Scholarly article paper based on childhood apraxia


  1. Write a brief abstract (2       or 3 sentences) of the article (be careful not to use the authors’       abstract!)
  2. Review each section (e.g. title, abstract, introduction,       methods/participants, results, discussion).   Describe the       positives and negatives of the article.  How could it be written       better? Are the purpose and rationale for doing the study stated       clearly?  Are the descriptions of the procedures and participants       adequate?  Was it a good study overall? (please note that       this is not an exhaustive list of information you can include)        IDEAS:

i. Title Does the title describe the study methodology and participants, at least?

ii. Abstract Does it adequately (and accurately) describe the study?

iii. Introduction

1.Briefly summarize (in one or two sentences)

2.Is the topic described/explained so that you, someone who may not be familiar with the subject, understand the basic concepts, the ultimate goal of the project, and the rationale behind the need for this information?

3.What are the authors’ hypotheses?

4.Describe any changes or information that could be added to make it clearer

iv. Methods

1.Briefly summarize (in one or two sentences)

2.Are the methods explained well enough that you could replicate this study (assuming equipment, etc. is available).  Consider the criteria used for subject selection.  Were enough subjects tested? Was it a case study?  Could they have tested more participants? How was the room set up? Did the authors adequately describe everything? Etc. 

v. Results

1.Specific statistical methods do not need to be addressed

2.Comment on chart, tables, etc.

a. Is the presentation of the data clear?

b.Can you understand the content of the table or chart without the text?

c. Could changes have been made to make it more clear?

vi. Discussion section:

1.Did the discussion summarize well enough? Include implications, etc?

2.Were conclusions drawn?

3.Were the questions answered/ hypotheses correct?

4.Is there any information that could have been discussed further?

5.What questions are left unanswered?  Did the authors mention shortcomings (i.e., limitations) or future research?

  1. Critique should be no more than 2 pages double-spaced. Please upload      clearly named files to blackboard.  Emailed critiques will not be      accepted.
    1. Avoid quotes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>