Section I: Critique of the Article’s Introduction/Literature Review (p. 171–174)
In your own words, what was the overall purpose of Pomeroy et al.’s research study? Was the literature review adequate and relevant? That is, did it lend support to the current study? If yes, how so? If no, speak to the limitations/weaknesses of the literature review and provide recommendations for how it could be strengthened.
Section II: Critique of the Article’s Methodology (p. 174–179)
What type of sampling approach was used in general (re: probability or non–probability) and specifically (e.g., simple random, stratified random, etc.)? Identify the research design. That is, would you classify this as a pre–experimental, quasi–experimental, or experimental study? How did you come to that conclusion? Did Pomeroy et al. sufficiently inform their audience of potential threats to the internal and/or external validity of their study that stem from the research design? Briefly explain your response.
Section III: Critique of the Article’s Discussion (p. 182–185)
Did Pomeroy et al. adequately acknowledge the strengths and limitations of their study? Briefly explain your response. Are there other strengths and limitations that were not identified? Be specific. If you were to build upon this study, discuss how you would handle the sampling strategy and research design in order to enhance causality (re: strengthen enhance your ability to make causal inferences that the intervention is responsible for the outcomes).
