RESEARCH REVIEW FORMAT

When you review your article, use the following format, and label each section of your
report. Do not summarize the literature review.

I. Citation

Give a full bibliographic citation according to APA 6th format.

II. Summary
Summarize what the research was about. For example, “This article reported on the
findings of a series of focus groups among _________ regarding their perceptions
of student writing standards in their departments.” One sentence may be sufficient.

III. Methods
Briefly explain how the research was conducted.

IV. Sample Population

Briefly report who or what was the unit of analysis in the study, how many were
included, how they were selected, and key demographics, if applicable.

V. Findings
Briefly explain the results of the research. This should include numbers and should
reflect professional ability to interpret the numbers if numbers were used in the
study.

VI. Contributions
State the "contribution" of the research to the existing body of knowledge of in the
field of guidance and counseling.

Suggested questions: (You may answer all or only the applicable question)
a. Does it provide a new way to look at a problem?
b. Does it bring together or "synthesize" several concepts (or frameworks,
models, etc.) together in an insightful way that has not been done before?
c. Does it provide new solutions?
d. Does it provide new results?
e. Does it identify new issues?
f. Does it provide a comprehensive survey or review of a domain?
g. Does it provide new insights?
h. Are the issues addressed introduced in a way that their relevance to
practice is evident?
i. Would answers to the questions raised in the article likely to be useful to
researchers and managers?
VI. Comments / Review / Critique

Evaluate the quality of the research. Address strengths and weaknesses. (Do not
merely summarize the authors’ comments.). State your opinions of how well (or
poorly) the authors did their research and presented the research results in the
article. Your critique can contain both positive and negative comments.

Justify and explain in detail each of your critique points in a separate paragraph of
at least 4-5 sentences.

Suggested questions: (You may answer all or only the applicable question)

a. Does it build upon the appropriate foundation (i.e., upon appropriate prior
research)?
b. Did the authors choose the correct approach, and then execute it properly?
c. How confident are you in the article's results, and why?
d. Are its ideas really new, or do the authors simply repackage old ideas and
perhaps give them a new name?
e. Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the article's introduction
and outline?
f. What are the article's shortcomings (faults) and limitations (boundaries)?
Did it discuss all of the important aspects and issues in its domain (topic
area)?
g. In what way should the article have made a contribution, but then did not?
h. Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases or
occurrences?
i. How complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Do the authors
include an adequate discussion, analysis and conclusions? Did they justify
everything adequately? Did they provide enough background information
for the intended audience to understand it? For you to understand it?
j. Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations?

VII. Questions
List three insightful questions of your own, arising from this article. Do not ask
definitions, but rather questions that really make one think.

Adopted from:
a. https://www.csub.edu/~bhartsell/QualitativeReviewFormat.doc
b. http://ueberfachliche-
kompetenzen.ethz.ch/dopraedi/pdfs/Mayer/guidelines_review_article.pdf
c. New Jersey Institute of Technology - College of Computer Science