The Impact of Daily Routines on Illness Burden

As a REVIEWER of the article ” The Healthy College Student: The Impact of Daily Routines on Illness Burden”, follow the article review rubric guidelines and submit your article review. Make sure to address all grading criteria outlined in the rubric and number your responses according to the rubric. This part is 2 pages in length.

Name: __________________________________________________ Date:__________________
This exercise will help you understand the purpose and content of research from an applied perspective. Provide a written review of the article that is not longer than two pages. Instead of one long essay format,
You must provide a number and answer for each question. If the questions are not clearly delineated, the student will receive a grade of zero.

Guidelines for the Critical Review (content requirements total 50pts. Each question is worth 5 points). Make sure to answer each sub-question (ex. “a”, “b”, etc. for each question). To be completed by the Instructor.

Points Earned:
ARTICLE and SUMMARY
1. Provide the reference for the article – Author, source, year of publication, etc. in AMA format Provide a short summary of the article (no more than 1-2 short paragraphs).
STUDY PURPOSE
2. Was there a clear statement of the purpose and aims of the research?
a. Did the author provide a clear statement of the purpose of the research? The purpose is usually stated briefly in the abstract of the article, and again in more detail in the introduction. It may be phrased as a research question.
b. Do you believe that the topic of this research is important, relevant, and of interest?
c. Discuss how the author can possibly improve the clarity and impact of this research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
3. Was relevant background literature reviewed?
A review of the literature should be included in an article describing research to provide some background to the study. It should provide a synthesis of relevant information such as previous work/research, and discussion of the clinical importance of the topic. It identifies gaps in current knowledge and research about the topic of interest, and thus justifies the need for the study being reported. Discuss the following:
a. How many articles were referenced to in the article?
b. How recent were the articles (years referenced)?
c. Do the articles thoroughly discuss what has been done in the past related to the research proposed in this article?
d. Discuss how the author can possibly improve the literature review section of the paper.
STUDY DESIGN, DATA COLLECTION & SAMPLING
4. Discuss the internal validity and external validity of the study design (see the next page for more information describing internal and external validity)
Internal validity refers to whether the effects observed in a study are due to the manipulation of the independent variable and not some other factor. In-other-words there is a causal relationship between the independent and dependent variable. Internal validity can be improved by controlling extraneous variables, using standardized instructions, counter balancing, and eliminating demand characteristics and investigator effects.
a. Discuss how the author addressed the internal validity of the study
b. Discuss how the author can possibly improve the internal validity of the study design
External validity refers to the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other settings (ecological validity), other people (population validity) and over time (historical validity). External validity can be improved by setting experiments in a more natural setting and using random sampling to select participants.
c. Discuss how the author addressed the external validity of the study
d. Discuss how the author can possibly improve the external validity of the study design
5. Was the sampling method appropriate?
a. Were participants relevant to the research question and was their selection well-reasoned?
b. What was the criterion used for inclusion in the study? (Characteristics of the participants in the study, demographics, locations, etc.)
c. Was the total sample size adequate and the sample size for each group?
d. Discuss how the author can possibly improve.
6. Measuring: Identify the variables in the study, whether they are independent or dependent variables, and the type of variable (nominal, ordinal, etc.).
a. How many variables were collected in this study?
b. Classify the variables as either nominal, ordinal, discrete, or continuous.
c. Which variables were the independent variables and which variables were the dependent variable?
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
7. Were graphs presented, and if so, were they accurate and easily interpreted?
a. What tables and figures (graphs) are presented in the paper?
b. If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous? That is, are they lined to the discussion in the paper?
c. Discuss how the author can possibly improve.
8. Was the correct statistical analysis done?
a. What statistical test(s) were used?
b. Were effect sizes reported?
c. Were assumptions for the statistical test reported?
d. Discuss how the author can possibly improve.
CONCLUSIONS
9. Were conclusions appropriate given the study findings? Did the findings contribute to practice or research?
Conclusions should be consistent and congruent with the findings as reported by the researchers. All of the data and findings should be discussed and synthesized. The conclusions of the study should be meaningful to the reader and provide insight into important professional issues. The authors should relate the findings back to the existing literature and theoretical knowledge in practice. Implications and recommendations should be explicitly linked to practice situations and research directions.
a. Was it useful research? Did it add to our knowledge base?
b. Discuss how the author can possibly improve.
10. In your conclusion, provide your overall opinion of the article.
a. Was it well written?
b. What did you learn from it that was most shocking, unusual or not what you thought previously?
c. Would you have recommended to publish the article, reject the article, or accept with revisions?