It is common at British universities to ask undergraduate students to write a critical evaluation of a research report from a journal in your subject area. This type of assignment asks you to read critically.

If this is one of your assignments, then here's a list of questions you need to ask yourself while reading and to address in your written evaluation. Of course, these questions apply equally to your own work; in other words, use these to evaluate critically any write-up of your own primary research (e.g. your dissertation) before submitting it to your tutor.

The journal

Is it peer-reviewed? In other words, are articles read/reviewed/commented on by academic peers and revised before accepted for publication?

The title

Is it clear and concise? Do you know what this report is going to be about?

The author/s

What do you know about the authors? Did they receive any funding for the project? If so, from whom/what organization? Is there any potential conflict of interest or bias?

The abstract

Does it summarize the main points of the study adequately and accurately?

The introduction

a) The problem:

Is the problem or purpose of the study clearly stated?
Is the problem and/or key terminology associated with it defined?

b) The question:

Is it/are they stated clearly and concisely?
Does it/do they follow logically from the problem?
Are they worth answering? Better yet, are they answerable?

c) The need:

Is the significance of the research stated, i.e. does the author carve a niche for his/her own study? Is it making a contribution to our current knowledge?

d) The aims:

Are they stated clearly and concisely? Are they logically related to the original question?

The literature review:

Is the background information sufficient? (Does it leave you asking more questions?)
Does the author appear to know his/her subject?
Is the author critical (positive & negative) of related research? Or has he/she patched together quotes/paraphrases which support her/his own position without considering the counter-arguments?
Are specific theories/frameworks used in order to put the study/findings into context?
Does the theory seem relevant?

Method:

a) Design

Is it described in detail?
Does it follow logically from the original problem?
Is it narrative (words), numerical (numbers) or both (mixed-methods)?
Was a pilot study completed, e.g. were the methods tried out first on someone/non-participant equivalents? Were changes made? What and why?

b) Ethical considerations

Does the author adhere to specific ethical guidelines? If yes, which one/s?
How does the author make his/her research ethical, e.g. was consent granted? Are pseudonyms used? Were participants informed that they could: ask questions; withdraw from the study; gain access to the findings, etc…?

c) Samples and participants

Who was chosen? How were people selected?
How many people were selected? Why this many?
Was a specific size of sample chosen for a reason (e.g. statistical purposes)?
Is the sample representative? Does it need to be, e.g. does the author intend to make generalisations?

d) Data collection

What methods are used to collect data (e.g. questionnaires, interviews, focus groups)?
Are the methods described adequately?
Could you replicate this piece of research from the description?
Are the questionnaires, interview schedules etc. included in the text or appendix?

e) Analysis

Is the method of analysis understandable?
Are reasons given for the type of analysis? Do these adequately justify the chosen method?
If numerical analysis, what kind of statistical tests were used? Does the author explain these well enough?
If narrative analysis, was there evidence of reading/re-reading/coding/categorizing the data?
Was it done by one researcher or more (e.g. inter-rater reliability)?

Results

Are results presented in a clear and coherent way so that you can interpret them and come to your own conclusions?
Are raw data supplied or only proportions, percentages, etc. after manipulation? Are actual quotes given? Are numbers given before turned into proportions/percentages?
Are charts, tables and other graphic representations labelled and explained?
If results are based on responses to a questionnaire what is the response rate?
Are statistical results included? Are they meaningful?

Discussion

Are the results interpreted in relation to the original question?
Are the original questions answered?
Does the author discuss any weaknesses in the methods and factors which may have affected validity (i.e. accuracy of assessment - the study measures what it sets out to measure) and reliability (consistency of assessment - the study can be replicated by someone else)?
Do findings link back to/make comparisons with previous studies reported in the literature review?
Are implications discussed?

Conclusions

Do you reach the same conclusions based on your interpretation?
Do they relate logically to the results?

Recommendations

Are there recommendations for practice or for further research?
Could you attempt to implement them (should you)?

References

Is the length of the list more impressive than its quality?
Some work is seminal and important to the field and may have older (old) publication dates. This is fine, but there should also be up-to-date sources. So, look for a mix.
Are there any references not included which you think should be?