This document outlines the standard format for research articles and provides guidance for evaluating each section. It discusses that research articles typically include an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references sections. The introduction section establishes the background, purpose, and hypotheses. The methods section describes the participants, materials, and procedures. The results section summarizes the statistical analyses. The discussion section interprets the results and identifies limitations. It also provides criteria for evaluating each component, such as assessing the literature review, research questions, methodology, results, and conclusions.

1. Standard Format of Research
Articles
• Abstract
• Introduction: Context, Research Problem,
Review of Literature
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• References

2. Introduction
• Background - the reasons the author(s)
conducted the study; theoretical framework
• Statement of Purpose - the goal of the
research (the destination); the problem
statement
• Hypotheses - “educated guesses” about
relationships or differences

3. Methodology
• Participants (sample) - who the subjects are,
how obtained/selected
• Materials (equipment, apparatus, measuring
instruments) - what was used, quality of
measuring instruments
• Procedures - how study was conducted;
what subjects did or what was done to them

4. Results
• Technical summary of the statistical
analyses used:
• In text
• In tables
• In figures

5. Discussion/Conclusions
• Non-technical interpretation of results
• Linking results to original purposes and
hypotheses
• Why the results turned out the way they did
• Identifying the study’s limitations
• Suggesting steps for further research

6. Evaluating Research
• Goal: to be able to critique a research
article by identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of each component of the
research
• “Tools for Evaluating Research Reports”

7. Evaluating Introductions:
Literature Review
• Literature review: to place current study in
context of what is known/not known
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Nature of literature cited
Researcher bias
Rationale/need for study
Theoretical framework
Link of framework to research questions
Sufficiency of information
Usefulness of review

8. Evaluating Introductions:
Research Questions/Hypotheses
• Research questions and hypotheses drive
the study
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Clarity of problem
Sufficient rationale
Contribution to existing knowledge
Link to theoretical framework and lit review
Assumptions explicit/implicit
Operational definition of terms
Statement of hypotheses

9. Evaluating Methodology
• Sufficient detail of procedures (treatment),
design and instruments
• Full description of population
• Full description of sampling method
• Quality of measures used
• Obvious weaknesses in design

10. Evaluating Results
• Appropriateness of statistical techniques
used
• Clarity of presentation of results
• Adequacy of presentation of results

11. Evaluating Discussion/Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consistency of conclusions with findings
Appropriateness of generalizations
Discussion of implications of findings
Discussion of limitations of study
Alternative explanation for findings
Linkage of conclusions with theoretical
framework, research questions

12. Practice Exercise Evaluating the Introduction
• Literature Review
• Research problem/questions