The following assessment is late and i will be losing marks on it as is, therefore i would really appreciate it if the writer ensures i get a top mark on it. I would be beyond grateful.
Assignment 1
Journal article review
Weighting: 50%
Length and/or format: 1500 words (+/- 10%)
Purpose: Develop skills in the critical review of published counselling research
Study to critique: Macdonald, A.J. (1994). Brief therapy in adult psychiatry. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 415-426. (if writer does cannot access it i can download it and send it through)
Assessment instructions:
In the field of psychotherapy a great deal of research is published every year in peer reviewed
journals. Publication does not always mean that the study has been adequately designed or conducted to provide reliable results that should be adopted in practice. As a practitioner, it is important to develop the skills to evaluate the quality of psychotherapy research to assess whether the findings and recommendations for a treatment or intervention should be accepted, accepted with
qualification, or rejected outright.
Using the criteria provided below entitled “How to review a journal article” as a guide for your review, evaluate the study by Macdonald, A.J. (1994). Brief therapy in adult psychiatry. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 415-426.
– Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this study and make recommendations as to how the study could be
improved.
How to review the journal article
1. Look at the title and the aims – assess their relevance. Relate this to the abstract to get an
overview of what the paper is about. Is this an appropriate study, are the hypotheses clearly
constructed? Do they predict non-ambiguous effects that can be falsified?
2. Evaluate the methodology. Is it a qualitative or a quantitative study – Is the study design adequate to answer the research question/s? Is the sample appropriate? Is the therapy approach clearly described? Is there a control or comparison
group?
– Does the statistical approach seem appropriate to the study design and type of data? Are these appropriate to the study and is it adequate to prove or disprove hypotheses? (Do not become
technical about statistical approach – make general comments only)
3. Undertake an in depth examination of the results. Consider the results as related back to the
methods; do the results seem to fit the study method? Have the aims of the study been met? Do the
results provide evidence to support or falsify hypotheses?
4. Review the discussion section of article. Evaluate the discussion, does this study contribute
something new, or does this study build on previous information (if any has been published)? Is the
logic of the discussion sound and does it fit the results? Is the argument for or against the support of
hypotheses sound? Are findings or issues from this study relevant or not relevant to practice?
5. Having undertaken these four steps, then consider:
? What message is this paper trying to convey?
? Validity and reproducibility of the study?
? Overall, do the conclusions add to our knowledge?
Further guidance on reviewing journal articles
Greenhalgh, Trisha. (1997). How to read a paper: getting your bearings, British Medical Journal,
315, 243-246. A full text e-version of this article is available at:
https://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7102/243
Greenhalgh, Trisha. (1997). How to read a paper: The Medline database, British Medical Journal,315, 180-183. A full text e-version of the article is available at: https://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7101/180
Marking criteria:
• Provides a critical evaluation of the study aims, methods, results and discussion (20%) – Excellent critical evaluation of study
• Provides a critique of strengths and weaknesses of study (20%) Excellent critique of study strengths and weaknesses – creative and thoughtful, with appropriate use of varied literature to support argument
• Provides recommendations as to how study could be improved (20%) Clear, relevant, well considered, and well supported recommendations are presented
• Discusses clinical implications of study (20%) Excellent discussion of clinical implications of study and the contribution to counselling literature
• Uses relevant literature to support arguments (10%) Consistent high level use of current, varied, appropriate literature to support arguments
• Written expression (5%) Clear, succinct, accurate. No APA referencing errors
• Structure (5%) Logical and coherent. Within 10% +/- word limit
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!