Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

MESA MS Comprehensive Exam: Spring 2024

The MS Comprehensive Examination will consist of a ‘critique’ paper. Grading of this critique

will be pass/fail. You may submit questions to me at any time. You may use any online reference materials. But you may not submit a previous course assignment, and you may not use any ‘paper-for-purchase’ resource. You have one month from when you receive this exam to submit your paper to me You may submit Word doc or a pdf. Please include the article you critiqued with your response.

Select an empirical research article - any topic is acceptable, as is any form of quantitative research design - but it would be reasonable to find an article on a topic in your particular field and an article that follows somewhat closely an APA-like style of publication. By ‘empirical’ we mean an original source research article published in an academic professional journal where quantitative data have been collected and statistically analyzed.

Cite the article using formal APA reference style (author, date, title, journal, volume, pages). Limit the paper to no more than ten (10) pages. Single space is fine. An outline format is required in addressing every question presented below. If your article does not contain the requested information, then say so. Not every article will have every piece of information requested. Please submit a copy of the article. Do not wait until the last minute to start this project!

Section I: Research Problem and Purpose

1. What was the general problem that was being investigated?

2. What was the specific purpose of the article in your own words?

3. Analyze the author's purpose statement:

a. to what extent was the purpose clear (could you find it), unambiguous (were there poorly defined popular fad phrases such as “family-values” that were not defined) and objective (was there biased language such as “we will prove…”)?

b. to what extent were the important variables and population clearly identified?

c. to what extent was the significance of the problem clear?

4. Was the level of detail in the purpose statement complete, partially complete, or implied and you had to figure it out?

Section II: Research Hypotheses

5. State the primary hypothesis in your own words. Simply address one hypothesis if multiple ones were presented.

6. Was author’s hypothesis clear and were the variables and population clearly described and consistent with the purpose statement? Was there a sufficient rationale presented to support it?

7. What was the level of detail in the hypothesis appropriate?

8. What type of hypothesis was stated (directional or non-directional) and was it written in a verbal research statement or as a statistical expression in terms of parameters?

9. What was the stated or implied alpha level, and what rationale was provided for it?

Section III: Literature Review

10. Explain how the literature was used for each of the following:

- to set the problem up

- to justify the methodology

- to explain the significance of the results

11. How well did the study build on the literature?

Section IV: Population and Sampling

12. Explicitly define the population to whom generalizations were made. That is, what was the common feature or content of the population units, what restrictions were placed on the scope of the population, what was the unit of analysis, what was the time frame (retrospective, current, prospective)?

13. Describe the type of sampling plan that was followed. That is:

a. What sample demographics were reported (who was in the sample)?

b. How was the sample selected - was it probability or non-probability based?

c. What name would you give to the selection technique?

d. What sources of sampling bias do you think might exist?

e. What were potential consequences of the bias?

f. How might the bias have been controlled?

Section V: Research Design

14. Describe the research design:

a. Identify one major independent and dependent variable. How was each operationalized?

b. Were the independent/predictor variables manipulated (what was manipulated) or observed/measured?

c. Was it basically a multiple-subject or single-subject design (why did they choose the sample size they used);

d. Did it employ random assignment of subjects to various experimental conditions or nonrandom assignment to the different groups (they applies only for experimental or quasi-experimental designs)?

e. Suggest one potential extraneous variable and its possible effect(s).

f. What control variables were included and why were they controlled? If none were discussed what control variables might have been included?

g. What threats to internal and external validity were discussed, what threats should have been addressed?

h. Explain whether or not the research design seemed reasonable for the task at hand. How might the design have been improved?

Section VI: Measurement Instruments

15. Address the following questions using one (if there are more than one) of the measurement instruments employed (this would usually be the dependent/outcome variable).

a. How was it operationalized (how was it measured)?

b. Was the instrument standardized (and, if so, what evidence was given) or non-standardized?

c. Was it a norm-referenced (how do you know) or criterion-referenced (what were the criteria) instrument?

d. What forms of reliability were reported (if none were reported, what should have been done)?

e. What forms of instrument validity were reported (if none were reported, what should have been done)?

16. Explain why you either were or were not convinced that the instrument would reliably and validly measure what it claimed to measure.

Section VII: Data Analysis

17. Describe the data analysis procedures by answering the following questions:

a. Were the analysis procedures primarily parametric or non-parametric procedures?

b. To what extent did they address missing data?

c. To what extent did they address assumptions and test them?

d. Did the authors report the results of a power analysis?

e. Did the authors explain the purpose of the statistical procedures they used?

f. Did the authors explain and justify the options they choose when they ran the procedures?

g. Could you replicate what they ran?

Section VIII: Conclusion

18. Finally, in your opinion, explain why the article either does or does not make a useful contribution to the field: “So what and who cares” about this specific article?