Research report Evaluation checklist: (Adopted from Ward and Fetler) Title: y Is it readily understood?

o Are the variables identified?

o Are the variables differentiated, e.g., major, minor, dependent, independent, predicted, predictor?

Is it concise? o Are pertinent terms operationally defined?

Is it informative?

Abstract: y Does it state the problem and, where appropriate, does it state the hypothesis clearly and concisely?

Are the parameters of the study identified, i.e. limitations and delimitations?

Is it the methodology indentified and described?

Review of Literature y Is the cited literature pertinent to the research problem?

y y Are the results summarized? y y Are the conclusion stated? y Problem: y Statement of the problem o Are the questions to be answered stated precisely?

Does it provide a rationale for the research?

Are the source mainly primary sources?

Is there reviews conclude with a brief summary of relevant literature and its implications for the research problem under study?

o Is the problem stated clearly?

Methodology y Subject o Is the subject population (sampling frame) described?

o Is the problem statement concise? o Is the sampling method described? o Is the problem researchable? o Is the sampling method justified (especially for non-probability sampling)?

o Are the hypotheses to be tested in a form that permits testing?

Is the significance of the problem discussed and research justified? Variables

o Are possible sources of sampling bias identified?

o Are the standards for the protection of human subjects being followed?

Are confounding variables excluded as far as possible, mentioned otherwise?

Instruments o Is the instrument valid for the relevant experimental setting and goals?  Does it have constructed validity?

Is the description of the design explicit enough to permit replication?

Results y Are the results presented with clarity and precision?

Does it have content validity? y Are they logically organized?

Does it have criterion-related (concurrent, predictive) validity?

Is the information presented sufficient to answer the hypotheses?

Is the instrument reliable for the relevant experiment setting and goal?

Are the reported statistics relevant to the research hypotheses?

o Internal consistency and coefficients?

Are the reported statistics appropriate to the design?

o Equivalence coefficients?

Are all tables and figures complete and easy to understand?

o Stability coefficients? Discussion y Is each result discussed in terms of the original problem?

o Interrated coefficients?

Is the development of the instrument, including the pilot instrument, described?

If the hypotheses were stated, are they addresses in the discussion of results?

Design y Is the design appropriate to the relevant theory and experimental hypothesis?

Are the conclusion warranted by the discussion of results?

y y y Is the design internally valid? Are proper controls included? y

Are the implications of the findings discussed? Are recommendations for future research suggested?