could you do the same? thanks!!
Thank you for the feedback!
Good questions! Descriptive statistics, including correlational data, often act as a backdrop for many studies. It is often referred to as exploratory research. Without the actual study in hand, though, since this article discusses the UK study, it is difficult to determine if this was the actual intent of the researchers. However, one statement in the article suggests this might be the case when it says: "According to the researchers, little is known about the link between panic disorders and heart disease." Although this statement was probably used as to support the need for the study, it could also suggest that, based on their findings, it could be be used (open the door) to inform future causal studies.
However, even when the purpose of a study is NOT intended to inform future casual links between two related variables, many researchers who read the article will still use the data to test causal links of variables that were found to be related in the study.
I hope this helps.
Let's take a closer look at this interesting article. An easy way to critique an artilce is to address the following areas: Name of article: purpose of the article or study; method; findings and conclusions. This is the approach this response takes.
1. Critique/comment [article] on panic attacks/heart attack.
This article, "Panic attacks linked to higher heart attack risk" reports ...
The relationship between panic attacks and heart attacks and heart disease is established.