Article Review Assignment The purpose of this assignment is to get you comfortable with reading and understanding scientific research articles. Everyone will be assigned the SAME journal article that you will be responsible for reviewing. It is located in Blackboard under Assignments in the folder called Article Review. It is called Stereotype Threat and Arousal. To assist you with this assignment, I have prepared a practice article called Subjective Motivations for Sex along with a key in the same folder. This is the ONLY article that you may use for this assignment. Instructions: Read the article through once to get an idea of what it is about. Read the article a second time, this time keeping in mind the review sections described below. Article reviews should be typed in 12 point Times New Roman Font, single-spaced. Typically reviews are about 3-4 pages. Keep in mind this is not a requirement. It is a rule of thumb given the amount of information that is required for each section. Each section should be labeled as below and must be in outline form. Follow this handout closely. Make sure you label EVERY section and answer EVERY section. You will not receive points if you skip a section. Be sure to proofread for spelling and grammar. All assignments must be submitted through turnitin.com in Blackboard. If you are working with a group, be sure that all members names are included. Only one member from the group should submit the assignment on behalf of the group. Your review should include the following sections: I. Reference (4 points) The reference of the article needs to be in APA style. (Remember the correct APA format to cite a journal article in the reference section?) The information given should include the author’s names (last name, first initial), the year of publication (in parentheses), the title of the article (only the first word of the title and/or after a colon should be capitalized), the name of the journal and the volume it came from (the journal title should be capitalized, and the journal title and volume number should be in italics), and the pages of the journal that the article came from. II. Study Design — For this portion of the article review, you need to specify what type of study was conducted. State the type of study. Was it a correlational study? Was it an experimental study (where they randomly assigned people to conditions)? Or was it a longitudinal study (where they had people fill out the same questionnaires every couple of months or something like that). Another type of study? (2 points) Also include a short explanation as to why the study design is correlational, experimental, or another design. (2 points) Include a brief overview of the purpose of the study. In other words, why did the researchers conduct this study? (4 points) III. Variables — Independent variables are the conditions participants are assigned to in an experimental study. Predictor variables are similar, except they typically cannot be manipulated (e.g., self-esteem or education level), and they are used in correlational or longitudinal designs. Dependent or criterion variables are outcome variables. The term “dependent variable” refers specifically to outcomes in experimental studies whereas the term “criterion variable” refers to outcomes in correlational studies. Specify whether you should use independent/dependent or predictor/criterion terminology to label the variables in the study. (2 points) Identify the independent/predictor and dependent/criterion variables in the study (name them). (8 points) IV. Conceptual Definitions of Variables — These involve defining any terms or concepts that are central variables in the study. Do not confuse this with the operational definition of a variable which asks how variables are measured. Instead, you should provide the conceptual/theoretical definition for each of the primary variables in the study. A conceptual definition is the answer a researcher would provide if any of you were to ask How would you define your attachment style variable? Conceptual definition of independent/predictor variable(s). (4 points) Conceptual definition of dependent/criterion variable(s) (4 points) V. Participants — In this section you need to tell me a little bit about who participated in this study. This section doesn’t have to be very long; just provide enough information that your reader will know something about who participated in this study. How were the participants selected? Were there exclusion criteria? Were participants actively recruited? (4 points) Demographic Information (For example, how many people were there? Were they all from the same university? How many of them were men? How many of them were women? What was the distribution of ages, ethnicities, and any other information?) (6 points) VI. Procedure (10 points) Describe the procedures used in the study. Remember that a procedure should be so detailed that anyone else could look at your procedure and conduct the same study with very few questions. You should be VERY SPECIFIC and include the title of study, the information described to participants, and information concerning anonymity. VII. Measures/Operational Definitions — For this section, specify what types of questionnaires or other outcome measures were used. This section answers the question How were the primary variables in this study measured or operationalized? (10 points) Identify the measures/questionnaires used for the independent/predictor variable. Briefly describe each of the measures used in the study. [For example, what was the questionnaire/outcome designed to measure? How many items were on the questionnaire? How did people answer the items (e.g., participants rated items using a scale ranging from 1-5, where 1 = not at all and 5 = very much, or something like that)? If there is no information listed as to how the information was rated, you should say this. Identify the measures/questionnaires used for the dependent/criterion variable. Briefly describe each of the measures used in the study. [For example, what was the questionnaire/outcome designed to measure? How many items were on the questionnaire? How did people answer the items (e.g., participants rated items using a scale ranging from 1-5, where 1 = not at all and 5 = very much, or something like that)? If there is no information listed as to how the information was rated, you should say this. VIII. Hypotheses — What did the researchers predict? What did they expect to happen? All studies have at least 1 hypothesis, and many have quite a few more than that. (8 points) a. Identify the hypotheses for the study. You should list ALL hypotheses for the study, not a select few. Label each of your hypotheses. If there are 9 hypotheses, you should have labels from H1-H9. IX. Results — What are the main findings? For each hypothesis, you should list a result. You also need to indicate whether the results support or disconfirm a hypothesis. You should list your answer in the following format: If a result supports a hypothesis, you may say As expected, self-control was positively related to counterproductive work behaviors. If a result does not support a hypothesis, you might say Contrary to expectations, self-control was not significantly related to counterproductive work behaviors (16 points) List the results for each hypothesis and whether or not the result is consistent with the hypothesis. In general, were these results consistent with past research? Why or why not? X. Conclusions — A good place to look for conclusions is in the discussion section, usually toward the end of the article. Interpretation of the results What do these results mean in a broader sense? What do the findings mean in the big picture? What do they imply about life in the real world? (4 points) Briefly describe future directions for the line of research studied in the article. Authors always state what things should be done in a future study.Critique — Typically researchers acknowledge limitations to their own work (in the discussion section), but there may be some things that you notice that could be a problem for the study. For example, were the participants mostly women (so we don’t know if men would respond the same way)? What are some of the limitations of the study identified by the researcher(s)? What could the researchers have done that would have made the study better? (4 points) What limitations did you find with the study? Identify and describe at least 1 limitation that is not mentioned by the researchers. (4 points)
Hide
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]