analyzing/assessment of the articles. Do you agree with their assessments? Expla

analyzing/assessment of the articles. Do you agree with their assessments? Explain why. Be specific in your response.
The Beauchamp et al. (2015) article contained many flaws. After briefly identifying the social problem and the purpose for their study, the authors did not adequately discuss prior studies or identify the gap they found in the literature to provide justification for their study. They also did not discuss what theories they were using to base their assumption on that systematic desensitization and implosion therapy would be more successful than the other therapies. Likewise, I could not find the research question or the hypothesis which would help the reader understand more of the exact perimeters and variables the authors considered. One of the tips from the Five Strategies for Critical Reading is to trust your questions (WU Writing Center, 2014). When I initially read the Beauchamp et al. (2015) article, I had several questions concerning the methodology. A strong research paper has a solid methodology (Galvan & Galvan, 2015). I felt the methodology had ethical concerns and I questioned the instrument they decided to use as well as the use of interns to deliver the therapy treatments. The discussion did not offer any new insights as to why implosion therapy showed more favorable results.
The McGillivray et al. (2015) article was more comprehensive and addressed all the Stadtlander (2018) recommendations for what students should focus on when evaluating articles for a literature review. Stadtlander (2018) recommends that the following components are adequately addressed in the journal article one considers for their literature review: the article states the social problem, the identified research gap, any theories the authors used, the research question and hypothesis, the research variables, measures, the method, and population being studied (p.88). I especially thought the authors did a great job differentiating initial curiosity and post-answer interest. They also included confidence ratings and judgement of learning as variables to consider. They also addressed group differences in their results. Overall, this study provided enough information to answer all of the research questions. Additionally, their discussion offered insight regarding the results.
References
Galvan, J. L., & Galvin, M. C. (2015). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed). New York: Routledge.
McGillivray, S., Murayama, K., & Castel, A. D. (2015). Thirst for knowledge: The effects of curiosity and interest on memory in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 30(4), 835–841. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/a0039801
Stadtlander, L. (2018). Finding your way to a Ph.D.: Advice from the dissertation mentor (2nd ed.). Createspace.
Walden University Writing Center [WUWritingCenter]. (2014, January 15). WriteCast episode 5: Five strategies for critical reading [Video file]. Retrieved from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/multimedia/podcast#s-lg-box2814414

The post analyzing/assessment of the articles. Do you agree with their assessments? Expla appeared first on homework handlers.