Group 1. Criteria for Critiquing the Introductory Section
Group 1. Criteria for Critiquing the Introductory Section
Standard YesNo
1. The problem of the study is clearly stated.2. The purpose of is clearly stated.
3. The purpose of the study logically flows from the problem
of the study.
4. The problems and purpose of the study are clearly
differentiated.
5. The research questions are listed.
6. The significance of the study is concise and supports the
need for the study.
7. The practical and/or theoretical value of the study to the
educational community is presented.
8. The writing is concise.
10. Content is supported by ample use ofrecent citations.
11. Content flows logically.
Group 2. Criteria for Critiquing the Background/Literature Section
StandardYesNo
1. The researcher explains the context of the study.In your own words, state the study’s context.
2. The background/ literature review of high quality and
is clearly written.
2. The background/ literature is clearly linked to the research questions.
3. The majority of the references are published within the
last 10 years.
4. The references are relevant to study.
5. The majority of references are based upon on
quantitative or qualitative findings (evidence-based findings).
6. The in-text citations are listed in the reference section.
7.The citations in the reference section as listed in the paper.
8. The literature review convinced me that this study is
needed.
9. The literature review convinced me that this study is
likely to make a contribution to clinic practice or basic
science that supports dental research.
10. Other Observations
Group 3. Criteria for Critiquing the MethodsSections
StandardYes No
1. The researcher has articulated hypotheses.2. Are the hypotheses (a) directional, (b) clearly
stated, (c) consistent with the problem and(d) supported?
3. The demographics of the participants are accurately
described and appropriate to the purpose the study.
4. Approval of IRB is clearly stated.
5. There are enough participants to test the hypotheses.
6. The researcher states an operational definition for each
variable in the study.
7. The researcher clearly describes the methods that
guided the study, including data collection and data analysis.
8. The researcher describes the application of the
statistical tests.
9. The process of collecting data is appropriate to the
methods of the study.
10. The researcher includes a graphic or tabular
representationof the finding.
10. The researcher described how she minimized the bias
that could introduced by the participants and experiences.
11. Did the researcher include an explanation of findings
related to all of the variables?
12. Other Observations
Group 4. Criteria for Critiquingthe Results Section
StandardYes No
1. The researcher explained how the independent andmoderator variables were manipulated.
2. For each measurement tool used, evidence of validity is
provided.
3. For each measurement tool used, evidence of reliability
is provided.
4. The statistical tests are appropriate to the study.
5. The researcher has sufficiently described his/her bias
and positionality relative to the research topic.
6. The findings are responsive to the research questions.
7. The findings are responsive to the purpose of the study.
8. Other Observations
Group 5. Criteria for Critiquing the Discussion/Conclusions Sections
StandardYes No
1. The researcher provides a concise overview of thestudy’s findings.
2. The researcher explains the practical and/or theoretical
significance of the findings.
3. The researcher integrates the findings with existing
literature.
4. The researcher suggests what additional inquiry is needed subsequent to this study.
5. The researcher clearly explains how the study’s findings
contribute to clinic practice or basic science that supports
dental research.
6. Did the researcher offer and support a meaningful and
convincing interpretation of the study’s findings that helped
you understand the results?
7. The researcher describes the limitations of the study.
8. Other Observations