CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING RESEARCH ARTICLES[[

1. Is the problem clearly stated?

2. Does the problem have a theoretical rationale?
3. How significant is the problem?
4. Is there a review of the literature? If so, is it relevant?
5. How clearly are the hypotheses stated?
6. Are operational definitions provided?
7. Is the procedure or method used to attack and answer the problem fully and
completely described?
8. Are there any probable sources of error that might influence the results of the study? If
so, have they been controlled?
9. Were statistical techniques used to analyze the data? If so, were they appropriate?
10. How clearly are the results presented?
11. Are the conclusions presented clearly? Do the data support?
12. What are the limitations of the study? Are they stated?

POINTS TO PONDER WHEN READING RESEARCH

PROBLEM

1. Was the problem clearly and succinctly stated?

2. Is it sufficiently delimited to be amenable to investigations? Does it have sufficient
practical value (to educators, students, parents) to warrant study?

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. How adequately has the literature been surveyed?

2. Does the review present pertinent material or is it just “filler”?
3. Were primary or secondary sources used?
4. does the review critically evaluate previous findings and studies or is it only a
summary of what is known without pointing out any possible deficiencies or
alternative explanations?
5. does the review support the need for studying the problem?
6. does the review establish a theoretical framework for the problem?

HYPOTHESIS

1. Are any assumptions advanced with respect to the hypotheses? If so, are they explicit
– they should be or are they implicit?
2. Are the hypotheses consistent with theory and known facts?
3. Are they testable?
4. Do they provide a suggested answer to the problem?
5. Are all terms adequately defined in operational fashion?
DATA AND PROCEDURES

1. Are the procedures, design and instruments employed gather the data described with
sufficient clarity so a s to permit another researcher to replicate the study?
2. Is the population described fully? Did the researcher use the total population or did he
sample from it? If a sample is used, is it a representative of the population from which
it was selected?

Note: the manner and the size of the sampling are very important.

3. If locally prepared instruments were used, is evidence presented to attest to their

validity and reliability?
4. Were the “best” (most economical, most feasible, most valid and reliable) instruments
or techniques used?
5. Was a pretest used? Was there a pilot study? If so, why? What were the results? Was
the problem original hypothesis or procedure changed because of the pretest or pilot
study, and if so, was this modification justifiable and/or desirable?
6. Are there any obvious weaknesses in the overall “design” of the study?

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

1. Are statistical techniques needed to analyze the data?

2. Was the most appropriate and meaningful statistical technique(s) employed?
3. Were any assumptions related to using a particular statistical technique violated? If so,
how would this affect the findings?
4. Have the results been adequately presented?

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND GENERALIZATIONS

1. Are the conclusions and generalizations consistent with theory and/or known facts?
2. Does the researcher discuss the limitations of the study?
3. Are there any extraneous factors that might have affected the findings? Has the
researcher considered them?
4. Are conclusions presented consistent with theory and/or known facts?
5. Have the conclusions (both those relevant to the original hypothesis and any
serendipitous findings) have been presented and discussed?