First Time Through Introduction Why do we care about this area of research?

Do I understand the theory or the studies that set up this research?, If not what referance do I need to read? What are the hyphoteses? Why do the authors expect their hyphoteses to be supported? If this study cures a weakness in previous research, what was wrong with previous research? If this study filss a gap in previous research, what was the gap? How were participan selected? What Method was the age and gender composition of the sample? What population did the sample represent? What was done to the participants? If there were manupulated variables, how were those variable manipulated? What did participan do? What was measured variable? What was the design? Do I understand how the studys method allow the researcher to test the hyphothesis?

Second Time Through Do I agree with their argument? Does the hyphotesis reall follow from theory or previous research? If they had obtained different result, what would they have changed in their introduction?

Result

How werw participants responses turned into the scores used in the analyses? What are the avarage scores for the different groups? Do the result support the hyphotesis

Discussion

Do they think the result matched their prediction? How do they explain any discreapancies? What additonal studies do they recommend?

Are there an reason to expect that the researchers might have obtained different population of participants? Were groups equivalent before study began? Were there enough participants? Was there a problem with participant? Was ther a problem with partcipant dropping out of the study? Are there any variables that the researchers should have controlled or manipulated? If I had been a participan, would i have taken the task seriously? Were the control groups adequate? Would it have been better to use a different measure? Do the statistics directly test the predictions made in the introduction? Do the statistical tests match up with the verbal description? That is, if the authors say the Group 1 scored better than Group 2, do they have an analysis that directly compares Group 1 againts Group 2? As the statistics appropriate? Did they correctly report their null (nonsignificant) result as failing or reject the null hypothesis? What are other explanation for the result? The other explanation could come from (a) a problem with their study that the authors did not mention or from (b) a theory or hypothesis that the author did not mention. Are there additional studies I would recommend? Did the authors make cause-effet

statement on the basis of correlational evidence? Did the authors state something that was not supported by result? For example, did they treat a nonsignificant result as significant or talk about a comparison that did not statistically test?