notion of “critique” to “criticism,” which usually suggests a negative interpretation. These terms are easy to confuse, but I want to be clear that critique and criticize don’t mean the same thing. A negative critique might be said to be “criticism” in the way we often understand the term “to criticize,” but critiques can be positive too.

We’re all familiar with one of the most basic forms of critique: reviews (film reviews, music reviews, art reviews, book reviews, etc.). Critiques in the form of reviews tend to have a fairly simple and particular point: whether or not something is “good” or “bad.”

Academic critiques are similar to the reviews we see in popular sources in that critique writers are trying to make a particular point about whatever it is that they are critiquing. But there are some differences between the sorts of critiques we read in academic sources versus the ones we read in popular sources.

  • The subjects of academic critiques tend to be other academic writings and they frequently appear in scholarly journals.
  • Academic critiques frequently go further in making an argument beyond a simple assessment of the quality of a particular book, film, performance, or work of art. Academic critique writers will often compare and discuss several works that are similar to each other to make some larger point. In other words, instead of simply commenting on whether something was good or bad, academic critiques tend to explore issues and ideas in ways that are more complicated than merely “good” or “bad.”

The main focus of this chapter is the value of writing critiques as a part of the research writing process. Critiquing writing is important because in order to write a good critique you need to critically read : that is, you need to closely read and understand whatever it is you are critiquing, you need to apply appropriate criteria in order evaluate it, you need to summarize it, and to ultimately make some sort of point about the text you are critiquing.

These skills-- critically and closely reading, summarizing, creating and applying criteria, and then making an evaluation-- are key to The Process of Research Writing, and they should help you as you work through the process of research writing.

In this chapter, I’ve provided a “step-by-step” process for making a critique. I would encourage you to quickly read or skim through this chapter first, and then go back and work through the steps and exercises describe.

Selecting the right text to critique

The first step in writing a critique is selecting a text to critique. For the purposes of this writing exercise, you should check with your teacher for guidelines on what text to pick. If you are doing an annotated bibliography as part of your research project (see chapter 6, “The Annotated Bibliography Exercise”), then you are might find more materials that will work well for this project as you continuously research.

Short and simple newspaper articles, while useful as part of the research process, can be difficult to critique since they don’t have the sort of detail that easily allows for a critical reading. On the other hand, critiquing an entire book is probably a more ambitious task than you are likely to have time or energy for with this exercise. Instead, consider critiquing one of the more fully developed texts you’ve come across in your research: an in-depth examination from a news magazine, a chapter from a scholarly book, a report on a research study or experiment, or an analysis published in an academic journal. These more complex essays usually present more opportunities for issues to critique.

Depending on your teacher’s assignment, the “text” you critique might include something that isn’t in writing: a movie, a music CD, a multimedia presentation, a computer game, a painting, etc. As is the case with more traditional writings, you want to select a text that has enough substance to it so that it stands up to a critical reading.

Exercise 7.1

Pick out at least three different possibilities for texts that you could critique for this exercise. If you’ve already started work on your research and an annotated bibliography for your research topic, you should consider those pieces of research as possibilities. Working alone or in small groups, consider the potential of each text. Here are some questions to think about:

  • Does the text provide in-depth information? How long is it? Does it include a “works cited” or bibliography section?
  • What is the source of the text? Does it come from an academic, professional, or scholarly publication?
  • Does the text advocate a particular position? What is it, and do you agree or disagree with the text?
  • Election 2024
  • Entertainment
  • Newsletters
  • Photography
  • Personal Finance
  • AP Investigations
  • AP Buyline Personal Finance
  • AP Buyline Shopping
  • Press Releases
  • Israel-Hamas War
  • Russia-Ukraine War
  • Global elections
  • Asia Pacific
  • Latin America
  • Middle East
  • Election Results
  • Delegate Tracker
  • AP & Elections
  • Auto Racing
  • 2024 Paris Olympic Games
  • Movie reviews
  • Book reviews
  • Personal finance
  • Financial Markets
  • Business Highlights
  • Financial wellness
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Social Media

Fauci pushes back partisan attacks in fiery House hearing over COVID origins and controversies

Fauci testifies publicly before House panel on COVID origins, controversies

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus pandemic at Capitol Hill, Monday, June 3, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus pandemic at Capitol Hill, Monday, June 3, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

  • Copy Link copied

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, center, arrives for a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus pandemic at Capitol Hill, Monday, June 3, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, joined at left by Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., the ranking member, listens during testimony by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, June 3, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., asks a question during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus pandemic with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at Capitol Hill, Monday, June 3, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, June 3, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., holds up a photo as she condemns Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, during his testimony before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, June 3, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, center, testifies during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus pandemic at Capitol Hill, Monday, June 3, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

FILE - Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies during a hearing in Washington, Sept. 14, 2022. Fauci, who left the government in 2022, is facing heated questioning from Republican lawmakers about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The top U.S. infectious disease expert until 2022, Fauci was grilled by the House panel behind closed doors in January. On Monday, June 3, 2024, they’re questioning him again, in public and on camera. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top U.S. infectious disease expert until leaving the government in 2022, was back before Congress on Monday, calling “simply preposterous” Republican allegations that he’d tried to cover up origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A GOP-led subcommittee has spent over a year probing the nation’s response to the pandemic and whether U.S.-funded research in China may have played any role in how it started — yet found no evidence linking Fauci to wrongdoing.

He’d already been grilled behind closed doors, for 14 hours over two days in January. But Monday, Fauci testified voluntarily in public and on camera at a hearing that quickly deteriorated into partisan attacks.

Republicans repeated unproven accusations against the longtime National Institutes of Health scientist while Democrats apologized for Congress besmirching his name and bemoaned a missed opportunity to prepare for the next scary outbreak.

“He is not a comic book super villain,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., saying the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic had failed to prove a list of damaging allegations.

Fauci was the public face of the government’s early COVID-19 response under then-President Donald Trump and later as an adviser to President Joe Biden. A trusted voice to millions, he also was the target of partisan anger and choked up Monday as he recalled death threats and other harassment of himself and his family, threats he said still continue. Police later escorted hecklers out of the hearing room.

The main issue: Many scientists believe the virus most likely emerged in nature and jumped from animals to people, probably at a wildlife market in Wuhan, the city in China where the outbreak began. There’s no new scientific information supporting that the virus might instead have leaked from a laboratory. A U.S. intelligence analysis says there’s insufficient evidence to prove either way -- and a recent Associated Press investigation found the Chinese government froze critical efforts to trace the source of the virus in the first weeks of the outbreak.

Fauci has long said publicly that he was open to both theories but that there’s more evidence supporting COVID-19’s natural origins, the way other deadly viruses including coronavirus cousins SARS and MERS jumped into people. It was a position he repeated Monday as Republican lawmakers questioned if he worked behind-the-scenes to squelch the lab-leak theory or even tried to influence intelligence agencies.

“I have repeatedly stated that I have a completely open mind to either possibility and that if definitive evidence becomes available to validate or refute either theory, I will ready accept it,” Fauci said. He later invoked a fictional secret agent, decrying a conspiracy theory that “I was parachuting into the CIA like Jason Bourne and told the CIA that they should really not be talking about a lab leak.”

Republicans also have accused Fauci of lying to Congress in denying that his agency funded “gain of function” research – the practicing of enhancing a virus in a lab to study its potential real-world impact – at a lab in Wuhan.

NIH for years gave grants to a New York nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance that used some of the funds to work with a Chinese lab studying coronaviruses commonly carried by bats. Last month, the government suspended EcoHealth’s federal funding, citing its failure to properly monitor some of those experiments.

The definition of “gain of function” covers both general research and especially risky experiments to “enhance” the ability of potentially pandemic pathogens to spread or cause severe disease in humans. Fauci stressed he was using the risky experiment definition, saying “it would be molecularly impossible” for the bat viruses studied with EcoHealth’s funds to be turned into the virus that caused the pandemic.

In an exchange with Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., Fauci acknowledged that the lab leak is still an open question since it’s impossible to know if some other lab, not funded by NIH money, was doing risky research with coronaviruses.

Fauci did face a new set of questions about the credibility of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he led for 38 years. Last month, the House panel revealed emails from an NIAID colleague about ways to evade public records laws, including by not discussing controversial pandemic issues in government email.

Fauci denounced the actions of that colleague and insisted that “to the best of my knowledge I have never conducted official business via my personal email.”

The pandemic’s origins weren’t the only hot topic. The House panel also blasted some public health measures taken to slow spread of the virus before COVID-19 vaccines, spurred by NIAID research, helped allow a return to normalcy. Ordering people to stay 6 feet apart meant many businesses, schools and churches couldn’t stay open, and subcommittee chairman Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, called it a “burdensome” and arbitrary rule, noting that in his prior closed-door testimony Fauci had acknowledged it wasn’t scientifically backed.

Fauci responded Monday that the 6-feet distancing wasn’t his guideline but one created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention before scientists had learned that the new virus was airborne, not spread simply by droplets emitted a certain distance.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

tips for critiquing a research article

  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Alzheimer’s Takes a Financial Toll Long Before Diagnosis, Study Finds

New research shows that people who develop dementia often begin falling behind on bills years earlier.

Ben Casselman

By Ben Casselman

Long before people develop dementia, they often begin falling behind on mortgage payments, credit card bills and other financial obligations, new research shows.

A team of economists and medical experts at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Georgetown University combined Medicare records with data from Equifax, the credit bureau, to study how people’s borrowing behavior changed in the years before and after a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s or a similar disorder.

What they found was striking: Credit scores among people who later develop dementia begin falling sharply long before their disease is formally identified. A year before diagnosis, these people were 17.2 percent more likely to be delinquent on their mortgage payments than before the onset of the disease, and 34.3 percent more likely to be delinquent on their credit card bills. The issues start even earlier: The study finds evidence of people falling behind on their debts five years before diagnosis.

“The results are striking in both their clarity and their consistency,” said Carole Roan Gresenz, a Georgetown University economist who was one of the study’s authors. Credit scores and delinquencies, she said, “consistently worsen over time as diagnosis approaches, and so it literally mirrors the changes in cognitive decline that we’re observing.”

The research adds to a growing body of work documenting what many Alzheimer’s patients and their families already know: Decision-making, including on financial matters, can begin to deteriorate long before a diagnosis is made or even suspected. People who are starting to experience cognitive decline may miss payments, make impulsive purchases or put money into risky investments they would not have considered before the disease.

“There’s not just getting forgetful, but our risk tolerance changes,” said Lauren Hersch Nicholas, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine who has studied dementia’s impact on people’s finances. “It might seem suddenly like a good move to move a diversified financial portfolio into some stock that someone recommended.”

People in the early stages of the disease are also vulnerable to scams and fraud, added Dr. Nicholas, who was not involved in the New York Fed research. In a paper published last year , she and several co-authors found that people likely to develop dementia saw their household wealth decline in the decade before diagnosis.

The problems are likely to only grow as the American population ages and more people develop dementia. The New York Fed study estimates that 600,000 delinquencies will occur over the next decade as a result of undiagnosed memory disorders.

That probably understates the impact, the researchers argue. Their data includes only issues that show up on credit reports, such as late payments, not the much broader array of financial impacts that the diseases can cause. Wilbert van der Klaauw, a New York Fed economist who is another of the study’s authors, said that after his mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, his family discovered parking tickets and traffic violations that she had hidden.

“If anything, this is kind of an underestimate of the kind of financial difficulties people can experience,” he said.

Shortly before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, Jay Reinstein bought a BMW he could not afford.

“I went into a showroom and I came home with a BMW,” he said. “My wife was not thrilled.”

At the time, Mr. Reinstein had recently retired as assistant city manager for Fayetteville, N.C. He had been noticing memory issues for years, but dismissed them as a result of his demanding job. Only after his diagnosis did he learn that friends and colleagues had also noticed the changes but had said nothing.

Mr. Reinstein, 63, is fortunate, he added. He has a government pension, and a wife who can keep an eye on his spending. But for those with fewer resources, financial decisions made in the years before diagnosis can have severe consequences, leaving them without money at the time when they will need it most. The authors of the New York Fed study noted that the financial effects they saw predated most of the costs associated with the disease, such as the need for long-term care.

The study expands on past research in part through its sheer scale: Researchers had access to health and financial data on nearly 2.5 million older Americans with chronic health conditions, roughly half a million of whom were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or related disorders. (The records were anonymized, allowing researchers to combine the two sets of data without having access to identifying details on the individual patients.)

The large amount of data allowed researchers to slice the data more finely than in past studies, looking at the impact of race, sex, household size and other variables. Black people, for example, were more than twice as likely as white people to have financial problems before diagnosis, perhaps because they had fewer resources to begin with, and also because Black patients are often diagnosed later in the course of the disease.

The researchers hoped that the data could eventually allow them to develop a predictive algorithm that could flag people who might be suffering from impaired financial decision-making associated with Alzheimer’s disease — although they stressed that there were unresolved questions about who would have access to such information and how it would be used.

Until then, the researchers said, their findings should be a warning to older Americans and their families that they should prepare for the possibility of an Alzheimer’s diagnosis. That could mean taking steps such as granting a trusted person financial power of attorney, or simply paying attention to signs that someone might be behaving uncharacteristically.

Dr. Nicholas agreed.

“We should be thinking about the possibility of financial difficulties linked to a disease we don’t even know we have,” she said. “Knowing that, people should be on the lookout for these symptoms among friends and family members.”

Pam Belluck contributed reporting.

Tell us about your family's challenges with money management and Alzheimer's.

Ben Casselman writes about economics with a particular focus on stories involving data. He has covered the economy for nearly 20 years, and his recent work has focused on how trends in labor, politics, technology and demographics have shaped the way we live and work. More about Ben Casselman

A Guide to Making Better Financial Moves

Making sense of your finances can be complicated. the tips below can help..

Inheriting money after the death of a loved one while also grieving can be an emotional minefield, particularly for younger adults. Experts share ways to handle it wisely .

Either by choice or because they are priced out of the market, many people plan to never stop renting. Building wealth without home equity  requires a different mind-set.

You may feel richer as you pay your mortgage down and home values go up. As a result, some homeowners end up with a lot of home equity but low retirement savings. Here’s the problem  with that situation.

Can your investment portfolio reflect your values? If you want it to, it is becoming easier with each passing year .

The way advisers handle your retirement money is about to change: More investment professionals will be required to act in their customers’ best interest  when providing advice about their retirement money.

The I.R.S. estimates that 940,000 people who didn’t file their tax returns  in 2020 are due back money. The deadline for filing to get it is May 17.

IMAGES

  1. How to Critique of an Article

    tips for critiquing a research article

  2. PPT

    tips for critiquing a research article

  3. ️ Critiquing a research study. A Review of Guidelines for Critiquing

    tips for critiquing a research article

  4. How to Write a Critique Paper: Format, Tips, & Critique Paper Example

    tips for critiquing a research article

  5. Genuine Reasons for How to Critique a Research Article

    tips for critiquing a research article

  6. Research Article Critique Presentation

    tips for critiquing a research article

VIDEO

  1. Critiquing Research Paper

  2. Part 2, article critiquing strengths based social work approach

  3. ||guidelines for critiquing research reports||important points||

  4. Finding Academic Articles -- Critiquing Children's Culture

  5. Critique of a Sample Research Prospectus Part V

  6. PHARMACO ECONOMICS -Critiquing Research Articles Part 1 2022/3/29

COMMENTS

  1. 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.

  2. Writing an Article Critique

    Before you start writing, you will need to take some steps to get ready for your critique: Choose an article that meets the criteria outlined by your instructor. Read the article to get an understanding of the main idea. Read the article again with a critical eye. As you read, take note of the following: What are the credentials of the author/s?

  3. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

    All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1, 2 In fact, ... 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 ...

  4. PDF Critiquing Research Articles

    PLANNING AN ARTICLE CRITIQUE . CHOOSING AN ARTICLE TO REVIEW . Consider the following: • Who is the target audience? • Does it favour a particular research approach (paradigm)? • Is there an editorial board? What are their qualifications? • Is the peer-review process clearly explained? • When was the article published?

  5. PDF How to Write an Article Critique

    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 have thorough knowledge of the article. Reading it more than once helps to ensure that you haven't missed any important details. o 4 Consider the credentials of the author. Does the author of the article

  6. Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

    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.

  7. Critiquing Research Articles

    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: Apr 30, 2024 12:52 PM;

  8. PDF Critiquing a research article

    How to critically evaluate research articles is a topic addressed by a plethora of books on research methodology11e13 and by various ar-ticles.6,9,14,16 Set out below is a way of systemat-ically critiquing such articles in a structured way. This is the method for critiquing the literature taught to undergraduate and postgraduate stu-

  9. 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.

  10. How to Write an Article Critique Psychology Paper

    More Tips When Writing an Article Critique . As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.; Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the ...

  11. 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 ...

  12. How to Critique a Research Article

    Discussion. This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted.

  13. 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 ...

  14. Introduction

    The introduction is a justification for why the study was conducted. By the end of the introduction you should have a very good idea of what the researchers are going to study, and be convinced that the study is absolutely necessary to advance the field.

  15. Critiquing Quantitative Research Reports: Key Points for the Beginner

    The first step in the critique process is for the reader to browse the abstract and article for an overview. During this initial review a great deal of information can be obtained. The abstract should provide a clear, concise overview of the study. During this review it should be noted if the title, problem statement, and research question (or ...

  16. 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

  17. Resources for Critiquing

    Resources for Critiquing. A Critique (or Review) is a judgment about how good the article is according to some standard criteria. It can include interpretation and comparison but it's not a reflection or emotional reaction to the article. One page list, in pdf form, of things to look for in a research article. From American Nurses Association.

  18. LibGuides: Reading and Critiquing Research: Home

    Reading and critiquing scholarly research articles is a skill developed with time and practice. As you read more within your discipline you'll likely discover patterns in the structure of the journal articles. You'll also get more experienced at differentiating between good and bad articles. Critique is a synonym for evaluation.

  19. How to Critique an Article. Guide With Structure & Example

    Provide a brief description of why it is important in your specific context. Next, remember to mention all the interesting aspects that help to reveal the value of the article. Finally, talk about the author's intention and vision regarding the subject. The final part of the article critique must offer a summary of the main purpose. Learning ...

  20. PDF Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article

    If you are asked to write a critique of a research article, you should focus on these issues. You will 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.

  21. 8.1: What's a Critique and Why Does it Matter?

    Critiques evaluate and analyze a wide variety of things (texts, images, performances, etc.) based on reasons or criteria. Sometimes, people equate the notion of "critique" to "criticism," which usually suggests a negative interpretation. These terms are easy to confuse, but I want to be clear that critique and criticize don't mean the ...

  22. [PDF] How to Read and Critique a Scientific Research Article: Notes to

    This chapter discusses how to search for an Article, the anatomy of a Typical Scientific Article, and writing activities related to Critiquing an Article. Introduction How to Search for an Article Anatomy of a Typical Scientific Article A Brief Insight into How Scientific Articles Get Published in Journals The Introduction Section: Background Information on the Topic of Research More on the ...

  23. (PDF) Critiquing A Research Paper A Practical Example

    The results wer e discussed appropriat ely- No misinterpretation. 11. Streng ths motioned are the true strengths. 12. Limitations are r eported do not aff ec t the applicability of the study-. 13 ...

  24. Tips for protecting your mental health this summer

    When possible, avoid heat-trapping concrete and look for shady, natural environments. Stay social. It's possible that some of the mood decline for people who struggle with summer depression comes from socially isolating to avoid the heat, says Kelly Rohan, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the University of Vermont who studies seasonal ...

  25. UT System initiative funds trauma research to improve care

    The funding will support research focused on pre-hospital care, innovative and novel surgical support technologies and devices, drugs, therapies, clinical practice techniques, trauma system registries and information management, and advanced complex wound management. ... Tips to soak up the sun but not its damaging rays. Tumor mutations may not ...

  26. Fauci pushes back partisan attacks in fiery House hearing over COVID

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top U.S. infectious disease expert until leaving the government in 2022, was back before Congress on Monday, calling "simply preposterous" Republican allegations that he'd tried to cover up origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.. A GOP-led subcommittee has spent over a year probing the nation's response to the pandemic and whether U.S.-funded ...

  27. Alzheimer's Takes a Financial Toll Long Before Diagnosis, Study Finds

    A year before diagnosis, these people were 17.2 percent more likely to be delinquent on their mortgage payments than before the onset of the disease, and 34.3 percent more likely to be delinquent ...

  28. Technology Content Marketing Research 2024

    Thirty-two percent say they have the technology but aren't using its potential, and 28% say they haven't acquired the right technology. Eleven percent are unsure. Even so, 40% of technology marketers say their organization is likely to invest in new technology in 2024; however, another 39% say it's unlikely.