Journal articles provide interesting and significant information on important research undertaken in the science of psychology. New theories, evidence and interpretations of old material are presented in these sources by experts in the field. Becoming familiar with such scientific communication is essential.
You are required to read and evaluate research articles from different journals and write a review of the journal article. This review should be at least a one or two page summary and a one or two page critique of each article, depending upon which of my classes you are enrolled (Please check your syllabus). The following format is to be used in the report of the articles:
1) Head page using the standard APA journal reference form: For example:
Zammostry, KJ.P. Slyter, S.L. & Rios, P. (1993) Narcissistic injury and its relationship to early trauma, early resources and adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 40, 501-510.
Be sure to include your name, course number, class time, date on cover page!
2) Some basic questions to be answered in the "Summary of the Article":
a) What kind of article is it ? (theoretical article, report of an experiment, review of research, etc.)
b) What is the central aim or purpose of the article?
c) What was done to accomplish the aim or purpose? (observation, analysis of published research, etc)
d) What objective evidence, if any came out of the author's efforts? (results, observations, quotations from others, etc)
e) How did the author interpret the evidence and/or relate it to the original problem or question? (authors view of evidence rather than the objective findings themselves)
A" Critique of the Journal Article" is your evaluation of the content material and method of research The critique should answer some the following questions:
What is relationship to class material (relevant book chapters) and lectures?
What theoretical concepts or models were used or are evident?
What is, if any, personal relevance does it have and why? (be sure to support your statements with clear and concise explanations)
Is the article internally consistent? (Were the means appropriate to the ends? The conclusions consistent with the evidence?
What assumptions, procedures, definitions or other aspects seem to be the strongest, weakest and/or most confusing parts and why?
What seems to be the author's biases? (theoretical, methodological, framework. model, concepts, etc)
How might the author's biases have distorted or affected the design, measurements, inferences or interpretations?
Send questions or comments to moultrie@cookman.edu