Write My Paper Button

WhatsApp Widget

Title: “Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship Between Violent Video Game Play and Aggression Among Adolescents” Authors: Ferguson, C.J. et al. Journal: Developmental Psychology

Title: “Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship Between Violent Video Game Play and Aggression Among Adolescents”

Authors: Ferguson, C.J. et al.

Journal: Developmental Psychology

Year: 2011

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224356/


Individual Assignment: Quantitative Research Article Critique and Systematic Review/Meta-analysis Article Critique

For published articles, we cannot simply assume that the published findings are reliable and valid. In order to use the evidence generated from research effectively, we must appraise its quality to determine if we can have confidence in the findings. These two assignments aim to train you to evaluate the quality of quantitative research articles and systematic review/meta-analysis article.

Suggested steps to follow:

1. Do literature search for the topic of interest to you and select ONE PRIMARY SOURCE QUANTITATIVE ARTICLE for your critique. You need to send the title of the selected article and the link by email to the instructor for approval before you start the critique.

a. For the systematic review/meta-analysis article, select one article and send by email for approval.

2. Compose your paper: 8-10 pages (excluding the cover and reference pages). APA format (double- spaced, 12-font Times Roman).

3. On the cover page, write the title of the chosen research article and your name. Focus on critiquing to determine the research quality.

4. Use the Quantitative Research Critique Guidelines (posted in BB) to generate your critical thinking and form your writing. The guidelines are adapted from Polit & Beck (2017). Box 5.2 Guide to an Overall Critique of a Quantitative Research. Refer to the textbook for “detailed critiquing guidelines” if you need more details in each section.

a. For systematic review/meta-analysis: please see the guide list below.

5. The critique should address the items included in the guide. Do not simply answer the “critiquing questions” as “yes” or “no”. Provide your response in a paragraph format with brief explanation or reasons.

a. Do not answer the critique questions using sentence fragments or outline format, rather, write this critique in paragraph format. Please re-read and spellcheck your paper before submission.

1. The Research Article Critique should include:

o ·  Pertinent information about the study.

o ·  Positive AND negative statements about the use of the scientific method.

o ·  Positive AND negative statements about NURSING and the research.

2. In the summary assessment section of your paper:

i.Determine whether or not the study provided sufficient evidence for future research or clinical practice.

ii.If the study is rigorous, discuss how you would apply the evidence to your current practice, future role option, or future research.

3. Submit the paper via safe assign in BB (should be 20% or less).

.Use quotation sparingly. Usually, no more than one quote for a 8-10 page- paper.

i.Any paper with more than 20% of the originality report must be revised.

Rubric for Quantitative Article Critique

Title – Ø Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the study population?

Abstract – Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusions)?

Introduction –      Is the problem stated unambiguously, and is it easy to identify?
ØDoes the problem statement build a cogent, persuasive argument for the new study?

ØDoes the problem have significance for nursing?
Ø Is there a good match between the research problem and the paradigm and methods used? Is a quantitative approach appropriate?

Hypotheses or research questions-ØAre research questions and/or hypotheses explicitly stated? If not, is their absence justified?
ØAre questions and hypotheses appropriately worded, with clear specification of key variables and the study population? ØAre the questions/hypotheses consistent with the literature review and the conceptual framework?

Literature review – ØIs the literature review up to date and based mainly on primary sources?
Ø Does the review provide a state-of-the-art synthesis of evidence on the problem?

Ø Does the literature review provide a sound basis for the new study?

Conceptual/theoretical framework– ØAre key concepts adequately defined conceptually?
ØIs there a conceptual/theoretical framework, rationale, and/or map, and (if so) is it appropriate? If not, is the absence of one justified?

Method Protection of human rights – ØWere appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants? Was the study externally reviewed by an IRB/ethics review board?
ØWas the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants?

Research design

ØWas the most rigorous
possible design used, given the study purpose?
appropriate comparisons made to enhance interpretability of the findings?

ØWas the number of
data collection points appropriate?
ØDid the design minimize biases and
threats to the internal, construct, and external validity of the study (e.g.,
was blinding used, was attrition minimized)?

Population and sample

Is the population described? Is the sample described in sufficient detail?
ØWas the best possible sampling
design used to enhance the sample’s representativeness? Were sampling biases

the sample size adequate? Was a power analysis used to estimate sample size

Data collection and measurement

the operational and conceptual definitions congruent?
ØWere key variables operationalized using the best possible
method (e.g., interviews, observations, and so on) and with adequate

specific instruments adequately described and were they good choices, given
the study purpose, variables being studied, and the study population?
Ø Does the report provide evidence
that the data collection methods yielded data that were reliable and valid?


If there was an intervention, is it adequately described, and was it
rigorously developed and implemented? Did most participants allocated to the
intervention group actually receive it? Is there evidence of intervention
ØWere data collected in a manner
that minimized bias? Were the staff who collected data appropriately tr


Data analysis

analyses undertaken to address each research question or test each
ØWere appropriate statistical
methods used, given the level of measurement of the variables, number of
groups being compared, and assumptions of the tests?

the most powerful analytic method used (e.g., did the analysis help to
control for confounding variables)?
ØWere Type I and Type II errors
avoided or minimized?
intervention studies, was an intention-to-treat analysis performed?

ØWere problems
of missing values evaluated and adequately addressed?


ØIs information
about statistical significance presented? Is information about effect size
and precision of estimates (confidence intervals) presented?
the findings adequately summarized, with good use of tables and figures?

ØAre findings
reported in a manner that facilitates a meta- analysis, and with sufficient
information needed for EBP?


Interpretation of the findings

all major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior
research and/or the study’s conceptual framework?
ØAre causal inferences, if any,

interpretations well-founded and consistent with the study’s limitations?
Ø Does the report address the issue
of the generalizability of the findings?

Implications/ recommendations – Ø Do the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research—and are those implications reasonable and complete?

Global Issues ———–ØIs the report well-written, organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis?
ØIn intervention studies, is a CONSORT flow chart provided to show the flow of participants in the study?

ØIs the report written in a manner that makes the findings accessible to practicing nurses?

Researcher credibility – ØDo the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?

Summary assessment

Ø Despite any limitations, do the study
findings appear to be valid—do you have confidence in the
truth value of the
the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing
practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline?

Scroll to Top