critical review of a research paper example psychology

PSY290 - Research Methods

Identifying & Locating Empirical Research Articles
Survey & Test Instruments

Writing a Critical Review

Sample summaries, verbs to help you write the summary, how to read a scholarly article.

APA Citation Style Help

A critical review is an academic appraisal of an article that offers both a summary and critical comment. They are useful in evaluating the relevance of a source to your academic needs. They demonstrate that you have understood the text and that you can analyze the main arguments or findings. It is not just a summary; it is an evaluation of what the author has said on a topic. It’s critical in that you thoughtfully consider the validity and accuracy of the author’s claims and that you identify other valid points of view.

An effective critical review has three parts:

APA citation of article
Clearly summarizes the purpose for the article and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the research. (In your own words – no quotations.)
Evaluates the contribution of the article to the discipline or broad subject area and how it relates to your own research.

Steps to Write a Critical Review:

Create and APA style citation for the article you are reviewing.
Skim the text: Read the title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
Read the entire article in order to identify its main ideas and purpose.

Q. What were the authors investigating? What is their thesis? Q. What did the authors hope to discover?

D. Pay close attention to the methods used by the authors to collection information.

Q. What are the characteristics of the participants? (e.g.) Age/gender/ethnicity

Q. What was the procedure or experimental method/surveys used?

Q. Are their any flaws in the design of their study?

E. Review the main findings in the “Discussion” or “Conclusion” section. This will help you to evaluate the validity of their evidence, and the credibility of the authors. Q. Are their conclusions convincing? Q. Were their results significant? If so, describe how they were significant. F. Evaluate the usefulness of the text to YOU in the context of your own research.

Q. How does this article assist you in your research?

Q. How does it enhance your understanding of this issue?

Q. What gaps in your research does it fill?

Good Summary:

Hock, S., & Rochford, R. A. (2010). A letter-writing campaign: linking academic success and civic engagement. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 3 (2), 76-82.

Hock & Rochford (2010) describe how two classes of developmental writing students were engaged in a service-learning project to support the preservation of an on-campus historical site. The goal of the assignment was to help students to see how they have influence in their community by acting as engaged citizens, and to improve their scores on the ACT Writing Sample Assessment (WSA) exam. The authors report that students in developmental classes often feel disempowered, especially when English is not their first language. This assignment not only assisted them in elevating their written communication skills, but it also gave real-life significance to the assignment, and by extension made them feel like empowered members of the community. The advancement in student scores serves as evidence to support my research that when students are given assignments which permit local advocacy and active participation, their academic performance also improves.

Bad Summary:

Two ELL classes complete a service-learning project and improve their writing scores. This article was good because it provided me with lots of information I can use. The students learned a lot in their service-learning project and they passed the ACT exam.

Remember you're describing what someone else has said. Use verbal cues to make this clear to your reader. Here are some suggested verbs to use:

The article

The author

The researchers

* Adapted from: http://www.laspositascollege.edu/raw/summaries.php

<< Previous: Survey & Test Instruments
Next: APA Citation Style Help >>
Last Updated: Jun 27, 2024 3:30 PM
URL: https://paradisevalley.libguides.com/PSY290

Rosie Psychology: Your online tutor

How to demonstrate critical evaluation in your psychology assignments

critical review of a research paper example psychology

Thinking critically about psychology research

Critical thinking is often taught in undergraduate psychology degrees, and is a key marking criteria for higher marks in many assignments. But getting your head around how to write critically can sometimes be difficult. It can take practice. The aim of this short blog is to provide an introduction to critical evaluation, and how to start including evidence of critical evaluation in your psychology assignments.

So what does “critical evaluation” really mean?

Broadly speaking, critical evaluation is the process of thinking and writing critically about the quality of the sources of evidence used to support or refute an argument. By “ evidence “, I mean the literature you cite (e.g., a journal article or book chapter). By “ quality of the evidence “, I mean thinking about whether this topic has been tested is in a robust way. If the quality of the sources is poor, then this could suggest poor support for your argument, and vice versa. Even if the quality is poor, this is important to discuss in your assignments as evidence of critical thinking in this way!

In the rest of this blog, I outline a few different ways you can start to implement critical thinking into your work and reading of psychology. I talk about the quality of the evidence, a few pointers for critiquing the methods, theoretical and practical critical evaluation too. This is not an exhaustive list, but hopefully it’ll help you to start getting those higher-level marks in psychology. I also include an example write-up at the end to illustrate how to write all of this up!

The quality of the evidence

There are different types of study designs in psychology research, but some are of higher quality than others. The higher the quality of the evidence, the stronger the support for your argument the research offers, because the idea has been tested more rigorously. The pyramid image below can really help to explain what we mean by “quality of evidence”, by showing different study designs in the order of their quality.

Not every area of psychology is going to be full of high quality studies, and even the strongest sources of evidence (i.e., systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses) can have limitations! Because no study is perfect, it can be a good habit to tell the reader, in your report, (i) what the design of the study is that you’re citing, AND, (ii) how this affects your argument. Doing so would be evidence of critical thought. (See an example write-up below for implementing this, but do not copy and paste it!)

But first, what do I mean by “design”? The design of the study refers to how the study was carried out. There are sometimes broad categories of design that you’ll have heard of, like a ‘survey design’, ‘a review paper’, or an ‘experimental design’. Within these categories, though, there can be more specific types of design (e.g. a cross-sectional survey design, or a longitudinal survey design; a randomised controlled experiment or a simple pre-post experiment). Knowing these specific types of design is a good place to start when thinking about how to critique the evidence when citing your sources, and the image below can help with that.

hierarchy of scientific evidence, randomized controlled study, case, cohort, research design

Image source: https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/01/12/the-hierarchy-of-evidence-is-the-studys-design-robust/

In summary, there are various types of designs in psychology research. To name a few from the image above, we have: a meta-analysis or a systematic review (a review paper that summarises the research that explores the same research question); a cross-sectional survey study (a questionnaire that people complete once – these are really common in psychology!). If you’re not familiar with these, I would highly suggest doing a bit of reading around these methods and some of their general limitations – you can then use these limitation points in your assignments! To help with this, you could do a Google Scholar search for ‘limitations of a cross-sectional study’, or ‘why are randomised control trials gold standard?’. You can use any published papers as further support as a limitation.

Methodological critical evaluation

Internal validity: Are the findings or the measures used in the study reliable (e.g., have they been replicated by another study, and is the reliability high)?
External validity: Are there any biases in the study that might affect generalisability(e.g., gender bias, where one gender may be overrepresented for the population in the sample recruited)? Lack of generalisability is a common limitation that undergraduates tend to use by default as a limitation in their reports. It’s a perfectly valid limitation, but it can usually be made much more impactful by explaining exactly how it’s a problem for the topic of study. In some cases, this limitation may not be all that warranted; for example, a female bias may be expected in a sample of psychology students, because undergraduate courses tend to be filled mostly with females!
What is the design of the study, and how it a good or bad quality design (randomised control trial, cross-sectional study)?

Theoretical critical evaluation

Do the findings in the literature support the relevant psychological theories?
Have the findings been replicated in another study? (If so, say so and add a reference!)

Practical critical evaluation

In the real world, how easy would it be to implement these findings?
Have these findings been implemented? (If so, you could find out if this has been done well!)

Summary points

In summary, there are various types of designs in psychology research. To name a few from the image above, we have: a meta-analysis or a systematic review (a review paper that summarises the research that explores the same research question); a cross-sectional survey study (a questionnaire that people complete once – these are really common in psychology!). If you’re not familiar with these, I would highly suggest doing a bit of reading around these methods and some of their general limitations – you can then use these limitation points in your assignments! To help with this, I would do a Google Scholar search for ‘limitations of a cross-sectional study’, or ‘why are randomised control trials gold standard?’. You can use these papers as further support as a limitation.

You don’t have to use all of these points in your writing, these are just examples of how you can demonstrate critical thinking in your work. Try to use at least a couple in any assignment. Here is an example of how to write these up:

An example write-up

“Depression and anxiety are generally associated with each other (see the meta-analysis by [reference here]). For example, one of these studies was a cross-sectional study [reference here] with 500 undergraduate psychology students. The researchers found that depression and anxiety (measured using the DASS-21 measure) were correlated at r = .76, indicating a strong effect. However, this one study is limited in that it used a cross-sectional design, which do not tell us whether depression causes anxiety or whether anxiety causes depression; it just tells us that they are correlated. It’s also limited in that the participants are not a clinical sample, which does not tell us about whether these are clinically co-morbid constructs. Finally, a strength of this study is that it used the DASS-21 which is generally found to be a reliable measure. Future studies would therefore benefit from using a longitudinal design to gain an idea as to how these variables are causally related to one another, and use more clinical samples to understand the implications for clinical practice. Overall, however, the research generally suggests that depression and anxiety are associated. That there is a meta-analysis on this topic [reference here], showing that there is lots of evidence, suggests that this finding is generally well-accepted.”

Notice how I first found a review paper on the topic to broadly tell the reader how much evidence there is in the first place. I set the scene of the paragraph with the first sentence, and then the last sentence I brought it back, rounding the paragraph off.
Notice how I then described one study from this paper in more detail. Specifically, I mentioned the participants, the design of the study and the measure the researchers used to assess these variables. Critically, I then described how each of these pieces of the method are disadvantages/strengths of the study. Sometimes, it’s enough to just say “the study was limited in that it was a cross-sectional study”, but it can really show that you are thinking critically, if you also add “… because it does not tell us….”.
Notice how I added a statistic there to further illustrate my point (in this case, it was the correlation coefficient), showing that I didn’t just read the abstract of the paper. Doing this for the effect sizes in a study can also help demonstrate to a reader that you understand statistics (a higher-level marking criteria).

Are these points you can include in your own work?

Thanks for reading,

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

How to Write It
Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
Did the results support their hypothesis?
Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews . Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles . Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 11: Presenting Your Research

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning Objectives

Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a title page . The title is centred in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behaviour?

Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen, the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order.

In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal Psychological Science .

“Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
“Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
“Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
“Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
“Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
“How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?

For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally not necessary.

The abstract is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The introduction begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.

The Opening

The opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behaviour (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that he or she enjoys smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it.

Breaking the Rules

Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humourous anecdote:

A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room. The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I tip?” (Jacoby, 1999, p. 3)

Although both humour and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the literature review , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favourite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the balance of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The closing of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question or hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) [2] concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behaviour during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions. (p. 378)

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The method section is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centred on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

Three ways of organizing an APA-style method. Long description available.

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.

In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on.

The results section is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Several journals now encourage the open sharing of raw data online.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A third preliminary issue is the reliability of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items. A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) [3] suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:

Remind the reader of the research question.
Give the answer to the research question in words.
Present the relevant statistics.
Qualify the answer if necessary.
Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.

The discussion is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

Summary of the research
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
Limitations
Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing theories? If not, how can they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?

The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations. Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them.

Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer the original research question, what will it take to do so? What new research questions has the study raised? This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end when you have made your final point (although you should avoid ending on a limitation).

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centred at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centred at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendices come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Key Takeaways

An APA-style empirical research report consists of several standard sections. The main ones are the abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references.
The introduction consists of an opening that presents the research question, a literature review that describes previous research on the topic, and a closing that restates the research question and comments on the method. The literature review constitutes an argument for why the current study is worth doing.
The method section describes the method in enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study. At a minimum, it consists of a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsection.
The results section describes the results in an organized fashion. Each primary result is presented in terms of statistical results but also explained in words.
The discussion typically summarizes the study, discusses theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for further research.
Practice: Look through an issue of a general interest professional journal (e.g., Psychological Science ). Read the opening of the first five articles and rate the effectiveness of each one from 1 ( very ineffective ) to 5 ( very effective ). Write a sentence or two explaining each rating.
Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and identify where the opening, literature review, and closing of the introduction begin and end.
Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and highlight in a different colour each of the following elements in the discussion: summary, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

Long Descriptions

Figure 11.1 long description: Table showing three ways of organizing an APA-style method section.

In the simple method, there are two subheadings: “Participants” (which might begin “The participants were…”) and “Design and procedure” (which might begin “There were three conditions…”).

In the typical method, there are three subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”).

In the complex method, there are four subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Materials” (“The stimuli were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”). [Return to Figure 11.1]

Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵

A type of research article which describes one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors.

The page at the beginning of an APA-style research report containing the title of the article, the authors’ names, and their institutional affiliation.

A summary of a research study.

The third page of a manuscript containing the research question, the literature review, and comments about how to answer the research question.

An introduction to the research question and explanation for why this question is interesting.

A description of relevant previous research on the topic being discusses and an argument for why the research is worth addressing.

The end of the introduction, where the research question is reiterated and the method is commented upon.

The section of a research report where the method used to conduct the study is described.

The main results of the study, including the results from statistical analyses, are presented in a research article.

Section of a research report that summarizes the study's results and interprets them by referring back to the study's theoretical background.

Part of a research report which contains supplemental material.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article

1. identify how and why the research was carried out, 2. establish the research context, 3. evaluate the research, 4. establish the significance of the research.

Writing Your Critique

Ask Us: Chat, email, visit or call

Video: How to Integrate Critical Voice into Your Literature Review

How to Integrate Critical Voice in Your Lit Review

Video: Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Plagiarism

Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Accidental Plagiarism

Get assistance

The library offers a range of helpful services. All of our appointments are free of charge and confidential.

Book an appointment

Read the article(s) carefully and use the questions below to help you identify how and why the research was carried out. Look at the following sections:

Introduction

What was the objective of the study?
What methods were used to accomplish this purpose (e.g., systematic recording of observations, analysis and evaluation of published research, assessment of theory, etc.)?
What techniques were used and how was each technique performed?
What kind of data can be obtained using each technique?
How are such data interpreted?
What kind of information is produced by using the technique?
What objective evidence was obtained from the authors’ eﬀorts (observations, measurements, etc.)?
What were the results of the study?
How was each technique used to obtain each result?
What statistical tests were used to evaluate the signiﬁcance of the conclusions based on numeric or graphic data?
How did each result contribute to answering the question or testing the hypothesis raised in the introduction?
How were the results interpreted? How were they related to the original problem (authors’ view of evidence rather than objective ﬁndings)?
Were the authors able to answer the question (test the hypothesis) raised?
Did the research provide new factual information, a new understanding of a phenomenon in the ﬁeld, or a new research technique?
How was the signiﬁcance of the work described?
Do the authors relate the findings of the study to literature in the field?
Did the reported observations or interpretations support or refute observations or interpretations made by other researchers?

These questions were adapted from the following sources: Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site . Retrieved July 31, 2006.

Once you are familiar with the article, you can establish the research context by asking the following questions:

Who conducted the research? What were/are their interests?
When and where was the research conducted?
Why did the authors do this research?
Was this research pertinent only within the authors’ geographic locale, or did it have broader (even global) relevance?
Were many other laboratories pursuing related research when the reported work was done? If so, why?
For experimental research, what funding sources met the costs of the research?
On what prior observations was the research based? What was and was not known at the time?
How important was the research question posed by the researchers?

Remember that simply disagreeing with the material is not considered to be a critical assessment of the material. For example, stating that the sample size is insufficient is not a critical assessment. Describing why the sample size is insufficient for the claims being made in the study would be a critical assessment.

Use the questions below to help you evaluate the quality of the authors’ research:

Does the title precisely state the subject of the paper?
Read the statement of purpose in the abstract. Does it match the one in the introduction?

Acknowledgments

Could the source of the research funding have influenced the research topic or conclusions?
Check the sequence of statements in the introduction. Does all the information lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
Review all methods in relation to the objective(s) of the study. Are the methods valid for studying the problem?
Check the methods for essential information. Could the study be duplicated from the methods and information given?
Check the methods for ﬂaws. Is the sample selection adequate? Is the experimental design sound?
Check the sequence of statements in the methods. Does all the information belong there? Is the sequence of methods clear and pertinent?
Was there mention of ethics? Which research ethics board approved the study?
Carefully examine the data presented in the tables and diagrams. Does the title or legend accurately describe the content?
Are column headings and labels accurate?
Are the data organized for ready comparison and interpretation? (A table should be self-explanatory, with a title that accurately and concisely describes content and column headings that accurately describe information in the cells.)
Review the results as presented in the text while referring to the data in the tables and diagrams. Does the text complement, and not simply repeat data? Are there discrepancies between the results in the text and those in the tables?
Check all calculations and presentation of data.
Review the results in light of the stated objectives. Does the study reveal what the researchers intended?
Does the discussion clearly address the objectives and hypotheses?
Check the interpretation against the results. Does the discussion merely repeat the results?
Does the interpretation arise logically from the data or is it too far-fetched?
Have the faults, ﬂaws, or shortcomings of the research been addressed?
Is the interpretation supported by other research cited in the study?
Does the study consider key studies in the ﬁeld?
What is the significance of the research? Do the authors mention wider implications of the findings?
Is there a section on recommendations for future research? Are there other research possibilities or directions suggested?

Consider the article as a whole

Reread the abstract. Does it accurately summarize the article?
Check the structure of the article (ﬁrst headings and then paragraphing). Is all the material organized under the appropriate headings? Are sections divided logically into subsections or paragraphs?
Are stylistic concerns, logic, clarity, and economy of expression addressed?

After you have evaluated the research, consider whether the research has been successful. Has it led to new questions being asked, or new ways of using existing knowledge? Are other researchers citing this paper?

You should consider the following questions:

How did other researchers view the signiﬁcance of the research reported by your authors?
Did the research reported in your article result in the formulation of new questions or hypotheses (by the authors or by other researchers)?
Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the observations or interpretations of these authors?
Did the research make a signiﬁcant contribution to human knowledge?
Did the research produce any practical applications?
What are the social, political, technological, medical implications of this research?
How do you evaluate the signiﬁcance of the research?

To answer these questions, look at review articles to ﬁnd out how reviewers view this piece of research. Look at research articles and databases like Web of Science to see how other people have used this work. What range of journals have cited this article?

These questions were adapted from the following sources:

Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site . Retrieved July 31, 2006.

<< Previous: Start Here
Next: Writing Your Critique >>
Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 12:42 PM
URL: https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/WriteCriticalReview

Suggest an edit to this guide

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
Contact & Directions
Climate Statement
Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
Cognitive Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Social Psychology
Adjunct Faculty
Non-Senate Instructors
Researchers
Psychology Grads
Affiliated Grads
New and Prospective Students
Honors Program
Experiential Learning
Programs & Events
Psi Chi / Psychology Club
Prospective PhD Students
Current PhD Students
Area Brown Bags
Colloquium Series
Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
Speaker Videos
Undergraduate Program
Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

Writing a Literature Review

When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic. For example, if your research paper is describing an experiment on fear conditioning, then you will probably need to provide an overview of prior research on fear conditioning. That overview is typically known as a literature review.

Please note that a full-length literature review article may be suitable for fulfilling the requirements for the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper . For further details, please check with your faculty advisor.

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews come in many forms. They can be part of a research paper, for example as part of the Introduction section. They can be one chapter of a doctoral dissertation. Literature reviews can also “stand alone” as separate articles by themselves. For instance, some journals such as Annual Review of Psychology , Psychological Bulletin , and others typically publish full-length review articles. Similarly, in courses at UCSD, you may be asked to write a research paper that is itself a literature review (such as, with an instructor’s permission, in fulfillment of the B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement). Alternatively, you may be expected to include a literature review as part of a larger research paper (such as part of an Honors Thesis).

Literature reviews can be written using a variety of different styles. These may differ in the way prior research is reviewed as well as the way in which the literature review is organized. Examples of stylistic variations in literature reviews include:

Summarization of prior work vs. critical evaluation. In some cases, prior research is simply described and summarized; in other cases, the writer compares, contrasts, and may even critique prior research (for example, discusses their strengths and weaknesses).
Chronological vs. categorical and other types of organization. In some cases, the literature review begins with the oldest research and advances until it concludes with the latest research. In other cases, research is discussed by category (such as in groupings of closely related studies) without regard for chronological order. In yet other cases, research is discussed in terms of opposing views (such as when different research studies or researchers disagree with one another).

Overall, all literature reviews, whether they are written as a part of a larger work or as separate articles unto themselves, have a common feature: they do not present new research; rather, they provide an overview of prior research on a specific topic .

How to Write a Literature Review

When writing a literature review, it can be helpful to rely on the following steps. Please note that these procedures are not necessarily only for writing a literature review that becomes part of a larger article; they can also be used for writing a full-length article that is itself a literature review (although such reviews are typically more detailed and exhaustive; for more information please refer to the Further Resources section of this page).

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible. You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it. At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a literature search.

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles. You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research. Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed. For more information about this step, please see the Using Databases and Finding Scholarly References section of this website.

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can. Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes. The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information). Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources ; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest. This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process. However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail. For more details about taking notes, please see the “Reading Sources and Taking Notes” section of the Finding Scholarly References page of this website.

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself. However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done. What patterns stand out? Do the different sources converge on a consensus? Or not? What unresolved questions still remain? You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review. Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate? Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure? It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing. When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a summary style in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves). However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was). After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed. You may need to repeat this process more than once. It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper). Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Full-length literature reviews

Many full-length literature review articles use a three-part structure: Introduction (where the topic is identified and any trends or major problems in the literature are introduced), Body (where the studies that comprise the literature on that topic are discussed), and Discussion or Conclusion (where major patterns and points are discussed and the general state of what is known about the topic is summarized)

Literature reviews as part of a larger paper

An “express method” of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document. Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding paragraph. 1
A literature review that is part of a larger research paper typically does not have to be exhaustive. Rather, it should contain most or all of the significant studies about a research topic but not tangential or loosely related ones. 2 Generally, literature reviews should be sufficient for the reader to understand the major issues and key findings about a research topic. You may however need to confer with your instructor or editor to determine how comprehensive you need to be.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

By summarizing prior research on a topic, literature reviews have multiple benefits. These include:

Literature reviews help readers understand what is known about a topic without having to find and read through multiple sources.
Literature reviews help “set the stage” for later reading about new research on a given topic (such as if they are placed in the Introduction of a larger research paper). In other words, they provide helpful background and context.
Literature reviews can also help the writer learn about a given topic while in the process of preparing the review itself. In the act of research and writing the literature review, the writer gains expertise on the topic .

Downloadable Resources

How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

How-To Videos

Writing Research Paper Videos
UCSD Library Psychology Research Guide: Literature Reviews

External Resources

Developing and Writing a Literature Review from N Carolina A&T State University
Example of a Short Literature Review from York College CUNY
How to Write a Review of Literature from UW-Madison
Writing a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz
Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149. doi : 1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]

2 carver, l. (2014). writing the research paper [workshop]. , prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Research Paper Structure
Formatting Research Papers
Using Databases and Finding References
What Types of References Are Appropriate?
Evaluating References and Taking Notes
Citing References
Writing Process and Revising
Improving Scientific Writing
Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
Writing Research Papers Videos

Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

> The Psychologist's Companion
> Writing a Literature Review

Book contents

Frontmatter
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1 Eight Common Misconceptions About Psychology Papers
2 How to Generate, Evaluate, and Sell Your Ideas for Research and Papers
3 Literature Research
4 Writing a Literature Review
5 Planning and Writing the Experimental Research Paper
6 A Word About Content, Language, and Style
7 Commonly Misused Words
8 American Psychological Association Guidelines for Psychology Papers
9 Guidelines for Data Presentation
10 What Makes a Good Paper Great? Standards for Evaluating Psychology Papers
11 Ethics in Research and Writing
12 Submitting a Paper to a Journal
13 How to Make Your Paper Even Better: Proofreading, Revising, and Editing
14 Writing a Grant or Contract Proposal
15 How to Find a Book Publisher
16 Writing a Lecture
17 Article Writing 101
Appendix: Sample Psychology Paper

4 - Writing a Literature Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Most undergraduate research papers, and many graduate and professional research papers as well, are based on literature reviews. The aims of a literature review are different from those of an empirical research paper, and hence the skills required differ somewhat as well. The goals of literature reviews are the following (American Psychological Association, 2009):

To define and clarify problems

To inform the reader about a subject by summarizing and evaluating studies

To identify inconsistencies, gaps, contradictions, and relationships in the literature

To suggest future steps and approaches to solve the issues identified

There are five kinds of literature reviews that can be distinguished on the basis of the aim of the review. Reviews can strive to (a) generate new knowledge, (b) test theories, (c) integrate theories, (d) develop a new theory, or (e) integrate existing knowledge.

If you plan to submit your literature review to a journal and have to decide where to submit it, you may want to read some literature reviews that have been published in the journals you are considering to find out whether your paper is a good fit to the journal. Generally, the probability of an article being accepted is highest when you develop new knowledge, a new theory, or integrate several theories (instead of just reviewing and summarizing the literature on a particular topic) (Eisenberg, 2000).

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

Writing a Literature Review
Robert J. Sternberg , Oklahoma State University , Karin Sternberg
Book: The Psychologist's Companion
Online publication: 05 June 2012
Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511762024.006

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

University of La Verne
Subject Guides

PSY 306: Cognitive Psychology

Literature Reviews
Find Articles
What is a Literature Review?
Literature Review Resources
Literature Review Books
The 5 Steps to Writing a Literature Review
APA Citations
Organize Citations
A literature review is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. As a researcher, you collect the available literature on a topic, and then select the literature that is most relevant for your purpose. Your written literature review summarizes and analyses the themes, topics, methods, and results of that literature in order to inform the reader about the history and current status of research on that topic.

What purpose does a literature review serve?

The literature review informs the reader of the researcher's knowledge of the relevant research already conducted on the topic under discussion, and places the author's current study in context of previous studies.
As part of a senior project, the literature review points out the current issues and questions concerning a topic. By relating the your research to a knowledge gap in the existing literature, you should demonstrate how his or her proposed research will contribute to expanding knowledge in that field.
Short Literature Review Sample This literature review sample guides students from the thought process to a finished review.
Literature Review Matrix (Excel Doc) Excel file that can be edited to suit your needs.
Literature Review Matrix (PDF) Source: McLean, Lindsey. "Literature Review." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2015. https://www.projectcora.org/assignment/literature-review.
Academic Writer (formerly APA Style Central) This link opens in a new window Academic Writer (formerly APA Style Central) features three independent but integrated centers that provide expert resources necessary for teaching, learning, and applying the rules of APA Style.
Sample Literature Reviews: Univ. of West Florida Literature review guide from the University of West Florida library guides.
Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) Sample literature review in APA from Purdue University's Online Writing Lab (OWL)

<< Previous: Find Articles
Next: APA Citations >>
Last Updated: Jul 29, 2024 2:35 PM
URL: https://laverne.libguides.com/psy306

Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What is a Scoping Review?

A scoping review is a type of research synthesis that maps the existing literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, research gaps, and types of evidence.

This mapping exercise involves systematically searching for, identifying, and charting relevant literature to understand its characteristics, such as the volume of research, types of studies conducted, key concepts addressed, and prevalent research gaps.

Unlike systematic reviews, which aim to answer specific questions, scoping reviews are exploratory and often used to assess the extent of available evidence and inform future research directions. They involve comprehensive searches and data extraction but do not typically include a detailed synthesis of findings or a critical appraisal of study quality.

When a scoping review methodology would be appropriate:

Scoping reviews can be used as a preliminary step to a systematic review , helping to identify the types of evidence available, potential research questions, and relevant inclusion criteria.

They can save time and resources by identifying potential challenges or limitations before embarking on a full systematic review.

Scoping reviews can help clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature. If a research area has inconsistent terminology or definitions, a scoping review can map out how different concepts are used and potentially propose a unified understanding. This can help refine the focus and scope of a subsequent systematic review.

To determine if a systematic review is feasible and worthwhile . By identifying the breadth of evidence, researchers can gauge whether there is sufficient literature to warrant a full systematic review.
To identify gaps in the existing research . Scoping reviews can highlight areas where little or no research has been conducted, helping inform future research priorities.
To clarify key concepts and definitions in the field . This can help refine the focus and scope of a subsequent systematic review.
To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic . This can inform the methodology of a future systematic review
To refine and narrow down research questions . The broad overview provided by a scoping review can help researchers develop more specific, focused questions for a systematic review.

When not to choose a scoping review methodology:

If a systematic review already exists on the topic: A systematic review will offer a more rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the evidence if one is already available.
Examining the range of interventions for a health condition
Identifying types of studies conducted
Noting populations studied
Summarizing outcomes measured

Scoping reviews help identify areas needing further research, whereas systematic reviews aim to draw conclusions about intervention effectiveness.

Methodological Guidelines

Methodological guidelines aim to improve the consistency and transparency of scoping reviews, enabling researchers to synthesize evidence effectively.

Methodological guidelines for scoping reviews have evolved over time:

Arksey and O’Malley (2005) proposed the initial framework.
Levac et al. (2010) refined and extended this framework, offering more detailed guidance.
The Joanna Briggs Institute ( JBI ) further developed the methodology, introducing a more structured and transparent process.

Arksey and O’Malley (2005)	Levac et al. (2010)	Joanna Briggs Institute
6 stages, including optional consultation; most flexible approach	6 stages with more detailed guidance; moderate flexibility	More prescriptive approach with additional elements; most structured
Broad research question	Clearly articulated research question	Clearly defined research question with concept, population, and context
Study selection process not specified	Recommends two reviewers for study selection	Provides detailed guidance on study selection process
Basic data charting	More comprehensive data extraction	Detailed guidance on data extraction with specific tools
Basic summary of findings	Numeric summary and qualitative thematic analysis	Introduces evidence mapping for analysis
Quality assessment not included	Quality assessment not emphasized	Introduces potential for quality appraisal
Optional stakeholder consultation	Recommended stakeholder consultation	Stakeholder consultation as an integral part of the process
Provides basic framework	Offers enhanced detail on methodology	Provides most detailed guidance on conducting scoping reviews

1. Developing review objective(s) & question(s)

A well-defined objective and a set of aligned research questions are crucial for a scoping review’s coherence and direction.

They guide the subsequent steps of the review process, including determining the inclusion and exclusion criteria, developing a search strategy, and guiding data extraction and analysis.

This stage involves a thoughtful and iterative process to ensure that the review’s aims and questions are explicitly stated and closely intertwined.

Defining Objectives:

This step outlines the overarching goals of the scoping review. It explains the rationale behind conducting the review and what the reviewers aim to achieve.

The objective statement should succinctly capture the essence of the review and provide a clear understanding of its purpose.

For instance, a scoping review’s objective might be to map the existing literature on a particular topic and identify knowledge gaps.

“Parents, in particular, greatly influence participation at school, at home and in the community. They undertake many actions to improve their children’s participation in daily life. Understanding the actions of parents and also their challenges and needs will contribute to how society can support these parents and thereby enable the participation of children with physical disabilities. Pediatric rehabilitation, aiming for optimal participation, could benefit from this understanding to improve Family-centered services (FCS)… However, it is unclear what kind of information is available in literature about what parents live through, do, and what kind of problems and needs they have in supporting their child’s participation? For these reasons, a scoping review was conducted in order to systematically map the research done in this area, as well as to identify any existing gaps in knowledge”

Piškur, B., Beurskens, A. J., Jongmans, M. J., Ketelaar, M., Norton, M., Frings, C. A., … & Smeets, R. J. (2012). Parents’ actions, challenges, and needs while enabling participation of children with a physical disability: a scoping review. BMC pediatrics , 12 , 1-13.

Developing Research Questions:

The research question(s) stem from the objectives and provide a focused roadmap for the review. These questions should be answerable through the scoping review process. The research question(s) should be clear, concise, and directly relevant to the overall objectives.

Using Frameworks: While not mandatory, frameworks can be helpful tools to guide the development of objectives and research questions. Frameworks like PCC (Population, Concept, Context).

Population: Clearly define the specific group of individuals or entities that the scoping review will focus on. This could be patients, healthcare professionals, or even organizations.
Concept: Articulate the central idea, topic, or phenomenon that the review aims to investigate. This might include interventions, diagnostic tests, or theoretical models.
Context: Specify the setting, environment, or circumstances relevant to the research question. This could involve geographical locations, healthcare systems, or cultural contexts.

How do cultural beliefs and practices ( C -context) influence the ways in which parents ( P -parents of children with physical disabilities) perceive and address ( C -concept) their children’s physical disabilities?

What are the barriers and facilitators ( C -concept) to mental health service utilization ( C -concept) among veterans ( P -population) experiencing homelessness ( C -context)?

This scoping review aims to summarize what is known in the African scientific literature ( C -context) among cisgender persons ( P ) about a) individual experiences of GBS within health care settings ( C -concept) and b) associations between GBS experiences and health care-related outcomes ( C -concept).

What are the main theoretical and methodological characteristics ( C -concept) of the current literature ( C -context) in the area of stigma and hearing loss and stigma and hearing aids in the elderly population ( P -older adults with acquired hearing impairment), and how should future research proceed in expanding this important field of enquiry?

2. Write A Research Protocol

A research protocol is a detailed plan that outlines the methodology to be employed throughout the review process, detailing steps like documenting results, outlining search strategy, and stating the review’s objective

The protocol should be created a priori (before starting the review) to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

While not mandatory, registering your protocol is highly recommended, e.g. FigShare and Open Science Framework (OSF).

Some journals, such as the Journal of Advanced Nursing , Systematic Reviews , BMC Medical Research Methodology , BMJ Open , and JBI Evidence Synthesis , accept scoping review protocols for publication.

It’s important to note that PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews, does not currently accept scoping review protocols for registration.

Registering a scoping review protocol is highly recommended, even if not mandatory, as it promotes transparency, reduces duplication of effort, and helps to prevent publication bias

Example Protocols:

The nutritional care of people living with dementia at home: a protocol for a scoping study
End-of-life care in long-term care homes: A scoping review protocol
Delaying knee flexion following knee arthroplasty surgery: A Scoping Review Protocol

Report in the Methods Section

“Our protocol was drafted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMAP…), which was revised by the research team and members of Health Canada, and was disseminated through our programme’s Twitter account (@KT-Canada) and newsletter to solicit additional feedback. The final protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework on 6 September 2016 ( https://osf.io/kv9hu/ ).”

Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Lillie, E., Pham, B., & Straus, S. E. (2017). Utility of social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance: a scoping review protocol. BMJ open , 7 (1), e013474.

“ Our protocol was developed using the scoping review methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) [1] and further refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute [3]. The draft protocol was revised upon receiving feedback from the research team, including methodologists and healthcare providers, as well as the peer-review panel of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The final version of the protocol is available upon request from the corresponding author. ”

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., … & Straus, S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC medical research methodology , 16 , 1-10.

3. Developing eligibility criteria

This step involves developing and aligning the inclusion criteria with the objective(s) and question(s).

By providing transparent and well-justified eligibility criteria, researchers can ensure the replicability of their scoping review and allow readers to assess the relevance and appropriateness of the included sources.

When reporting eligibility criteria, emphasize the importance of clarity, justification, and a clear link to the review’s objectives.

Describe the eligibility criteria with a rationale for why they were selected : It’s crucial to clearly articulate the specific characteristics of sources that make them eligible for inclusion in the review. Each criterion should be accompanied by a rationale explaining why it was chosen. This rationale should be grounded in scientific arguments and clearly demonstrate how the criterion aligns with the review’s objectives.
Identify specific restrictions and provide a rationale : Restrictions, such as date range, language, or publication status, also need clear justification. For instance, limiting the review to articles published within the past ten years might be necessary to capture the most current evidence. Similarly, restricting the review to sources in a specific language, like English, should be justified, acknowledging the potential exclusion of relevant research in other languages.

When specifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, consider the following aspects:

By using the PCC framework, researchers can systematically establish boundaries for their scoping review, ensuring that the included sources are relevant to the research question. The framework helps to ensure that the eligibility criteria are comprehensive and well-defined, enabling a more focused and meaningful synthesis of the literature

Population : The specific characteristics of the individuals or groups being studied. For instance, a scoping review about interventions for heart failure should specify the intended patient population (e.g., adults with heart failure, elderly patients with heart failure).
Concept : This refers to the central idea, topic, or phenomenon under investigation. In the heart failure example, the concept could be “interventions for heart failure” itself, or it could be narrowed down to a specific type of intervention, such as “exercise interventions for heart failure.”
Context : This element considers the setting or environment in which the concept is being explored. For instance, the context of the heart failure review could be “hospital settings,” “community-based care,” or “telehealth interventions.”

It is important to note that the absence of an explicitly stated framework (e.g. PCC) does not necessarily mean that the authors did not utilize a systematic approach when developing their eligibility criteria. It is possible that they employed a framework implicitly or that their criteria development was guided by other factors.

Iterative Process

The initial set of eligibility criteria outlined in the protocol may be subject to adjustments based on the type and volume of studies identified in the initial searches.

Initial Development : Establish preliminary inclusion and exclusion criteria at the onset of the review based on their existing knowledge of the subject area. This can be adjusted as you become more familiar with the literature and data retrieved during the search process.
Iterative Refinement : Inclusion criteria are refined iteratively based on pilot searches and the evolving understanding of the data. This initial search is crucial as it exposes researchers to a broader range of literature, revealing additional keywords, relevant concepts, and potentially useful search terms that might not have been initially considered.

“ Studies that identified the key terms in the title, abstract, article, or MeSH heading were retained for further examination. Studies published as abstracts, conference proceedings or pilot results published in non-peer-reviewed journals were excluded. In addition, books, book chapters, comments on publications, and dissertations were also excluded. No exclusion criteria were established regarding the type of research design. Inclusion criteria were (a) older adults with progressive hearing loss being the population of interest and (b) the outcome measure was clearly focused on (or at least on some aspects of) stigma regarding hearing loss and/or hearing aids. Although given the descriptive aim of the review, no definitions of stigma and/or hearing aids were set a priori, and all articles including these terms were retrieved, the analysis of the data relied on the most common dimensions of the concept of stigma cited in the literarture: the cognitive dimension (i.e., stereotypes), the emotional dimension (i.e., prejudice) and the behavioral dime. ”

David, D., & Werner, P. (2016). Stigma regarding hearing loss and hearing aids: A scoping review. Stigma and Health , 1 (2), 59.

“ An extensive search was conducted to locate peer-reviewed articles that addressed questions related to parent involvement in organized youth sport. To guide article retrieval, two inclusion criteria were used. First, articles were required to highlight some form of parent involvement in organized youth sport. In the present study, organized youth sport was operationalized as “adultorganized and controlled athletic programs for young people,” wherein “participants are formally organized [and] attend practices and scheduled competitions under the supervision of an adult leader” (Smoll & Smith, 2002, p. xi). In line with this criterion, we did not include physical activity, exercise, physical education, and free play settings, which comprise a substantial volume of research in sport and exercise psychology. We also excluded research that simply collected data on parents or from parents but did not explicitly assess their involvement in their children’s sport participation. Second, articles were required to have been published in peer-reviewed, Englishlanguage, academic journals. As such, we did not include books, chapters, reviews, conceptual papers, conference proceedings, theses and (Jones, 2004) dissertations, or organizational “white papers” in this scoping review. ”

Dorsch, T. E., Wright, E., Eckardt, V. C., Elliott, S., Thrower, S. N., & Knight, C. J. (2021). A history of parent involvement in organized youth sport: A scoping review. Sport, Exercise, and performance psychology , 10 (4), 536.

“…to be included in the review, papers needed to measure or focus on specific dimensions of treatment burden, developed in the conceptual framework (e.g. financial, medication, administrative, lifestyle, healthcare and time/travel). Peer-reviewed journal papers were included if they were: published between the period of 2000–2016, written in English, involved human participants and described a measure for burden of treatment, e.g. including single measurements, measuring and/or incorporating one or two dimensions of burden of treatment. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies were included in order to consider different aspects of measuring treatment burden. Papers were excluded if they did not fit into the conceptual framework of the study, focused on a communicable chronic condition, for example human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) or substance abuse. Papers talking about carer burden, in addition to patient burden of treatment, were also included.”

Sav, A., Salehi, A., Mair, F. S., & McMillan, S. S. (2017). Measuring the burden of treatment for chronic disease: implications of a scoping review of the literature. BMC medical research methodology , 17 , 1-14.

4. Information Sources

Scoping reviews aim to identify a broad range of relevant studies, including both published and unpublished literature, to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic.

The goal is to be inclusive rather than exhaustive, which differentiates scoping reviews from systematic reviews that seek to collate all empirical evidence fitting pre-specified criteria to answer specific research questions.

Information sources for scoping reviews can include a wide range of resources like scholarly databases, unpublished literature, conference papers, books, and even expert consultations.

Report who developed and executed the search strategy, such as an information specialist or librarian. Mention if the search strategy was peer-reviewed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist.

Electronic Databases : Make a comprehensive list of all electronic databases you used. Common databases for health-related scoping reviews include: CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with Full Text, and Web of Science: Core Collections.
Specify date ranges : For each database, note the date range of your search. For example: “MEDLINE was searched from inception to July 30, 2024.”
Grey Literature : In addition to databases, forensic or ‘expansive’ searches can be conducted. This includes: grey literature database searches (e.g. OpenGrey , WorldCat , Ethos ),  conference proceedings, unpublished reports, theses  , clinical trial databases , searches by names of authors of relevant publications.
Citation chasing : If you manually searched specific journals or reference lists, document this. For example: “We hand-searched the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews.”
Contacting Experts : If you contacted experts in the field for additional sources, mention this: “We contacted five experts in the field of [topic] to identify any additional relevant studies.”

“To identify potentially relevant documents, the following bibliographic databases were searched from 2004 to June 2015: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LexisNexis Academic, the Legal Scholarship Network, Justis, LegalTrac, QuickLaw, and HeinOnline. The search strategies were drafted by an experienced librarian [name] and further refined through team discussion. The final search strategy for MEDLINE can be found in Additional file 3. The final search results were exported into EndNote, and duplicates were removed by a library technician. The electronic database search was supplemented by searching the Canadian Medical Protective Association website (https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/en) and scanning relevant reviews.”

Cardoso, R., Zarin, W., Nincic, V., Barber, S. L., Gulmezoglu, A. M., Wilson, C., … & Tricco, A. C. (2017). Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review. Systematic reviews , 6 , 1-11.

5. Searching for the evidence

Scoping reviews typically start with a broader, more inclusive search strategy. The initial search is intentionally wide-ranging to capture the breadth of available literature on the topic

To balance breadth and depth in your initial search strategy for a scoping review, consider the following tips based on the gathered search results:

Start with a broad initial search : Begin with a broad search across at least two relevant databases (e.g., MEDLINE and Scopus) to capture a wide range of literature. This helps identify the scope of available studies and key themes in the field .
Test and refine your search strategy : After initial searches, review the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles to assess relevance. Analyze the text words and index terms used in these articles to refine your understanding of the topic and identify additional keywords, synonyms, and subject headings to include in subsequent searches .
Multiple Databases : Search across a variety of databases to ensure a comprehensive literature capture. Each database may index different journals and articles, which can help broaden your search results .
Boolean operators: The use of Boolean operators (AND/OR/NEAR/NOT) helps to combine these terms effectively, ensuring that the search strategy is both sensitive and specific. For instance, using “AND” narrows the search to include only results containing both terms, while “OR” expands it to include results containing either term.
Truncation symbols : These broaden the search by capturing variations of a keyword. They function by locating every word that begins with a specific root. For example, if a user was researching interventions for smoking, they might use a truncation symbol to search for “smok*” to retrieve records with the words “smoke,” “smoker,” “smoking,” or “smokes.” This can save time and effort by eliminating the need to input every variation of a word into a database.
Citation chasing : Document the specific studies whose reference lists were examined. Include the titles, authors, and publication years of these studies. Note how you identified articles that cite the studies. This could be through citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science.
Detailed documentation : Keep thorough records of your search strategies, including the databases searched, keywords used, and any filters applied. This documentation is crucial for transparency and reproducibility .

” The planned literature search was developed on June 23, 2022. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were further refined, along with electronic databases to identify psychological and education literature (e.g., ProQuest), programs for storing data (i.e., Covidence, n.d. accessed via https://www.covidence.org/) and key search terms (e.g., resistance and transgender). The key search terms were “transgender/trans/LGBT/gender diverse/gender expansive/nonbinary,” “resistance,” and “faith/economic status/ethnicity/gender.” Daniel Abela used terms such as nonbinary, gender diverse, LGBT, and gender expansive to capture the broad spectrum of language employed in the literature when relating to individuals whose gender identification extends beyond conventional norms associated with their assigned sex at birth. Moreover, the authors wanted a diverse sample through an intersectionality lens; therefore, terms such as faith, economic status, and ethnicity were used. These terms were selected as they were deemed by all authors to be most appropriate to evaluate this study’s research question. A complete list of the final search terms and the entire electronic search strategy for the Ovid database are presented in Table 1. ”

Abela, D., Patlamazoglou, L., & Lea, S. (2024). The resistance of transgender and gender expansive people: A scoping review. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity .

Ovid Search Strategy (Table 1)

transgender.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
trans.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
LGBT.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
gender diverse.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
gender expansive.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
non-binary.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6
resistance.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
faith.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
economic status.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
ethnicity.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
gender identification.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
10 or 11 or 12 or 13
limit 15 to (peer-reviewed journal and English language and “0110 peer-reviewed journal” and English and yr = “2012-Current”)

Search strategy can also be reported in the appendix. For example: Supplementary A: Search strategy for scoping review .

Citation Chasing Process

Citation chasing involves reviewing the reference lists of included studies and examining articles that cite those studies to identify additional relevant literature. This process helps ensure that you capture a comprehensive view of the research landscape.

If citation chasing leads to the identification of new keywords or concepts, document these adjustments and how they were incorporated into the overall search strategy.

Document the rationale : Clearly state why citation chasing is being conducted. This could include the goal of identifying additional studies that may not have been captured through database searches or to explore the context and impact of key studies.
Reference list review : Document the specific studies whose reference lists were examined. Include the titles, authors, and publication years of these studies.
Citing articles : Note how you identified articles that cite the studies. This could be through citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science.
Record number of additional studies identified : Keep a count of how many additional studies were found through citation chasing.
A flowchart : Adapt the PRISMA flow diagram to illustrate the stages of citation chasing, the number of sources identified at each stage, and reasons for exclusion.
Tables : Summarize key information about the sources identified through citation chasing, such as author, year, title, and reasons for inclusion or exclusion.

6. Selecting the evidence

While articles included in a scoping review are selected systematically, it is important to acknowledge that there is no assumption that the evidence reviewed is exhaustive. This is often due to limitations in the search strategy or difficulty locating specific types of sources.

The search results are screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria to determine inclusion in the review.

The goal is to identify relevant studies, with less emphasis on methodological quality. Scoping reviews generally do not appraise the quality of included studies.

Instead, scoping reviews prioritize mapping the existing literature and identifying gaps in research, regardless of the quality of the individual studies.

Two reviewers should independently screen titles and abstracts, removing duplicates and irrelevant studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Initial screening of titles and abstracts: After applying a strategy to search the literature, the next step involves screening the titles and abstracts of the identified articles against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. During this initial screening, reviewers aim to identify potentially relevant studies while excluding those clearly outside the scope of the review. It is crucial to prioritize over-inclusion at this stage, meaning that reviewers should err on the side of keeping studies even if there is uncertainty about their relevance. This cautious approach helps minimize the risk of inadvertently excluding potentially valuable studies.
Retrieving and assessing full texts: For studies which a definitive decision cannot be made based on the title and abstract alone, reviewers need to obtain the full text of the articles for a comprehensive assessment against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This stage involves meticulously reviewing the full text of each potentially relevant study to determine its eligibility definitively.
Resolution of disagreements : In cases of disagreement between reviewers regarding a study’s eligibility, a predefined strategy involving consensus-building discussions or arbitration by a third reviewer should be in place to reach a final decision. This collaborative approach ensures a fair and impartial selection process, further strengthening the review’s reliability.

“To increase consistency among reviewers, all reviewers screened the same 50 publications, discussed the results and amended the screening and data extraction manual before beginning screening for this review. Nine reviewers working in pairs sequentially evaluated the titles, abstracts and then full text of all publications identified by our searches for potentially relevant publications. . . . We resolved disagreements on study selection and data extraction by consensus and discussion with other reviewers if needed.”

Duffett, M., Choong, K., Hartling, L., Menon, K., Thabane, L., & Cook, D. J. (2013). Randomized controlled trials in pediatric critical care: a scoping review. Critical care , 17 , 1-9.

7. Extracting the evidence

Charting, also known as data extraction, is a crucial stage in conducting a scoping review.

This process involves systematically collecting relevant information from the sources included in the review using a structured form. It is considered best practice to have at least two reviewers independently extract data from each source

Data charting in scoping reviews differs from data extraction in systematic reviews. While systematic reviews aim to synthesize the results and assess the quality of individual studies, scoping reviews focus on mapping the existing literature and identifying key concepts, themes, and gaps in the research.

Therefore, the data charting process in scoping reviews is typically broader in scope and may involve collecting a wider range of data items compared to the more focused data extraction process used in systematic reviews.

This process goes beyond simply extracting data; it involves characterizing and summarizing research evidence, which ultimately helps identify research gaps.

Develop a Standardized Form: Creating a structured form helps to standardize the selection of sources. The form should incorporate clear questions that align with the eligibility criteria defined in the review protocol. The specific software used to create and manage the form should be specified in the review, with options such as Covidence , EndNote , or JBI SUMARI .
Year of publication
Origin/country of origin (where the study was published or conducted)
Aims/purpose
Study population and sample size (if applicable)
Methodology/methods
Outcomes and details of these (e.g. how measures) (if applicable)
Key findings that relate to the scoping review question/s.
Testing the Form: All reviewers involved in the selection process should participate in testing the standardized form. Screen the titles and abstracts of the identified articles against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Sample Size: A random sample of 5–10 citations can be used for the initial calibration of title and abstract screening.
Resolving Inconsistencies: After independent screening, discrepancies between reviewers are identified and discussed. A roundtable discussion involving the review team is an effective method to address these inconsistencies and clarify any ambiguities in the form or eligibility criteria.
Form Refinement: Based on the calibration exercise, the standardized form and its accompanying explanation should be revised and refined as needed to enhance clarity and consistency. A second calibration exercise might be necessary if the desired agreement level, typically 70%–80%, is not achieved or if reviewers require further training.
Number of Reviewers: A minimum of two independent reviewers should be engaged in the screening process.
Duplicate Screening: The review process should clearly state how duplicates were managed, ideally removing them before proceeding to the screening stage.
Verification: The sources describe different approaches to verification, including independent screening by two reviewers followed by comparison of their results or a single reviewer screening followed by verification from another reviewer. The chosen approach and its rationale should be explicitly stated in the scoping review.
Resolving Disagreements: Any disagreements arising during the screening process should be documented and resolved, ideally through discussion and consensus among the reviewers. If consensus cannot be reached, involving a third reviewer to provide an independent assessment can help in making the final decision.
The number of reviewers involved at each stage
How duplicates were addressed
The software used to manage the screening process
How disagreements were resolved
The number of sources excluded at each stage, along with a clear rationale for their exclusion

“Search results for all databases were merged. Duplicates and nonrelated papers were excluded. Titles and abstracts of the remaining papers were assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria independently by both authors. The resulting papers were pooled and disagreements were resolved through discussion based on the full text article. Following this stage, a standardized form was used to summarize the information in each article. The variables extracted were: reference/ country, aim of the study, study design, year of publication, and main finding/results.”

“A data-charting form was jointly developed by two reviewers to determine which variables to extract. The two reviewers independently charted the data, discussed the results and continuously updated the data-charting form in an iterative process.”

Lenzen, S. A., Daniëls, R., van Bokhoven, M. A., van der Weijden, T., & Beurskens, A. (2017). Disentangling self-management goal setting and action planning: A scoping review. PloS one , 12 (11), e0188822.

If an article was eligible for inclusion in this study, data related to the patient-centered care framework or model presented in the article was extracted by the lead author and reviewed by a second author (JCM). Data extracted from the reviewed patient-centered care frameworks and models was entered into data extraction records and synthesized in summary format. Data were systematically charted using the data charting form developed in Microsoft Excel. Information on authorship, article type, population, and patientcentered care approach were recorded on this form. A second data charting form was developed to chart data on the communication systematic reviews identified. Information on clinical context, patient-centered care focus, number of studies reviewed and key findings were recorded on this form.

Constand, M. K., MacDermid, J. C., Dal Bello-Haas, V., & Law, M. (2014). Scoping review of patient-centered care approaches in healthcare. BMC health services research , 14 , 1-9.

The final charting form, which clearly defines each item, should be included in the scoping review as an appendix or supplementary file, if possible.

Author: This information is essential for referencing and should be consistent throughout the scoping review document.
Year of Publication: Noting the publication year of each source helps analyze trends and changes in research over time. This variable can highlight areas where research has progressed or where further investigation is necessary.
Country: This variable involves noting the country of the study and the bibliographic details of each source. The country of origin provides context and helps assess the generalizability of findings to other settings.
Objective(s): The objectives of each included source of evidence should be clearly stated. This variable helps understand the aim of each study and how it contributes to the overall scoping review question.
Participants (characteristics/total number): This variable involves describing the defining characteristics of the participants in the included sources of evidence. Details like diagnostic criteria, age, ethnicity, and the total number of participants are crucial elements of this variable. This information provides context to the scoping review findings.
Concept: This variable pertains to extracting and mapping data related to the core concept being investigated in the scoping review. The specific data extracted will depend on the nature of the concept, which should be clearly defined in the scoping review.
Intervention Type: If applicable to the scoping review question, the type of intervention used in each source should be recorded. This might include details like the specific intervention method, the comparator used, and the duration of the intervention. This information helps compare and contrast different interventions explored in the included studies.
Methodology: Describing the methodology employed by each source is essential to understand how the research was conducted. This variable provides insights into the study design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques used. Categorizing study designs is essential to compare and contrast different research approaches and their potential implications for the scoping review’s conclusions.
Outcome Measures: This variable focuses on the tools or methods used to assess the effects of an intervention or phenomenon. It’s essential to describe the specific outcome measures used in each study, including details on how they were measured. This information helps compare findings across studies using similar outcome assessment tools.
Main Finding: This variable focuses on extracting the primary findings or results of each study that are relevant to the scoping review’s research question. These findings form the core evidence base and are crucial for addressing the scoping review objectives.

“We abstracted data on article characteristics (e.g., country of origin, funder), engagement characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., type of knowledge user, country income level, type of engagement activity, frequency and intensity of engagement, use of a framework to inform the intervention), barriers and facilitators to engagement, and results of any formal assessment of engagement (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, benefits, unintended consequences).”

Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Rios, P., Nincic, V., Khan, P. A., Ghassemi, M., … & Langlois, E. V. (2018). Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review. Implementation Science , 13 , 1-19.

8. Analyzing the evidence

The key element of a scoping review is the synthesis: that is the process that brings together the findings from the set of included studies in order to draw conclusions based on the body of evidence.

Data synthesis in a scoping review involves collating, combining, and summarizing findings from the included studies.

This process aims to provide a reliable and comprehensive answer to the review question by considering the strength of the evidence, examining the consistency of observed effects, and investigating any inconsistencies.

The data synthesis will be presented in the results section of the scoping review.

Develop a clear text narrative that explains the key findings
Use a logical heading structure to guide readers through your results synthesis
Use tables to summarise findings (can be same table as data extraction)

Scoping reviews often use a more descriptive approach to synthesis, summarizing the types of evidence available, key findings, and research gaps.

Research design (e.g., experimental, observational, qualitative)
Population characteristics
Intervention types
Outcome measures
Theoretical frameworks
Geographic regions
Time periods
The predominant study designs used in the field
The range of methodologies employed
The diversity (or lack thereof) in research approaches
Primary outcomes
Major conclusions drawn by the authors
Any notable or unexpected findings
Recurring themes in the literature
Evolving research focuses over time
Commonly used methodologies or theoretical frameworks
Consistency (or inconsistency) in findings across different studies
Identifying areas that have been extensively studied
Noting topics that have received less attention
Highlighting any shifts in research focus over time
Populations that have been understudied
Methodologies that haven’t been widely applied
Questions that remain unanswered or inadequately addressed
Contradictions in the literature that need further investigation
Summarizing key concepts: Identify and describe the central ideas, theories, or constructs that emerge from the literature. This helps to provide a conceptual overview of the field.
Tables summarizing study characteristics
Charts showing the distribution of studies across categories
Concept maps illustrating relationships between key ideas

Remember, the goal in a scoping review is not to critically appraise the quality of individual studies or to provide a definitive answer to a narrow research question.

Instead, the synthesis aims to provide a broad overview of the field, mapping out the existing literature and identifying areas for further research.

This descriptive approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the landscape of a particular research area.

“We grouped the studies by the types of behavior they analyzed, and summarized the type of settings, populations and study designs for each group, along with the measures used and broad findings. Where we identified a systematic review, we counted the number of studies included in the review that potentially met our inclusion criteria and noted how many studies had been missed by our search.”

Hutchinson, J., Prady, S. L., Smith, M. A., White, P. C., & Graham, H. M. (2015). A scoping review of observational studies examining relationships between environmental behaviors and health behaviors. International journal of environmental research and public health , 12 (5), 4833-4858.

9. Presenting the results

The findings should be presented in a clear and logical way that answers the research question(s). This section might include tables, figures, or narrative summaries to illustrate the data.

Narrative Summaries

Write a clear, concise narrative that brings together all of these elements. This should provide readers with a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge in the field, highlighting both what is known and what remains to be explored.

The primary goal of a narrative summary is to weave together the information extracted from multiple sources into a cohesive and understandable narrative. This story should focus on why a specific action is necessary, should be discontinued, or lacks sufficient evidence to determine its efficacy

A well-crafted narrative summary often utilizes headings and subheadings to organize the synthesized information logically.

This approach makes it easier for readers to follow the thought process and understand the relationships between different pieces of evidence.

Strategies on how to be sensitive to patient needs were primarily discussed in the qualitative research articles included in this review. Such strategies included acknowledging and adapting to unique patient identifiers [19,24,25]. For example, clinicians are urged to observe and reflect on fluctuating levels of patient alertness, patient comfort levels in the presence or absence of family members, and different communication barriers such as hearing loss, in order to facilitate clinical interactions [15,19,22]. Of the articles reviewed, 58% identified that careful observation of unique patient characteristics is necessary to providing care that will lead to optimal patient receptiveness and positive health outcomes.

While narrative summaries primarily use text, incorporating tables, charts, or diagrams can enhance clarity, particularly when presenting complex data patterns.

However, always accompany these visual aids with a clear textual explanation to ensure comprehensive understanding.

PRISMA Flowchart

Using a PRISMA flowchart in a scoping review is considered good practice. It promotes transparency and allows for a clear understanding of how sources were selected.

The flowchart illustrates the step-by-step process of screening, filtering, and selecting studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The flowchart visually depicts the following stages:

Identification: The initial number of titles and abstracts identified through database searches.
Screening: The screening process, based on titles and abstracts.
Eligibility: Full-text copies of the remaining records are retrieved and assessed for eligibility.
Inclusion: Applying the predefined inclusion criteria resulted in the inclusion of publications that met all the criteria for the review.
Exclusion: The flowchart details the reasons for excluding the remaining records.

Petersen, B., Koshy-Chenthittayil, S., DeArmond, M., & Caromile, L. A. (2023). Assessment of diversity-based approaches used by American Universities to increase recruitment and retention of biomedical sciences research faculty members: A scoping review protocol. Plos one , 18 (6), e0276089.

10. Discussion Section And Conclusion

Summarizing the evidence in relation to the purpose of the review, making conclusions and noting any implications of the findings.

It is also essential to remember that scoping reviews, unlike systematic reviews, do not aim to provide concrete recommendations for practice or policy.

Their primary function is to map the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and clarify concepts, rather than synthesize results for direct application in clinical or policy settings

Summarizing the Evidence

Summarize key findings in relation to your research questions
Highlight main themes or patterns across studies
Explain the nuances and complexities in the evidence
Tailor overall findings of the scoping review to the relevant knowledge users such as policymakers, health care providers and patients or consumers
Discuss the consistency of the evidence
This provides a clear takeaway message for readers

“In this scoping review we identified 88 primary studies addressing dissemination and implementation research across various settings of dementia care published between 1998 and 2015. Our findings indicate a paucity of research focusing specifically on dissemination of knowledge within dementia care and a limited number of studies on implementation in this area. We also found that training and educating professionals, developing stakeholder interrelationships, and using evaluative and iterative strategies are frequently employed to introduce and promote change in practice. However, although important and feasible, these strategies only partly address what is repeatedly highlighted in the evidence base: that organisational factors are reported as the main barrier to implementation of knowledge within dementia care. Moreover, included studies clearly support an increased effort to improve the quality of dementia care provided in residential settings in the last decade.”

Lourida, I., Abbott, R. A., Rogers, M., Lang, I. A., Stein, K., Kent, B., & Thompson Coon, J. (2017). Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map. BMC geriatrics , 17 , 1-12.

Limitations

When considering the limitations of a review process, particularly scoping reviews, it’s essential to acknowledge that the goal is breadth, not depth, of information.

This means that unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews generally don’t involve a formal appraisal of the methodological quality of included studies, unless specifically required by the review’s aim.

One significant limitation frequently encountered in reviews is the restriction to English-language sources. This decision, often made for feasibility, can inadvertently introduce bias by excluding valuable research from non-English speaking communities and potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings.
For instance, if a scoping review protocol initially excludes gray literature but later incorporates it due to the emergence of relevant findings during the review process, this change needs to be explicitly stated and justified in the final report.

“Our scoping review has some limitations. To make our review more feasible, we were only able to include a random sample of rapid reviews from websites of rapid review producers. Further adding to this issue is that many rapid reviews contain proprietary information and are not publicly available. As such, our results are only likely generalizable to rapid reviews that are publicly available. Furthermore, this scoping review was an enormous undertaking and our results are only up to date as of May 2013.”

Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., … & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC medicine , 13 , 1-15.

Conclusions

Discuss implications:.

Note that recommendations for practice and policy will not be relevant for most scoping reviews as the goal is to provide a preliminary map of the evidence without appraising the quality and validity of the results.
Consider both positive and negative implications.
This helps translate your findings into real-world applications.

Identify gaps and future research:

Point out areas where evidence is lacking or inconsistent.
Suggest specific research questions or study designs to address these gaps.
Recommendations for future research are often a key element, particularly suggestions for more focused systematic reviews based on the scoping review’s findings.
For instance, a scoping review might reveal a need for research linking specific features of expertise to mental and physical health outcomes. Similarly, there might be methodological gaps regarding the validation of certain measures or understanding experiences across diverse contexts and populations.

“The lack of evidence to support physiotherapy interventions for this population appears to pose a challenge to physiotherapists. The aim of this scoping review was to identify gaps in the literature which may guide a future systematic review. However, the lack of evidence found means that undertaking a systematic review is not appropriate or necessary […]. This advocates high quality research being needed to determine what physiotherapy techniques may be of benefit for this population and to help guide physiotherapists as how to deliver this.”

Hall, A. J., Lang, I. A., Endacott, R., Hall, A., & Goodwin, V. A. (2017). Physiotherapy interventions for people with dementia and a hip fracture—a scoping review of the literature. Physiotherapy , 103 (4), 361-368.

Potential Challenges

Balancing breadth and depth: Scoping reviews necessitate a careful balance between covering a wide range of literature (breadth) and providing sufficient depth of analysis. A scope that is too broad can become unmanageable and result in superficial treatment of the topic. Conversely, excessive focus on depth might compromise the comprehensiveness of the review. This balance requires careful consideration during the planning stages, particularly when defining the review question and inclusion criteria.
Lack of standardized terminology and methods: While frameworks for scoping reviews exist, there is still a lack of consensus on terminology and methods, potentially leading to inconsistencies in how they are conducted and reported. This variability can make it challenging to assess the quality and reliability of scoping review findings.
Difficulty in analyzing and presenting findings: Scoping reviews often involve synthesizing information from a large and diverse body of literature. Analyzing and presenting this information in a meaningful and concise way can be demanding, requiring a high level of analytical skill and clarity of presentation. The absence of standardized analysis methods further exacerbates this challenge, leading to potential inconsistencies in how data is extracted, analyzed, and presented.
Limited resources and time constraints: Scoping reviews, although sometimes perceived as a quicker alternative to systematic reviews, can still be resource-intensive. They require meticulous planning, comprehensive searching, and rigorous analysis.

Reading List

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework . International journal of social research methodology , 8 (1), 19-32.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology . Implementation science , 5 , 1-9.
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology , 18 , 1-7.
Pearson, A., Wiechula, R., & Lockwood, C. (2005). The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. JBI Evidence Implementation , 3 (8), 207-215.
Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Scoping reviews . JBI manual for evidence synthesis , 10 .
Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Soares, C. B., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. In The Joanna Briggs institute reviewers manual 2015 (pp. 3-24). Joanna Briggs Institute.
Peters, M., Godfrey, C., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Soares, C., & Parker, D. (2017). 2017 guidance for the conduct of JBI scoping reviews . Joana Briggs Inst Rev Man , 13 , 141-6.
Pollock, D., Davies, E. L., Peters, M. D., Tricco, A. C., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., … & Munn, Z. (2021). Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics . Journal of advanced nursing , 77 (4), 2102-2113.
Pollock, D., Peters, M. D., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., … & Munn, Z. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI evidence synthesis , 21 (3), 520-532.
Scott, H., Sweet, L., Strauch, L., & Muller, A. (2019). Expressed breastmilk handling and storage guidelines available to mothers in the community: A scoping review. Women and Birth, 33 (5), 426–432.
Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, O’Brien, KK, Colquhoun, H, Levac, D, Moher, D, Peters, MD, Horsley, T, Weeks, L, Hempel, S et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018,169(7):467-473.

Get the Reddit app

A place to share and discuss articles/issues related to all fields of psychology. Discussions should be of an academic nature, avoiding ‘pop psychology.’ This is also a place to talk about your own psychology research, methods, and career in order to gain input from our vast psychology community. This subreddit is generally aimed at those in an intermediate to master level, mostly in/around graduate school, or for professionals; undergraduates, etc., are recommended for r/psychologystudents.

Examples of psychology critical review papers?

I'm in my 1st year and I've been given my first two essays to write (with little guidance). One of my tasks is to critically review a journal article (with a study) that I have picked.

Does anyone have an example of what a good critical review looks like? I'm keen to do well, but to be honest IDEK what a critical review should look like!

Thank you in advance

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Critical Analysis of Business Strategy and Key Limitations in Costco Wholesale Corporation

This essay about the evolution and merger of Price Club and Costco explores the origins and business philosophies of these pioneering companies in the warehouse club retail sector. Highlighting the innovative strategies of Price Club’s founders in 1976 and Costco’s establishment in 1983, the essay discusses how both companies prioritized low prices on bulk items, quality, and customer satisfaction. The 1993 merger, forming Costco Wholesale Corporation, combined Price Club’s expertise in serving small businesses with Costco’s focus on individual consumers, creating a powerful retail entity. This merger capitalized on shared values and distinct strengths, reinforcing a commitment to value, employee welfare, and membership satisfaction. The essay concludes by reflecting on Costco’s ongoing success, its adherence to founding principles, and its influence on modern retail, emphasizing the importance of visionary leadership and strategic collaboration in achieving sustainable growth.

How it works

The retail landscape underwent a transformation in the late 20th century with the emergence of warehouse clubs, a concept that revolutionized how consumers approached bulk purchasing. At the forefront of this revolution were Price Club and Costco, two entities that would later merge to form the behemoth known today as Costco Wholesale Corporation. This essay explores the origins, philosophies, and subsequent merger of Price Club and Costco, shedding light on how their combined strengths have shaped the modern retail experience.

Price Club, founded by Sol Price and his son Robert in 1976 in San Diego, California, was the pioneer of the warehouse club model.

Sol Price’s vision was to create a membership-based retail outlet that offered low prices on bulk items, primarily targeting small businesses. The innovation didn’t stop at the business model; the operational strategies, including minimalistic store designs and high-volume, low-margin sales, were radical at the time. Price Club’s success soon attracted not just businesses but also individual shoppers, paving the way for a new kind of retail environment.

Meanwhile, Costco, founded in 1983 by James Sinegal and Jeffrey Brotman, adopted a similar approach, focusing on providing exceptional value to its members. From the outset, Costco emphasized quality alongside value, a principle that has remained at the core of its business model. The founders were inspired by Sol Price’s concepts and set out to refine them, expanding the range of products offered and placing a greater emphasis on customer satisfaction. Costco’s approach to treating both its customers and employees well, including offering higher wages and benefits than competitors, contributed to its rapid growth and loyal customer base.

The merger of Price Club and Costco in 1993 was a landmark event in the retail industry, uniting two giants with shared values but distinct strengths. The combined company, named Costco Wholesale Corporation, leveraged Price Club’s experience in serving small businesses and Costco’s expertise in catering to individual consumers. This fusion created a powerful retail force that offered an unrivaled selection of goods at competitive prices, backed by a commitment to customer satisfaction and employee welfare. The merger was driven by the recognition that together, the two companies could achieve greater scale and efficiency, further driving down costs and passing the savings on to members.

Today, Costco Wholesale Corporation stands as a testament to the vision of its founders and the transformative power of the merger. With hundreds of warehouses globally, Costco has maintained its dedication to the principles established by Price Club and Costco. The company continues to prioritize value, quality, and sustainability, adapting to consumer needs and market changes without compromising its core values. Costco’s enduring success can be attributed to its innovative business model, operational efficiencies, and unwavering focus on membership satisfaction.

The legacy of Price Club and Costco, and their merger, provides valuable lessons in retail and beyond. It underscores the importance of visionary leadership, the strength of clear and consistent business philosophies, and the potential of strategic collaborations. The Costco story is one of adaptation, innovation, and commitment to principles, offering insights into building a sustainable, member-centric business in a competitive landscape. As Costco moves forward, it carries forward the legacy of Price Club and Costco, continuing to impact the retail industry and the shopping habits of millions around the world.

Cite this page

Critical Analysis of Business Strategy and Key Limitations in Costco Wholesale Corporation. (2024, Apr 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-analysis-of-business-strategy-and-key-limitations-in-costco-wholesale-corporation/

"Critical Analysis of Business Strategy and Key Limitations in Costco Wholesale Corporation." PapersOwl.com , 7 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-analysis-of-business-strategy-and-key-limitations-in-costco-wholesale-corporation/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Critical Analysis of Business Strategy and Key Limitations in Costco Wholesale Corporation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-analysis-of-business-strategy-and-key-limitations-in-costco-wholesale-corporation/ [Accessed: 3 Aug. 2024]

"Critical Analysis of Business Strategy and Key Limitations in Costco Wholesale Corporation." PapersOwl.com, Apr 07, 2024. Accessed August 3, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-analysis-of-business-strategy-and-key-limitations-in-costco-wholesale-corporation/

"Critical Analysis of Business Strategy and Key Limitations in Costco Wholesale Corporation," PapersOwl.com , 07-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-analysis-of-business-strategy-and-key-limitations-in-costco-wholesale-corporation/. [Accessed: 3-Aug-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

IMAGES

💄 Format for psychology research paper. Sample Psychology Research
💐 How to write a psychology research paper. 6 Tips For Crafting A
The Anatomy of Research Articles and Critical Evaluation Free Essay Example
How to Write a Professional Paper Using Psychology Research Topics
How to Write a Professional Paper Using Psychology Research Topics
Critical Analysis Of A Research Paper

VIDEO

Academic Support
Academic Writing: the Critical Evaluation Essay
Secret To Writing A Research Paper
How To Write An Article Review
Research Approaches : Research Methodology-7 #phd #ugcnet #csirnet
What is Literature Review, Literature Review Easy Definitions and Explanation, Literature Review PDF

COMMENTS

Writing Critical Reviews: A Step-by-Step Guide
Ev en better you might. consider doing an argument map (see Chapter 9, Critical thinking). Step 5: Put the article aside and think about what you have read. Good critical review. writing requires ...
LibGuides: PSY290
It's critical in that you thoughtfully consider the validity and accuracy of the author's claims and that you identify other valid points of view. An effective critical review has three parts: APA citation of article; Clearly summarizes the purpose for the article and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the research.
PDF B.S. Research Paper Example (Literature Review)
B.S. Research Paper Example (Literature Review) This is an example of a research paper that was written in fulfillment of the B.S. research paper requirement. It uses APA style for all aspects except the cover sheet (this page; the cover sheet is required by the department). It describes research that the author investigated while taking the ...
PDF Planning and writing a critical review
appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on and critical evaluation of a text. You might carry out a critical review as a stand-alone exercise, or as part of your research and preparation for writing a literature review. The following guidelines are designed to help you critically evaluate a research article. What is meant by ...
Examples of critical reviews
How to refer to it. Examples of critical reviews. By , , . Students often, and sensibly ask for example CRs (critical reviews). Often if you go to the right PAL session, the facilitators will bring theirs in as examples. If you do the reciprocal peer critiquing exericse in your tutorial group (s), where each student reads and comments on two ...
How to demonstrate critical evaluation in your psychology assignments
Thinking critically about psychology research. Critical thinking is often taught in undergraduate psychology degrees, and is a key marking criteria for higher marks in many assignments. ... To name a few from the image above, we have: a meta-analysis or a systematic review (a review paper that summarises the research that explores the same ...
How to Write an Article Critique Psychology Paper
To write an article critique, you should: Read the article, noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations. Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas. Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance. Critically evaluate the contents of the article ...
PDF University of Washington Psychology Writing Center http://www.psych.uw
The Two Purposes of a Literature Review. wo purposes: (. ) to describe and compare studies in a specific area of research and (2) to evaluatethose studies. Both purposes are vital: a thorough summary and comparison of the curren. essary before you can build a strong evaluative argument ab.
Guideline for conducting critical reviews in psychology research
While numerous guidelines for conducting the various types of reviews are available within literature, there is limited information to inform researchers on how to conduct a critical review. We searched the following data bases for critical review guidelines: PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, Directory of Open Access Journals, GoogleScholar ...
Guideline for conducting critical reviews in psychology research
A critical review was the best methodological approach for this research study, as the purpose of the critical review is to develop new hypotheses, models, theories, and/or definitions (De Klerk ...
Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA
In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as "cute." They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal Psychological Science.
Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article
For example, stating that the sample size is insufficient is not a critical assessment. Describing why the sample size is insufficient for the claims being made in the study would be a critical assessment. Use the questions below to help you evaluate the quality of the authors' research: Title. Does the title precisely state the subject of ...
PDF How to Read, Critically Evaluate, and Write Research Papers
Appendix B. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. How to Read, Critically Evaluate, and Write Research Papers. Science is a community effort. Only through the cooperation (and competition) of many people does scientific knowledge inch forward. Both to get a sense of what's happening at the cutting edge of the science of psychology and to learn how to ...
PDF Writing & Critical Analysis in Psychology
Critical evaluation example from Gwen's essay. Main thesis of the essay: The critical period does not exist for second language acquisition. Argument: Motivation might also play a role in second language learning. Examples from a study: Research by Tragant shows that motivation, or the lack thereof, might also explain the results (Muñoz ch. 10).
PDF Writing a Psychology Literature Review
There are three main steps: (1) selecting a research topic, (2) collecting and reading the relevant articles, and (3) writing the review article. This straightforward-sounding process in fact requires quite a bit of work. Suitable topics must be selected with care and discrimination.
Critical Reviews
What critical reviews are. Critical Reviews (CRs) are essays based on scholarship i.e. on finding and reading the literature on a topic, and adding your own considered arguments and judgements about it. CRs thus involve both reviewing an area, and exercising critical thought and judgement.
Writing a Literature Review
An "express method" of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document. Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding ...
4
The goals of literature reviews are the following (American Psychological Association, 2009): There are five kinds of literature reviews that can be distinguished on the basis of the aim of the review. Reviews can strive to (a) generate new knowledge, (b) test theories, (c) integrate theories, (d) develop a new theory, or (e) integrate existing ...
PDF Writing a Critical Review
Writing a Critical Review The advice in this brochure is a general guide only. We strongly recommend that you also follow your assignment instructions and seek clarification from your lecturer/tutor if needed. Purpose of a critical review The critical review is a writing task that asks you to summarise and evaluate a text. The critical review can
Subject Guides: PSY 306: Cognitive Psychology: Literature Reviews
A literature review is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. ... From the Internet to Paper provides readers with an accessible but in-depth look at how to synthesize research literature. ... s methodological quality Provides more qualitative research examples and information on how to evaluate their ...
Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review
A scoping review is a type of research synthesis that maps the existing literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, research gaps, and types of evidence. This mapping exercise involves systematically searching for, identifying, and charting relevant literature to understand its characteristics, such as the volume of research, types of ...
Critical analysis of psychological research II: delivering a course for
learn about the critical evaluation of published research papers. Practical details of this course and some issues that may arise in the conduct of such a course are described. Comments and feedback regarding the existing course are reported. It is argued that this type of provision should be part of any core curriculum in psychology.
Example Critical Review with annotations
Sample Critical Review with annotations Introduction. The article reviewed in this paper reports on a. randomised, experimental trial comparing telephone. monitoring, telephone counselling and usual continued. care for alcohol-dependent participants. The critique of. the article begins with a brief summary followed by a
Examples of psychology critical review papers? : r ...
This a place for psychology students to discuss study methods, get homework help, get job search advice, and what ever else comes to mind. This sub is aimed at those at the beginner to intermediate level, generally in or around undergraduate studies. Graduate students and professionals are recommended for our sister sub, r/academicpsychology.
Critical Essay Examples PapersOwl
A critical essay is an analytical piece of writing that presents and evaluates an argument, piece of literature, film, or any work within the arts and humanities. Unlike a simple review, a critical essay delves deeper into the nuances of the subject, offering a comprehensive analysis backed by evidence, to not only state what the author or ...

PSY290 - Research Methods

Writing a Critical Review

How to demonstrate critical evaluation in your psychology assignments

Share this:

How to Write an Article Critique

Evaluating the Article

At a Glance

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Read the Results Section of the Article

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Introduction

Thesis Statement

Article Summary

Your Analysis

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

What This Means For You

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Sections of a Research Report

Introduction

The Opening

The Literature Review

The Closing

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Long Descriptions

Share This Book

Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article

Ask Us: Chat, email, visit or call

Video: How to Integrate Critical Voice into Your Literature Review

Video: Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Plagiarism

Get assistance

Introduction

Acknowledgments

Consider the article as a whole

Writing Research Papers

Different Types of Literature Reviews

How to Write a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

2. Conduct a literature search.

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Benefits of Literature Reviews

Downloadable Resources

Further Resources

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]

Login Alert

Book contents

4 - Writing a Literature Review

Access options

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive

PSY 306: Cognitive Psychology

Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review

What is a Scoping Review?

When a scoping review methodology would be appropriate:

When not to choose a scoping review methodology:

Methodological Guidelines

Methodological guidelines for scoping reviews have evolved over time:

1. Developing review objective(s) & question(s)

Defining Objectives:

Developing Research Questions:

2. Write A Research Protocol

Example Protocols:

Report in the Methods Section

3. Developing eligibility criteria

When specifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, consider the following aspects:

Iterative Process

4. Information Sources

5. Searching for the evidence

Ovid Search Strategy (Table 1)

Citation Chasing Process

6. Selecting the evidence

The search results are screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria to determine inclusion in the review.

7. Extracting the evidence