Scientific Literature Review and Critique

One short paper (TYPED, in a program compatible with Microsoft Word 1997-2003 and later, up to 4 pages—not including references and cover page, double spaced, 12-point font with 1 inch margins) are required. You must have at least 5 references WHICH YOU SHOULD OBTAIN FROM PSYCHINFO OR GOOGLE SCHOLAR while logged in to UCM’s library. SOURCES MUST BE PRIMARY SOURCES FROM PEERREVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS (NO WIKIPEDIA OR OTHER .COM WEBSITES). You will become more familiar with what peer-reviewed scientific articles look like through the class assignments. If you are unsure if you found appropriate articles, email me! Your paper topic must get approved by me before beginning this assignment. Include a cover page with the following information: TITLE OF PAPER, YOUR FIRST and LAST NAMES, MY NAME, COURSE NAME, and DATE. Your cover page should be centered to fit the page. Upon completion, please submit the paper on blackboard. For the paper you must cite scientific research articles that present two sides of a topic relevant to psychology (e.g., evidence for and against a scientifically researched topic/question such as: cognitive behavioral therapy versus pharmacotherapy for the treatment of depression). Each paper requires that you critically evaluate the scientific research and write a coherent critique. Address the following in your paper: 1. Introduction (introduce the topic and discuss the scientific journal articles that support it and the studies that do not support it). Cite your sources throughout the paper: e.g., Dude and Duder (2008) found blah blah blah OR Using a sample of 100 dudes and dudettes, the relationship between blah and blah did not yield blah blah (Dude & Duder, 2008). You will include your full references in the Reference section using APA style. 2. Conclusions (What can be concluded from the current research? What conclusions are the most reasonable? You can integrate information you learned from your textbook in this section or in the critique section). 3. Critique (What are the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the studies you discussed? Can the evidence that has been provided by each side be interpreted another way? What further evidence would help me evaluate the mixed findings? What should future researchers do to address the weaknesses of published studies?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>