critical appraisal of a research article
Budget: $10 – $30 AUD
OVERVIEW
This assessment is critically assess the validity of a chosen research article. Special attention will be paid to the validity of the study and you will need explain why the study met or didn't meet scientific rigour.
Purpose of the assessment
This assessment gauges your understanding and ability to assess and discuss scientific research or ethical implications arising from current practice in various fields beyond research.
Learning outcomes that align to this task
LO1 Critically appraise relevant health literature in the context of experimental design
LO4 Discriminate between examples of ethical and non-ethical research in human and animal experimental contexts and substantiate the importance of ethical conduct including regulatory requirements
LO5 Interpret issues of scientific integrity and conflict of interest in a contemporary health research context
LENGTH
800 words excluding reference - please consult the rubric for further information
DETAILS
critically appraise and include the following:
a) Summary of the aims and/or hypotheses of the study
b) Summary of the sample and recruitment
c) Summary of the measurement (i.e. what the researchers measured to collect data and how this was done)
d) Summary of the procedure (e.g. the treatment procedure)
e) Summary of the main findings
f) Describe a minimum of two strengths and / or weakness in the internal validity of the study and describe a minimum of two strengths and / or weaknesses in external validity of the study. Explain how all described strengths and / or weaknesses might impact the interpretation of the results of the study in the context of the given clinical scenario.
The appraisal is limited to 800 words (excluding references) and as a guide a rubric is provided.
ASSESSMENT ARTICLE
A copy also can be downloaded from Activity 1.9 in Session 1
Gohir, S. A., Eek, F., Kelly, A., Abhishek, A., & Valdes, A. M. (2021). Effectiveness of Internet-Based Exercises Aimed at treating Knee Osteoarthritis: The iBEAT-OA Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA Network Open, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0012
rubric
Summary of the aims and/or hypotheses of the study; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the aims and/or hypotheses of the study is provided.
Summary of the sample and recruitment; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the sample and recruitment in the study is provided.
Summary of the measurement; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the measurement in the study is provided.
Summary of the procedure; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the procedure in the study is provided.Summary of the main findings; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the main findings in the study is provided.
Description of minimum of two strengths and / or weakness in the internal validity and a minimum of two strengths and / or weaknesses in external validity of the study; An excellent description of strengths and / or weaknesses in both the internal and external validity of the study. An excellent demonstration of an understanding of how issues relating to internal and external validity influence the interpretation of the results of the study.
Paraphrasing and effective summarizing of material from the chosen article, with no direct quotes from the article; An accurate account of the article by effective paraphrasing and summarising demonstrating a good level of understanding of the content without quoting the original text.
Academic writing; Writing demonstrates clarity of intention, purpose, and approach to the topic
Sentences are well structured, with good use of vocabulary, with minimal or no grammatical and punctuation errors.
Paragraphs are structured to present a flow of ideas.
Writing contains minimal or no spelling or proofreading errors.
Writing style is suited to the purpose of the task and conveys the intended meaning and required level of detail of knowledge
Appropriate use of the Harvard referencing system.
This assessment is critically assess the validity of a chosen research article. Special attention will be paid to the validity of the study and you will need explain why the study met or didn't meet scientific rigour.
Purpose of the assessment
This assessment gauges your understanding and ability to assess and discuss scientific research or ethical implications arising from current practice in various fields beyond research.
Learning outcomes that align to this task
LO1 Critically appraise relevant health literature in the context of experimental design
LO4 Discriminate between examples of ethical and non-ethical research in human and animal experimental contexts and substantiate the importance of ethical conduct including regulatory requirements
LO5 Interpret issues of scientific integrity and conflict of interest in a contemporary health research context
LENGTH
800 words excluding reference - please consult the rubric for further information
DETAILS
critically appraise and include the following:
a) Summary of the aims and/or hypotheses of the study
b) Summary of the sample and recruitment
c) Summary of the measurement (i.e. what the researchers measured to collect data and how this was done)
d) Summary of the procedure (e.g. the treatment procedure)
e) Summary of the main findings
f) Describe a minimum of two strengths and / or weakness in the internal validity of the study and describe a minimum of two strengths and / or weaknesses in external validity of the study. Explain how all described strengths and / or weaknesses might impact the interpretation of the results of the study in the context of the given clinical scenario.
The appraisal is limited to 800 words (excluding references) and as a guide a rubric is provided.
ASSESSMENT ARTICLE
A copy also can be downloaded from Activity 1.9 in Session 1
Gohir, S. A., Eek, F., Kelly, A., Abhishek, A., & Valdes, A. M. (2021). Effectiveness of Internet-Based Exercises Aimed at treating Knee Osteoarthritis: The iBEAT-OA Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA Network Open, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0012
rubric
Summary of the aims and/or hypotheses of the study; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the aims and/or hypotheses of the study is provided.
Summary of the sample and recruitment; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the sample and recruitment in the study is provided.
Summary of the measurement; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the measurement in the study is provided.
Summary of the procedure; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the procedure in the study is provided.Summary of the main findings; A comprehensive and accurate summary of the main findings in the study is provided.
Description of minimum of two strengths and / or weakness in the internal validity and a minimum of two strengths and / or weaknesses in external validity of the study; An excellent description of strengths and / or weaknesses in both the internal and external validity of the study. An excellent demonstration of an understanding of how issues relating to internal and external validity influence the interpretation of the results of the study.
Paraphrasing and effective summarizing of material from the chosen article, with no direct quotes from the article; An accurate account of the article by effective paraphrasing and summarising demonstrating a good level of understanding of the content without quoting the original text.
Academic writing; Writing demonstrates clarity of intention, purpose, and approach to the topic
Sentences are well structured, with good use of vocabulary, with minimal or no grammatical and punctuation errors.
Paragraphs are structured to present a flow of ideas.
Writing contains minimal or no spelling or proofreading errors.
Writing style is suited to the purpose of the task and conveys the intended meaning and required level of detail of knowledge
Appropriate use of the Harvard referencing system.