Research Paper Analysis
Sampling Techniques, Measurement, Reliability, and Validity
Also consult: any article by Salkind such as "Criteria for Judging a Research Study" and apply information regarding research design.
Research Paper Instructions
For this research analysis, use the format for "Criteria for Judging a Research Study" outlined below. This is a modification of the criteria from the text, Exploring Research. Use the same section headings as outlined below as you answer the questions under each section. These criteria will help you to write your analysis of the article:
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Use of Mental HealthServices in Poverty Areas. Can be found at:
http://www.psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/6/746
For this paper, you are to prepare the answers to the questions below in paragraph form, using proper punctuation and spelling.
Criteria For Judging A Research Study (Use title of the article.)
Review of Previous Research
How closely is the literature reviewed in the study related to previous literature?
Is the review recent?
Problem and Purpose
What is the purpose of the study?
Is the purpose clearly stated?
Does the purpose seem to be tied to the literature that is reviewed?
Is there a rationale for why the study is an important one?
Is the objective of the study clearly stated?
Hypothesis
What is the hypothesis?
Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
Is the hypothesis grounded in theory or in a review and presentation of relevant literature?
Methods
What are the dependent and independent variables?
Are the definitions and descriptions of the variables complete?
Is it clear how the study was conducted?
Sample
Was the sample selected in such a way that you think it is representative of the population?
Is it clear where the sample came from and how it was selected?
How similar are the subjects in the study to those that have been used in other similar studies?
Results and discussion
Does the author relate the results to the review of the literature?
Are the results related to the hypothesis?
Is the discussion of the results consistent with the results?
Does the discussion provide closure to the initial hypotheses presented by the author?
References
Is the list of references current?
Are the references consistent in their format?
Does each reference cited in the body of the paper appear in the reference list?
General comments about the paper
Is the research paper clearly written and understandable?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?
What are the primary implications of the research?
What would you do to improve the research?
This question has the following supporting file(s):
- researchcriteria.pdf
File Viewer (Click To Zoom)
Solution Summary
This solution provides assistance in analyzing the article, Racial/Ethnic disparities in the use of mental health services in poverty areas, based on the criteria for judging research study e.g., hypothesis, sampling techniques and others.
$2.19 
This answer includes:
- Plain text
- Cited sources when necessary
Extracted Content from Question Files:
- researchcriteria.pdf
Criteria for the evaluation of qualitative research papers
Adopted by the Medical Sociology Group of the British Sociological Association, 1996
1. Are the methods of the research appropriate to the nature of the question being
asked?
Does the research seek to understand processes or structures, or illuminate subjective experiences or
meanings?
Are the categories or groups being examined of a type which cannot be pre‐selected, or the possible
outcomes cannot be specified in advance?
Could a quantitative approach have addressed the issue better?
2. Is the connection to an existing body of knowledge or theory clear?
Is there adequate reference to the literature?
Does the work cohere with, or critically address, existing theory?
Methods
3. Are there clear accounts of the criteria used for the selection of subjects for study,
and of the data collection and analysis?
4. Is the selection of cases or participants theoretically justified?
The unit of research may be people, or events, institutions, samples of natural behaviour, conversations,
written material, etc. In any case, while random sampling may not be appropriate, is it nevertheless
clear what population the sample refers to?
Is consideration given to whether the units chosen were unusual in some important way?
5. Does the sensitivity of the methods match the needs of the research questions?
Does the method accept the implications of an approach which respects the perceptions of those being
studied?
To what extent are any definitions or agendas taken for granted, rather than being critically examined
or left open?
Are the limitations of any structured interview method considered?
6. Has the relationship between field workers and subjects been considered, and is
there evidence about how the research was presented and explained to its subjects?
erh:U/JMH/Templates/Qualitative data for Referees
If more than one worker was involved, has comparability been considered?
Is there evidence about how the subjects perceived the research?
Is there evidence about how any group processes were conducted?
7. Was the data collection and record keeping systematic?
Were careful records kept?
Is the evidence available for independent examination?
Were full records or transcripts of conversations used if appropriate?
Analysis
8. Is reference made to accepted procedures for analysis?
Is it clear how the analysis is done? (Detailed repetition of how to perform standard procedures ought
not to be expected).
Has its reliability been considered, ideally by independent repetition?
9. How systematic is the analysis?
What steps were taken to guard against selectivity in the use of data?
In research with individuals, is it clear that there has not been selection of some cases and ignoring of
less‐interesting ones? In group research, are all categories of opinion taken into account?
10. Is there adequate discussion of how themes, concepts and categories were derived
from the data?
It is sometimes inevitable that externally given or predetermined descriptive categories are used, but
have they been examined for their real meaning or any possible ambiguities?
11. Is there adequate discussion of the evidence both for and against the researcherʹs
arguments?
Are negative data given? Has there been any search for cases which might refute the conclusions?
12. Have measures been taken to test the validity of the findings?
For instance, have methods such as feeding findings back to the respondents, triangulation, or
procedures such as grounded theory been used?
erh:U/JMH/Templates/Qualitative data for Referees
13. Have any steps been taken to see whether the analysis would be comprehensible to
the participants, if this is possible and relevant?
Has the meaning of their accounts been explored with respondents? Have apparent anomalies and
contradictions been discussed with them, rather than assumptions being made?
Presentation
14. Is the research clearly contextualized?
Is all the relevant information about the setting and subjects supplied?
Are the cases or variables which are being studied integrated in their social context, rather than being
abstracted and decontexualized?
15. Are the data presented systematically?
Are quotations, field notes, etc. identified in a way which enables the reader to judge the range of
evidence being used?
erh:U/JMH/Templates/Qualitative data for Referees
