How narrowly is the research problem defined? In your opinion, is it too narrow or too broad? Explain.
Does the researcher describe related theories?
Was the research setting artificial (e.g., a laboratory setting)? If yes, do you think that the gain in the control of extraneous variables offset the potential loss of information that would be obtained in a study in a more real-life setting? Explain.
Are there any obvious flaws or weaknesses in the researcher’s methods or measurement or observation? Explain.
Was the analysis statistical or non-statistical? Was the description of the results easy to understand? What type of study was can it be classified as?
Are definition of the key terms provided? Was the description of the results easy to understand? Explain.
Were the descriptions of procedures and methods sufficiently detailed? Were any important details missing? Explain.
Does the report lack information on matters that are potentially important for evaluating it?
Do the researchers include a discussion of the limitations of their study?
Does the researcher imply that his or her research proves something? Do you believe that it proves something? Explain.
