Assignment 2

Case Study Critique (Quantitative)

psych inflexibility  a refusal to change our behaviours or see what we are doing causing
our life to be difficult

Page limit: 8 pages (plus completed CHERRIES checklist and reference list)

You must assess the article in terms of the currently available literature, current reporting
standards for quant research (Appelbaum et al., 2018) and the CHERRIES checklist for online
surveys (Eysenbach, 2004). Your review will comprise three components: an overview [20
marks], detailed comments [65 marks] and a completed CHERRIES checklist [5 marks].
Outline both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. For major weaknesses: identify
the weakness, support the point you make in relation to the weakness with references and/or
further analyses, and state what corrective action is needed. Eg. you may state no power
analysis was conducted prior to the research and the study is underpowered, support the
claim of inadequate sample size through a power or sensitivity analysis, and suggest the study
be replicated with a sample size of X.

1. Overview [approx. 350 – 400 words; 20 marks]

Provide enough info for editor to understand what the paper is about and how your decision was
reached. The editor wants a good summary of the thinking underlying your decision.

a. A brief summary of what was done and why: aim, design employed, the sample, the
analysis and essential results, and conclusions drawn by author. in own words. [5 marks]

b. An evaluation of the relevance of the study. How does the study differ from previous
studies? What does it add to the literature? Is it needed? [5 marks]

c. A recommendation and reasons. Provide the essential reasons on which the final decision
was based. What are the essential reasons for your decision? What would need to be
done to bring the paper to an acceptable standard for publication?

Your recommendation might be: Publish, Minor modifications and then publish, Major
modifications, Paper not suitable for publication
This section should provide a recommendation fully justified by reasoning. [10 marks]
 2. Detailed Comments [65 marks]
Highlights the weakness and strengths against each of the main sections of the paper. It explains
any concerns and suggests what might be done to improve the paper. It looks at methodological
and descriptive quality of the paper and how well the paper adheres to the reporting guidelines
for quant research and online surveys. Structure review using the headings in the table below.

For each section heading, the table provides information on the question you are seeking to
answer and the relevant sections of the Journal Article Reporting Standards (Appelbaum et
al., 2018).

Section Heading Focus for this Assignment Related Sections of Journal Article
Marks
Reporting Standards
Title and Do the title and abstract Title and title page 5
abstract accurately reflect the content • Title
of the paper? Abstract
• Objectives
• Participants
• Study method
• Findings
• Conclusions
Introduction Does the introduction state the Introduction 10
importance of the problem, • Problem
review relevant research and
lead to well specified research • Review of relevant scholarship
aims, hypotheses and objectives? • Hypotheses, aims and
objectives

Method Assess the adequacy of the sample, Method: 20

sampling, measures and data
• Inclusion and exclusion
collection for addressing the
hypotheses • Participant characteristics
• Sampling procedures
• Sample size, power and
precision
• Measures and covariates
• Data collection
• Psychometrics
 Results Were the correct analyses Results: 20
conducted to test the hypotheses?
• Statistics and data analysis
Are the results presented clearly
and accurately with sufficient detail
to address the research aims?

Discussion Does the discussion integrate all Discussion 10

important aspects of the
quantitative findings with the • Support of original hypotheses
existing literature, with
interpretations and conclusions • Similarity of results
justified by the study?
• Interpretation

• Generalizability

• Implications

3. Relevance
1. Identify differences between the reviewed article and related studies

“Does this paper …

• Use a different theory?

• Have a different research question?
• Use a different methodology?

2. Make a judgement on the points of difference to specify what the reviewed paper adds

For each point of difference, ask yourself “Does this difference …

• Offer the potential for new insight?

• Provide a more rigorous methodology?
• Extend the findings from previous research (e.g., application to new area)?”

4. Write your evaluation of relevance

Having searched the literature and compared papers, you feel there is really nothing new here,
and neither is the paper a good replication study. U need to write a short para that covers what
you have done and your evaluation that the paper is not relevance. Important points to cover are:

• Point out similarities between this and related studies (references required)
• Note the lack of novel components to this study
• Provide an evaluative statement to the effect that this study does not make a significant
addition to the extant literature and is not needed
“This research question has been addressed in numerous previous studies, with meta-analyses
published in [year], [year], and [year]. These meta-analyses have consistently reported that ……
This paper offers nothing novel in terms of research question, design or methodology …. “

Some examples of the type of sentences you might write here include:

• “This paper extends on previous research through …..”

• “This paper takes a different methodological/theoretical approach to previous research in
this area, ….
• “There is limited related research in this area …. and this is the first paper to ….

Recommendation
1. Selecting a recommendation

Paper not suitable for publication: reject article –paper is not suitable for publication. does not
meet the standard for publication and cannot be sufficiently revised to meet this standard eg.
insufficient data, the data and analysis cannot be used to answer the RQ, study is not grounded in
theory or previous research, the paper is riddled with errors or extremely poorly written.

2. Provide reasons for the recommendation

This involves summarising the key points from your full review. Here is a ‘formula’ that you might
like to follow – strengths and relevance first, then follow up with weaknesses and their impact.
Note that you are picking out the key points only, you can’t include here everything covered in
your review. Focus on those things that are ‘deal-breakers’.

3. State what needs to be done

The last thing to do is to state what needs to be done to ‘fix’ the paper.. If you are recommending
not suitable for publication, you will need to specifically state what you would recommend the
authors do before submitting elsewhere. This can include major research redesign and further
data collection.