to critically review an article on gulf war PTSD
Ikin, J. F., Sim, M. R., Creamer, M. C., Frobes, A. B., McKenzie, D. P., Kelsall, H. L., . . .
Schwarz, H. (2004). War-related psychological stressors and risk of psychological
disorders in Australian veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. British Journal of Psychiatry, 185,
116-126. doi: 10.1192/bjp.185.2.116
critical review:
what does the paper do? does it replicate other findings or support other theories
does it challenge previous assumptions
address important social issues
distinguish between theories which predict similar outcomes, or resolve an issue where previous theories make different predictions?
correct flaws or introduce new better methodology
address previous unidentified or unexplored issue
present a promising theory
discuss
are the findings clear and unambiguous? how convincing are the results in testing the hypothesis?
do the authors admit the results are inconclusive or more complex than the hypothesis would have led you to expect
how well do the authors link their results with previous findings? are similarities identified and differences explained
The implication for the results are very important. Do the authors suggest that the topic or theory should be explored or thought about in a different way? do they want to reframe a theory in light of their results?
do you think their results are an improvement of previous findings?
how well does the paper address the broader significance of the results i.e in the real world
How well does the paper indicate whether particular results need resolving. how this may be done and and does it identify any other factors that may need to be examined in order to extend our understanding.
thank you, any questions message me.
