Corinn Randolph

Evaluating Research Articles: Quantitative Designs

1. Does the researcher describe the design and procedures used in sufficient detail to
allow for replication of the study, and for analysis of the credibility of the findings?
Rating:

Justification:
While I feel there was sufficient information presented in this study in regards to the
procedures that the researchers followed and the design, I felt there could be more
information presented on the analysis. The design was experimental as the purpose of
this study was to determine whether doodling causes an effect in attention to a primary
task. I feel that I could recreate this study based on the information given in the
procedures section of this study. There was a good amount of detail given about the
setup of the task as well as the procedures that the researchers followed.
There was limited information presented about the participants, stating only that there
were 40 members of the MRC Applied Psychology Unit recruited from the general
population and aged between 18 and 55 years. Not much else is stated in regards to
the participants, which I feel could play a major role in the credibility of the findings.
There is also no information about the site of the study and the reader isnt given
adequate information about who provided the data. The researcher used nonprobability
sampling, selecting individuals that were available and accessible. While this was the
easiest method for the researcher, it limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the
results of this study.
2. Does the researcher convince you that potential threats to external validity were
minimized, or at least were noted and discussed?(Note: mention at least one specific
potential threat to external validity, and describe how it was dealt with or not dealt with
by the author. You will need to consult supplementary material provided in Unit 2
Week 1, Step 1 Read and Prepare [ Supplement to Plano Clark & Creswell - Internal &
External Validity (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2005 - Applying Educational Research)]). Hint
Does this study seem generalizable and applicable to other individuals and settings,
given the makeup and size of the sample and other features of the study?
Rating:

Justification:
While the sample size is acceptable for this experimental study, due to the lack of
information about the sample, its difficult to know if this study is generalizable and
applicable to other individuals and settings. When rigorous procedures are used to
obtain a representative sample, the researcher can make stronger claims that the study
results generalize to the larger population (Clark & Creswell, 2015). The researcher
doesnt assess the degree of similarity between the research sample from the study, the
population from which the sample was drawn, and the larger target population. The

Corinn Randolph

author does not address ecological validity which is important because the situational
conditions that exist in the setting differ greatly to the conditions that exist in the setting
in which they want to apply the results. The study did mention that the participants were
all recruited and tested immediately after they had finished a colleagues experience,
assuming that they were all prone to boredom, however there was no evidence that this
was indeed, true.

3. Does the researcher convince you that the groups being compared were equivalent
prior to the onset of the treatment, either by describing an appropriate method of
random assignment, matching, and or statistical evidence that the groups were the
same at the onset of the experimental treatment?
Rating:

Justification:
The researcher did explain in the method section about who the participants in the
study were, but very briefly. There was no method of random assignment used and
with the exception of a male/female ratio being equal, we dont know much more about
the groups being compared. The researchers say they were recruited from the general
population; however, they were already members of the MRC Applied Psychology Unit.
How does this membership influence the results of this study?

4. Does the researcher convince you that all other aspects of the conditions were the
same in the experimental and control groups, except for differences in the treatments?
(e.g., was the experimental treatment more motivating for the participants? If so, the
conditions may not be the same).
Rating:

Justification:
From the information presented in the procedure section of the study, we learn that
both the experimental and the control group were tested in a quiet and visually dull
room, were given the same set of instructions (with the exception of added instructions
for the experimental group), and listened to the same 2.5 minute mock telephone
message. These conditions were the same for both groups. There is a chance that the
1-minute conversation between the experimenter and the participants could have
differed, however we dont know that information from the study. Im also not sure if all
the participants were tested individually at the same time, or had to wait their turn. If
they conducted the experiment at different times, the wait time for participants may have
played a role in the collection of data (for people that were already bored, waiting even
five minutes more to participate in this study may have directly influenced their results).

Corinn Randolph

5. What is your overall assessment of the study with respect to the criteria below?
As an avid doodler in meetings and while on the phone, I wasnt that surprised at the
results of this study. I have attended many workshops in my career where people
doodle beautiful works of art while absorbing the workshop information at the same
time. In my own personal experience, doodling has aided my memory during some less
than exciting conversations but I had never seen actual research on the topic. I was
surprised to see that in this study there does appear to be some connection between
doodling and concentration.
The things that I learned from this study pertain more to the completion of a study then
the topic of doodling and concentration. I saw how valuable a good literature review
can be in providing background information as well as supporting a research question. I
also learned how valuable study information is to the research consumer. I feel that
with more detailed information, the reader would be able to draw more concrete
conclusions and the study would hold more validity and credibility not only in the
research world, but also to the research consumer.
I think Ill conduct a little study of my own at the next grade level meeting I hold with my
colleagues at school! I will continue to doodle my way through meetings in hopes that
my doodling will help me to concentrate better and retain information, longer. Ive
learned that there is some research that backs up the idea on the benefits of doodling
however I dont think that Ill be able to pull this study out of my bag the next time an
administrator makes a comment about my inattentiveness. Its time to do another study!