Develop a scholarly paper that addresses the following criteria:
1. Identify an area of clinical interest.
2. Locate a minimum of one peer-reviewed journal article (no older than 5 years) related to your clinical topic of interest. Do not use a meta-analysis or systematic review.
3. Critique the journal article, fully answering the questions in the table below.
5. Include an introductory paragraph, purpose statement, and a conclusion.
6. Include level 1 and 2 headings to organize the paper.
7. Write the paper in third person, not first person (meaning do not use ‘we’ or ‘I’) and in a scholarly manner. To clarify: I, we, you, me, our may not be used. In addition, describing yourself as the researcher or the author should not be used.
8. Include a minimum of one professional peer-reviewed scholarly journal references to support the paper and a second benchmark peer reviewed source (may be textbook or other journal article) and be less than five (5) years old.
12. Format the critique paper using the IMRaD format with level 1 and level 2 headings as designated in the grid below:
Introduction to the paper with purpose statement
Level 1 heading: Introduction.
Level 2 heading: Research Problems.
Content questions to address with quality benchmark citations: What is the research problem?
Does the problem build a persuasive argument for the new study?
Is the problem statement easy to locate?
Level 1 heading: Methods.
Level 2 headings: Research Questions and Hypotheses.
Ethical Aspects of a Study.
Content questions to address with quality benchmark citations: What are the research questions and hypothesis?
Do the hypothesis state a predicted relationship between two or more variables?
Was the study approved and monitored by an Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Board or similar committee?
Were appropriate informed consent procedures used with all participants?
Was the design experimental, quasi-experimental, or non-experimental?
Was the study longitudinal or cross-sectional? What are the threats to the studies internal validity?
What type of sampling design was used?
Are possible sample biases or weaknesses identified?
What methods of data collection were utilized (Self-reports, Scales, Observation, and Rating Scales)? If self-report methods were used, did the researchers make good decisions about specific methods (in-person interviews, mailed questionnaires, etc.)?
If observational methods were used, did the report adequately describe what the observations entailed?
Level 1 heading: Results.
Level 2 headings: Statistical Analysis.
Content questions to address with quality benchmark citations: Identify the type of analyses undertaken to address each research question or test each hypothesis.
Were appropriate statistical methods used, given the level of measurement of the variables, number of groups being compared, and so on?
How are important results presented?
Do the authors make causal or correlational inferences? Are the inferences justified based on the study design and the results?
Level 1 heading: Discussion
Level 2 headings: Findings.
Content questions to address with quality benchmark citations: What limitations do the authors discuss? What other limitations that may affect internal validity do you find in the study?
Are the findings the authors present directly related to the results from the data in the study?
Did the researchers discuss the study’s implications for clinical practice or future research and if so, were the implications grounded in the study evidence, and in evidence from earlier research?
Summarize the overall quality of the critiqued paper according to the benchmark quality sources cited