Virginia Norris Critical Review

Virginia Norris Critical Review

 

Eggenberger, T. Sentinel node biopsy. Retrieved August 30, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.intellihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9103/29497.html

Where: The Intellihealth Web site is a general information health Web site. It draws information from “trusted sources” (e.g., Harvard Medical School, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine); however, it sells health products and is financed by an insurance company. They do not endorse specific products. In general, the information on this site should be viewed with caution but may be an appropriate first step.

Who: Ty Eggenberger, a correspondent for Intellihealth. No evidence is given for the author’s credentials, but the Web site indicates that the editors are experts and use trusted sources.

When: Although the site was last updated 8/27/01, there is no indication when the article was written. It appears to be current, but this cannot be evaluated.

What: This article reviews a new diagnostic procedure, sentinel node biopsy, for breast cancer. They suggest that women investigate this option, but caution that the surgeon’s experience level is associated with diagnostic accuracy. The information is supported with quotations from a surgeon at a prestigious hospital. The argument appears reasonable and is appropriately cautious. If I were looking for advice on this issue, I would search in more clinically oriented databases to look for data on hits and misses for this diagnostic tool.

How: I was disappointed that no source was cited. This makes it difficult for me to evaluate how the evidence was collected.

In summary, this is a good first-step article that presents a new diagnostic tool; however, before insisting on this type of biopsy over an axillary dissection, I would look for further information.

Critical Review
Of an Article on Testing or Test Related Issue It is important that you learn how to
critically review research on
psychological testing. In our society
today, we are exposed to many
types of tests. Some are excellent,
some are useful, and some are
invalid and unreliable. How can you
determine what tests are useful? The
most important thing you will learn
from this course—and from your
college education—is how to
critically evaluate information
presented to you. Critical thinking
involves asking five questions: who,
what, when, where, how.
1. Find and read an article in the
media, journal, wall street journal or
a video clip that reports the results
of a scientific study on psychological
testing. You may choose from any
type of psychological test,
including tests for IQ, psychological
problems (e.g., depression, anxiety), psychological traits (e.g., selfesteem, resiliency) or personality
(e.g., agreeableness, openness).
Again, it must be specifically about a
psychological testing
instrument. You must include the
link to the website.
2. How accurately did the media
report the study?
3. Answer the above five questions
about the article (Who, What, When,
Where, and How).
Submit your paper by the end of
week 1 by clicking on the words
critical review at the top of this text
box.
Please be sure that your article is
research based.Your review must
have at least a 200 word count. Directions and Critical Review Examples to follow below:
Directions
You will write a one-page critical review of the article. The
review should answer each of the five questions. You must
cite your source. If it is a website, please make sure you
put the entire web address. Remember you are evaluating
critically, not just summarizing. See the examples below
the grading rubric: Critical Review Point Value Total Failure to cover all 5 questions -12 points each -60 points all 5 Failure to choose scholarly topic that is researchable -20 points -20 points Errors in Spelling/Grammar -10 points -10 points Late assignment -5 points per day -10 points per day Failure to post word count -10 points -10 points Failure to write a minimum of 150 words -10 points -10 points CRITICAL THINKING REVIEW EXAMPLE Critical thinking involves asking five questions—who, when, what,
where, how. You should organize your paper in the following manner:
Your Name Critical Review Author, I. (date of publication). Title of article. Name of Publication,
volume #, page #-#. OR
Author, I. (date of publication if available). Title of article. Retrieved
[date accessed] from the World Wide Web: [Web site address] Where: Where did this article/Web page appear? Is this reasonable?
Is the publishing entity respectable/responsible?
Who: Who wrote/published the article/Web page? What are their
credentials? Are the credentials appropriate for their argument? When: Is this current information? If yes, do you think it will stand
the “test of time”? If no, is it outdated or is it classic?
What: What argument is/are the author(s) making? Is it logical?
Based on what you know, is it reasonable? What evidence is given to
support the argument? Can you think of evidence to refute it?
How: How was the supporting/refuting evidence collected? Is this
credible? What kind of evidence do you think needs to be gathered to
test the argument? Did the author(s) do this?
Summarize the quality of the article (it does not have to be a “good”
article in your opinion), and whether you consider this to be a
worthwhile and trustworthy article. Did you think it was biased?
Could the author have underlying motives? What do you think? Is it
valid? NOTE: Do not simply answer yes or no to the questions above. Write
a thoughtful response to each section.
SAMPLE CRITICAL REVIEW
Virginia Norris Critical Review Eggenberger, T. Sentinel node biopsy.