Blackboard Academic Suite

3/15/10 10:16 PM

PAIN IN CHILDREN - A.Y. 2009 -2010 (009.31.PMGT718.MASTER) > ASSIGNMENTS > PAIN IN CHILDREN > ASSIGNMENT 3

EDIT VIEW

Assignment 3
Assignment 3: Critical Review/Case Study Mark 60% Presentation Due Date Method Length Written Assignment Week 14 Individual 2000-3000 Words

Write a critical review of some published literature in the field of pain in children. Choose a book, or book chapter, or paper, or topical area on some aspect of pain in children that interests you. Marking Criteria: Length: 2000-3000 words in length. Further advice about writing critiques in general is given below. Introduction to Critical Analysis Some of our new students panic when they see that they are asked to conduct a critical analysis of a paper (or book or book chapter). It is a skill not often taught on the courses most of us did to prepare for our professions. Critical evaluation is a skill that comes with practice (and improves with practice). First of all you are being asked to 'critique'. This is not at all the same thing as to 'criticise'. To criticise generally means to take a very negative view. To critique a paper means to point out and discuss both the strengths and weaknesses, as well as showing how the paper fits into the rest of the literature of which it is a part. How do you structure a critical evaluation? What general questions need to be answered in any critique? How will we assess your critiques? We can divide a critique into roughly three sections. First, there should be a brief description of the paper. What does the paper claim to be about? When and where it was done? What kind of research is said to have been done? What were the main findings claimed to be? Next, there should be an "internal critique". Question can include: Can the methodology used to provide an answer to the research question being asked? Was the data gathered in an appropriate manner? Are the statistics tests appropriate for the study? (It is surprising how often underlying assumptions are violated.) Were the results interpreted properly? Could they have been interpreted differently? Are the findings consistent with the data? Was this a rigorous piece of research? Then there should be what we can call an "external critique". This is where you have an opportunity to really shine, and show how well you understand the literature on the topic. Very few papers are written in a vacuum. They are invariably part of a body research. To understand a paper well, we need to know how it relates to the rest of the literature from which it comes. If you choose a paper which is a few years old then you can tell us how our understanding has progressed since this paper was published. Some students might opt to choose to do a critical review of the literature on a topic rahter than on concentrating on one example. This is an acceptable alternative, but means that the external critique will make up the whole of of the critical review. So for an external critique we need to ask questions like: How does this paper fit into the overall body of research? Is it a landmark paper, and if so, why? Did the authors go up a blind alley which led nowhere? What is our current understanding of the subject? What is the general trend of research on this field? What are the controversies and debates in this field? What are the arguments for and against the different positions in the contentious issues? What is your own position on the controversial issues, and why?

In other words, you will need to read other papers on the same topic to give yourself an overview of how this paper fits into the larger picture, and tell us about the larger picture.

http://eleap.ust.edu.ph/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&urlboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_21342_1%26url%3d

Page 1 of 3

Blackboard Academic Suite

3/15/10 10:16 PM

A journal editor had the following to say about the reviewers who wrote for his professional journal. They were all reviewing books, but the same applies to reviews of papers or book chapters. To paraphrase his words: ".... they should have read the book carefully, maybe a couple of times, and understood its messages. They should have browsed related literature to discover whether the book breaks new ground. They should have formed opinions about the work; opinions which they are willing to defend. They should have organized ad written a coherent paper that lets people who have not read the book know how a fellow professional who has read the book reacted to it. In two or three pages [in your case two to three thousand words] they should let the readers of their reviews know what to expect in a book of a hundred or more times that length. And they must write it (or rewrite it) in a way that is academically acceptable, readable, and enjoyable." You should be able to do all this in about two to three thousand words or so. Remember to include a bibliography of the sources you refer to. It is also worth remembering that it is easier to critique bad papers rather than good ones. It is also easier to discuss papers that make a contribution to a controversial issue, and there are plenty of those in pain management. You should not be afraid of critically evaluating papers, even those published in eminent peer-reviewed journals by people famous in the field. Authors and reviewers are human beings and not perfect. The papers can still be flawed. For example, in the pain literature it is surprising how many papers are published that make the assumption that pain can be measured with the same accuracy that we can measure temperature. It is important to acquire the skill of critical evaluation. After you have finished this course you will need to keep yourself up-to-date. The best way to do this is by critically reading the literature about pain management so that you can make judgments about the good and bad aspects of papers and books.

Assessment of Critical Evaluations

If you show you can understand and summarise the paper/book/chapter you will pass the assignment - but only just. To get higher marks you will need to do a proper critical evaluation. Identify and discuss the strengths and weaknesses. If you are reviewing a research paper then what suggestions could you make to improve the research if the authors asked for you advice? If you are reviewing a book or a chapter then what was missed out? Was there too much emphasis on something or too little? If the author asked you how they could improve the item what could you suggest? If you want to get top marks then you will need to show how the item you are reviewing fits into the bigger picture. Any field of pain management or research has trends, debates and controversies. What are the issues in this particular field of practice or research? How does the item you are reviewing fit into this picture? What does it contribute? A review should normally be about two to three thousand words, but we will accept more if you really feel that you cannot say what you want to in less. A good review should be written so that a reader should not need to read the original item to get a thorough understanding of what it is about, how good or bad it is, and how it fits into the bigger picture. (However, we do want copies of the item you are reviewing). Those of you who know about education will realise that we are asking you to demonstrate Bloom's higher order thinking skills. A good critique will be full of the higher order skills such as evalution and synthesis. Bloom's taxonomy is summarised below. Blooms Taxonomy

http://eleap.ust.edu.ph/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&urlboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_21342_1%26url%3d

Page 2 of 3

Blackboard Academic Suite

3/15/10 10:16 PM

http://eleap.ust.edu.ph/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&urlboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_21342_1%26url%3d

Page 3 of 3