Rating

authors, abstract, introduction, research questions, literature review, relevance, and aims)

APA format

1. Is it relevant, informative, interesting and to the point?
2. Does it address questions you want answered?

1. What do you know about the authors?
2. Are they experienced researchers?
3. Are they authorities on this subject?
4. Do other researchers in this field quote their work?
5. Might they have a vested interest in the conclusions that are arrived at?
6. Was the project funded?
7. By whom?
8. Might the results be biased because of the interests of the financing body?

1. Does it summarise the main points of the study accurately and comprehensively?
2. [Note: Abstracts sometimes promise more than is actually established by the report.]

1. Is the problem or purpose of the study clearly stated?

1. Are they stated clearly and concisely?
2. Do they follow logically from the problems identified in the introduction?
3. Are the questions relevant and worth answering?
4. Are they worded in a way that is answerable?

1. Is the background information adequate?
2. Do the authors appear to know their subject adequately? Do they appraise related research and authoritative statements or have they just strung together citations and quotes, which support their proposal without appropriate consideration of antagonistic arguments?
3. Are specific theories used in order to put the study and findings into context?
4. Do these theories seem relevant?

1. Is the study placed in the context of current professional practice or knowledge?
2. What is the potential contribution of the study to practice?

1. Are the aims stated clearly, concisely and precisely?
2. Are they logically related to the original research question(s)?
3. How were they formulated (e.g. does evidence from the literature support your intuition, instinct and experience)?

1. Is the study descriptive or experimental?
2. Is it described adequately?
3. Does the chosen design seem appropriate to the research question(s)?
4. At least one hypothesis is necessary for an experimental design.
5. Does the design follow logically from the original problem and theories?

1. Are any assumptions being made?
2. Is their use explained?
3. Are they justifiable and appropriate?
4. Was a pilot study completed – e.g. was a questionnaire or approach pre-tested for validity and/or reliability?
5. Were modifications subsequently made?
6. Do the researchers say what these were and why they were made?

1. Has the author considered the ethics of the proposal?
2. Is the proposed method ethically acceptable? [For example, will all service users receive the treatment/intervention they need rather than the treatment needed for the study? Will a control group be required to receive a bogus or placebo treatment of dubious efficacy?]

1. How were people selected?
2. Are individuals allocated to alternative treatment /intervention groups?
3. Is this ethical?
4. Is there an account of how each person was chosen?
5. Were specific criteria used to include or exclude people from the study?
6. Are these clearly stated?
7. Is the reasoning behind them apparent and sensible?

1. Was a specific size of sample chosen (e.g. for statistical purposes)?
2. Does this sample size seem adequate to provide valid results?
3. If the author’s aim is to make generalisations to a population on the basis of the findings, who forms this population?
4. Is the sample representative of that population?

1. Is the method described adequately?
2. Could you replicate it from the description provided?
3. Are the reasons for the choice of method stated?
4. If special report forms, assessment forms, questionnaires or interview schedules have been used are copies provided with the paper or is there an address from which you could obtain copies?

1. Is the method of analysis understandable?
2. Have statistical tests been used?
3. Are reasons for choice given which explain their appropriateness?
4. Do you understand and accept the explanation?

1. Are results intelligible enough for you to interpret them and draw your own conclusions?
2. Are they relevant to the stated problem?
3. Does your background knowledge and common sense indicate that they are realistic and feasible?
4. Are “raw” data given, or only proportions, percentages, etc, after manipulation?
5. Are histograms, pie charts and other graphic representations explained?
6. Are the tables helpful?
7. If results are based on responses to a questionnaire or interview schedule, what was the response rate?
8. Are statistical results included?
9. Are they meaningful?
10. Is the statistical probability of the results being produced by chance included?
11. Is it appropriate?