Human Resources Management (HRM)

MGMT 650 Critical Review Assignment

(Last updated February 21, 2020)

 

The article for this assignment is provided in the syllabus, under week 9. This is not a group project and it must be done independently.

 

Read through this outline carefully. When your instructor grades your submission, they will be looking to see if you followed the provided format: you can lose points if you do not. If you have any questions about what to do or need interpretation of the instructions, please post them in the Questions breakout room so that all students can benefit from the information.

 

Mastery of statistics involves not only the ability to generate sound statistical data, but also the ability to critically evaluate the statistical analysis of others. The latter is the focus of the Critical Review assignment in MGMT 650. A review, or critique, is not a summary or a simple retelling of the major findings in a research article. It is much more. It assesses how well the researcher carries out the required steps in the research process.

 

Elements of the critique

Summary of the article (Discuss what the article is about) This part SHOULD NOT include any of your personal input but rather just summarize what the author did in his/her research.

• Research Topic
  • What question is the researcher trying to answer?
• Research Methodology
  • How did the researcher study the topic? Survey? Experiment? Statistical Analysis?
  • Briefly answer who, what, where, and when, and how.
• Major Conclusions
  • What does the author conclude?
  • What recommendations does he make?

This section should be about 1.5 pages in general.

 

The next part is the key of the critique.  This next sections of your paper gives an assessment of how well the research was conducted based on what you learned.  Remember you can use your own personal experience and outside articles to help you support your point of view in this section of the assignment.

In-depth critique of the article (Discuss how well the research is conducted in your own words)

Write a brief paragraph for each of the following listed elements in your own words:

• Purpose
  • Is the research problem clearly stated? Is it easy to determine what the researcher intends to research?
• Literature Review
  • Is the review logically organized?
  • Does it offer a balanced critical analysis of the literature?
  • Is the majority of the literature of recent origin?
  • Is it empirical in nature?
• Objectives/hypotheses
  • Has a research question or hypothesis been identified?
  • Is it clearly stated?
  • Is it consistent with discussion in the literature review?
• Ethical Standards Applied
  • Were the participants fully informed about the nature of the research?
  • Was confidentiality guaranteed?
  • Were participants protected from harm?
• Operational Definitions
  • Are all terms, theories, and concepts used in the study clearly defined?
• Methodology
  • Is the research design clearly identified?
  • Has the data gathering instrument been described?
  • Is the instrument appropriate? How was it developed?
  • Were reliability and validity testing undertaken and the results discussed?
  • Was a pilot study undertaken?
• Data Analysis/Results
  • What type of data and statistical analysis was undertaken? Was it appropriate?
  • How many of the sample participated? Significance of the findings?
• Discussion
  • Are the findings linked back to the literature review?
  • If a hypothesis was identified was it supported?
  • Were the strengths and limitations of the study including generalizability discussed?
  • Was a recommendation for further research made?
• References
  • Were all the books, journals and other media alluded to in the study accurately referenced?
• Conclusion
  • Considering all of the evaluation categories, is the article well or poorly researched?

 

 

The following online article may be helpful to you. Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1:

Quantitative research

https://www.unm.edu/~unmvclib/cascade/handouts/critiquingresearchpart1.pdf

 

Layout of your paper and other writing requirements

 

Your final report should be organized in the following format:

 

• Title page
  • Include name and author of article you critique
  • Include your name and MGMT 650 section number

 

• Brief summary of article
• In-depth critique of article
• Bibliography

 

Additional writing requirements:

• Submit your paper as a Word document. No PDF files.
• Double-space
• Use 12 point Times New Roman font and 1 inch margins
• Use section headings to identify the different components of your discussion
• Number all pages after the title page
• Use APA format for citations and bibliography
• Do not use quotes from the article, paraphrase
• Keep the tone formal. Write like a researcher. Avoid the use of first person pronouns such as I, we, me, us, etc.
• Check for spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors
• Keep your paper to 5-6 pages, not including the title page
• When submitting to LEO, incorporate your name in the filename that you use. For example, Smith_critique.docx
• Normal late penalties apply

ANSWER

Article Summary and Critique

Article Summary

Research Topic

The researcher is trying to determine if students experience intolerance of uncertainty, worry, and anxiety due to exposure to statistics-related courses. The major aim is to assess the reasons behind students’ reluctance to undertake statistics courses until their last semester. Therefore, the researcher is trying to understand the relationship between intolerance to uncertainty, worry, anxiety, and statistic course uptake among students.

Research Methodology

The researcher studied this topic through the survey research method to collect viable data and information. It primarily integrated the scale factor and questionnaires, which fall under the survey method. With the Likert scale, the investigator acquired information focusing on the students’ attitude and perception towards statistic courses as indicated by their level of agreeing or disagreeing with the highlighted questions. The questionnaire factor also measured their tendency to uncertainty intolerance, worry, and anxiety. Overall, the researcher effectively used the survey approach to measure the link between uncertainty intolerance, worry, anxiety and statistical courses among learners.

The researcher recruited 97 participants from a large public Southwestern University to take part in the study. This sample was acquired from different backgrounds aligned with gender, age, ethnicity, and education level factors. The study took place during the 2010 fall and spring semesters. The researcher targeted 90.7% of the students who were halfway to their degree program, while 61.9% had less than 33 hours remaining to complete their course (Williams, 2013). This quality approach accelerates the chances of targeting their exposure to intolerance, anxiety and worry towards statistics courses because they undertook them as the last stage. This puts the researcher in a better position to obtain the projected outcomes since the assessment entails students undertaking the course in their last phase.

Major Conclusions

Conclusions

The researcher concludes that uncertainty intolerance leads to worry. The latter exposes individuals to anxiety which is a prerequisite factor in statistics anxiety. This means that students portraying intolerance for uncertainty are likely to depict worry. After developing worry, they become increasingly exposed to anxiety. The reluctance to undertake statistic courses at the start of their semester session is thus associated with statistics anxiety associated with uncertainty intolerance and worry. Thus, the researcher concludes that uncertainty intolerance, worry, and anxiety generate statistics anxiety, making students take statistics courses in their last semesters.

Recommendations

The researcher recommends that additional variables relating to intolerance to uncertainty, worry, and anxiety should be accommodated in this research in the future to examine the impact of these elements in exposing learners to statistics anxiety.

Article Critique

Purpose

The researcher has identified the purpose of the study through precise identification of the problem. As the study commences, the researcher provides an overview of statistics anxiety being one of the problems affecting most graduate students and ties this with intolerance to uncertainty, worry, and anxiety. Thus, it becomes easy for the audience to determine what the researcher is assessing in this study.

Literature Review

The literature review segment is logically and chronologically organized to enable the audience to relate to the key aspects of the topic step by step. It guides the reader effectively to each perspective of interest to ensure they understand its meaning and relevance in the study at hand.

This segment offers a balanced critical analysis of the literature by accepting and rejecting that these elements expose students to statistics anxiety. While some researchers recognize that intolerance to uncertainty, worry, and anxiety leads to statistics anxiety, others believe that one or a combination can shape this outcome. For instance, Barlow (2002) believes that anxiety leads to statistics avoidance to reduce the discomfort of anxiety. However, Ruscio and Borkovec (2004) believe that high levels of worry are not necessarily associated with generalized anxiety. This means that these scholars object that worry is always linked to anxiety.

Most of the sources integrated into the literature review segment are not up-to-date. This means that they might fail to represent current needs. It becomes hard to generate credibility since the literature is overtaken by time. This segment should bring the reader to up-to-date literature (Ramdhani, Ramdhani & Amin, 2014). This enhances the credibility of the information and data incorporated. The literature review segment is not based on empirical research processes, as evidenced by the lack of observational approaches that lead to the measurement of the phenomenon. It focuses on survey studies that seek to understand attitudes and perceptions.

Objectives/Hypothesis

The researcher has identified three research hypothesis that guides this study. One deals with intolerance uncertainty being a key factor causing worry among students before statistics pretest. The other is that worry is associated with six types of statistics anxiety at pretest. Lastly, the other mentioned hypothesis is that students’ exposure to uncertainty intolerance, worry, and statistics anxiety reduces from pretest to posttest. These hypotheses allow the audience to familiarize themselves with aspects that the research seeks to test and expectations. They are all clearly stated and are consistent with the discussions in the literature review as its central focus is on intolerance to uncertainty, worry, and statistics anxiety.

Ethical Standards Applicable

The researcher applied ethics in this study. All the participants were fully informed about the research and the expectations. This ensured that they understood what the research was all about. Also, anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed to these participants. This meant that they would not have to worry about exposure of the information they relayed to the researcher. The participants were protected from harm with the informed consent, anonymity, and confidentiality approaches as indicated by Yip, Han, and Sng (2016). Overall, the research integrated key ethical standards and considerations that enhance research outcomes.

Operational Definitions

The research defines some key terms and concepts used in this study and fails to expose the readers to the definition behind others. For instance, statistics education research, academic anxiety, and graduate students are mentioned as keywords. However, the investigator does not expound on the meaning of these keywords. It means the audience might fail to connect with these terms due to multiple interpretations (van Mil & Henman, 2016). However, the research offers an improved understanding of terms like statistics anxiety, computation self-concept, worry, the worth of statistics, and interpretation anxiety. Overall, the investigator fails to offer operational definitions of all terms, theories, and concepts included in the research.

Methodology

The research uses the descriptive research design in the study. Data gathering instruments are mentioned and described where the researcher has invested in IUS-12 (Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12), PSWQ (The Penn State Worry Questionnaire), and STARS (Statistics Anxiety Rating Scale) instruments to assemble reliable information. These instruments are highly valuable in this research as they assess the level of tolerance for uncertainty, the tendency to worry, and anxiety. They range tolerance to each of these perspectives using a scale that indicates their level of exposure. Instrument reliability and validity testing are integrated into this study to show the potential of these instruments in relaying appropriate data and information. For example, the IUS-12 tool showed internal consistency reliability of 0.91, PSWQ with a 0.93 reliability for 16 measured items, and STARS indicating between 0.93 and 0.91 reliability (Williams, 2013). This means that these instruments are valid also. Validity and reliability enhances the dependability of a score (Al Jaghsi et al., 2021). The researcher does not integrate a pilot study.

Data Analysis/Results

The researcher dealt with descriptive data that was analyzed using the mean and standard deviation approaches. These methods effectively assess the three elements to show the objective and subjective data while offering a point of comparison. As Wan et al. (2014) state, mean and standard deviation provides estimation consistency. This means that the comparisons established to provide a point of consistency.

Ninety-seven samples participated in the study to provide the researcher with quality information on their intolerance to uncertainty, worry, and anxiety and their exposure to statistics anxiety. The findings enable the researcher to understand if the three elements expose learners to statistics anxiety and offer suitable recommendations for handling them. Also, it opens research gaps to create a call for future researchers to expand this research.

Discussion

The findings are linked to the literature review outcomes as they two show a significant relationship between uncertainty intolerance, worry, anxiety, and statistics anxiety. This means that intolerance to uncertainty, worry, and anxiety likely expose learners to statistics anxiety. The findings support the identified hypothesis as the research outcomes portray a positive relationship between the study elements.

The researcher has identified the study’s strengths and limitations. For example, key strengths include potential and useful investigation of the link between worry, associated constructs, and statistics anxiety among graduate students. Limitations include lack of caution in results generalization and absence of a control group.

Lastly, the researcher recommends that additional variables that relate to intolerance to uncertainty, worry, and anxiety be incorporated because they could have a major impact on these elements and the achieved results.

References

All the sources used in this study are referenced appropriately. This helps the audience to sharpen their referencing knowledge and skills.

Conclusion

This is a well researcher article even though it fails to integrate current sources. This would have made it more relevant to the audience. However, it fulfills major research based requirements making it a well-researched article.

References

Wan, X., Wang, W., Liu, J., & Tong, T. (2014). Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC medical research methodology, 14(1), 1-13.

Williams, A. S. (2013). Worry, Intolerance of Uncertainty, and Statistics Anxiety. Statistics education research journal, 12(1).

Al Jaghsi, A., Saeed, M., Abu Fanas, S., Alqutaibi, A. Y., & Mundt, T. (2021). Validity and reliability of new instruments for measuring patient satisfaction with removable dentures, Arabic Version. BMC oral health, 21(1), 1-10.

Yip, C., Han, N. L. R., & Sng, B. L. (2016). Legal and ethical issues in research. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60(9), 684.

van Mil, J. F., & Henman, M. (2016). Terminology, the importance of defining. International journal of clinical pharmacy, 38(3), 709-713.

Ramdhani, A., Ramdhani, M. A., & Amin, A. S. (2014). Writing a Literature Review Research Paper: A step-by-step approach. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 3(1), 47-56.