Running Head: A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL

DIFFERENCES

A Quantitative Critique on a Journal Article in Reference to Individual Differences

Student Number: 100206837

University of Derby

Date Submitted: 01/12/19

A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

This paper is a critique of the article authored by Eklund & af Klinteberg (2005) “Personality

Characteristics as Risk Indications in Adolescents of Alcohol Use and Violent Behavior in

Male and Female Adolescents”. Evaluating each section of the article, strengths and

weaknesses will be identified and determined utilising other articles.

Title

The title is well constructed with clearly understood terms establishing a relationship

with the article. Substantial definitions of the key variables involved, allows the reader to

identify the purpose and expectations of the study (Connell Meehan, 1999). Looking at the

report title, it cannot be seen to fall between the standard 10-15 words, which research reports

are expected to fall between (Parahoo, 2006), in fact, it uses 16. Although, this has no

damning influence on this report and is only one word over, authors need to be cautious of

the reasoning behind the recommendations of the title word count. The reasoning behind this

standard title length, is to prevent titles which are too short or long of length which, can cause

confusion and become misleading to the reader. Although. the title is perceived to be too

long, overall, it outlines what will be addressed, presenting an excellent title.

Abstract

Overall the abstract is averagely covered, revealing the general consensus of the overall

study, as it includes; what the study is about, the sample size, the specific main variables

being used, as well as the overall findings before finishing with a synopsis of the main

finding. However, to improve according to (Conkin, 2005) the method or design in which the

study was to be conducted, should have been present as well as any further recommendations,

giving the reader a better synopsis of the report. Highlighting all sections of the report in a
A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

brief summary is the vital part, as it is where the decision of the reader to continue is made

(Parahoo, 2006).

Introduction and Literature Review

Overall this is a well demonstrated and laid out introduction. The authors have

indicated a similar study has been previously conducted (Nash Parker & Auerhahn, 1998),

but have stipulated the gap in the literature revolving around adolescents. Highlighting this

allows the message of why this study needs to be conducted by suggesting to the reader the

problem which needs to be addressed (Bassett, Bassett, & Tanner, 2003). The authors review

is good, as definitions of key words such as adolescents are identified as well as themes from

previous research, allowing the hypothesise for their own study to be discovered (Carnwell,

1997). Development of the research question evolves from the literature review (Burns &

Grove, 1997), as well as the identification of the best method to use for data collection. The

authors have successfully used their literature review to do this. Identification of gaps in the

literature specifically regarding the studies of adolescents in terms of personality traits and

substance abuse has also been achieved, thus, securing the argument to run the study. The

literature review goes into depth, and shows sufficient and broad reading has been

undertaken, especially around key authors who have similar research studies (Krueger, 2002).

The authors have identified the interest in individual differences, specific to this study. They

have identified the key personality traits in which they are interested in and wish to

investigate. However, they have not explicitly identified the theory which they seem to be

focusing on. Although, for someone with a working knowledge on the psychological theory

on personality traits they may have an idea, however, for a reader who it is not, there maybe

some confusion. The reason this has been identified is due to the nature of how the authors
A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

have written this. With criminality, and personality traits both being mentioned, readers may

misinterpret whether the theory is a focus on a psychological or criminological perspective

(Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). As both can be seen by both viewpoints and cross over can be

extremely close, especially when both use Eysenck’s (1982) theory to explain different trait

theories from both a criminological and psychological perspective. Investigating more, theory

of Eysenck’s (1982) work is underlying, especially when the literature specifically focuses on

work from Caspi et al., (1997) who have based their research on his theory, it becomes

apparent the Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism (PEN) model is the one in which is

being focused on. Again, the authors could have mentioned whether they are focusing on

PEN or the adaptive model where Tellegan (1991) focused much on Absorption (Church &

Burke, 1994). A subtle mention on the key theorists involved would have been ideal to assist

the reader with the psychological framework and make it effortless in understanding. On the

other hand, all work which has been mentioned throughout the literature review is recent,

indicating good current research and up to date studies. The review should be a critique of the

literature, with both strengths and limitations being identified, both authors achieve this as the

gap in the literature, would suggest a limitation, whereas a strength would be regarding the

data which has already been collated and the theory for the reasoning behind such results.

Burns and Grove (1997) also support the comparing and contrasting of research with findings

of other studies.

Aims and Objectives

The hypotheses have been clearly stated and laid out easy for the reader to both

understand and identify. This is important as the reader needs to be able to establish not only

the purpose of the study but the link of how it will be undertaken. All research reports will

differ depending on the research being conducted (Bassett et al., 2003). Nevertheless, the
A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

authors have made it uncomplicated for those without an academic background to understand

the nature of the study.

Sample

In any study, the sample needs to reflect a proportion of the population, in particular a

quantitative study it is a decisive factor (Polit & Beck, 2006). The authors have selected a

year group who is deemed to be their target population within a school, ensuring the sample

size is suitable and not too small to avoid errors (Robson, 2002). Although mentioning how

they came to this figure would have just provided additional information and clarity, as

sample sizes can either make or break the study. The authors did identify those participants

whom were excluded and the reasons behind this, this gives the authors transparency and

reliability within their sample (Basset et al., 2003). Although this has been well addressed,

Russell (2005) argues by stating how participates were invited to participate shows evidently

to the reader the openness and transparency of the study. The authors also ensured enough

participants took part in the study ensuring a non-bias response was avoided (Polit & Beck,

2006).

Method

Design

The research design which the authors used is not specifically clear and it is not until

later on in the discussion that the type of design is mentioned, that being cross-sectional. The

quantitative studies uses a range of designs and each design has it’s own method, so selecting

the choice appropriate for the study is important, as it impacts on the data collection and

analysis process (Robson, 2002). Although, Robson (2002) argues all these designs are

similar in regards to averages, properties and patterns of group behaviour, so choosing the
A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

correct one for the type of study is important. The authors chose a cross- sectional design,

which measures the outcome and exposures to achieve a snapshot for a study. The gap in the

literature revealed a new study needing to be conducted, gaining a baseline for further study

and exploration was crucial to determine their hypothesise. Consequently, this type of design

was ideal for the study which they conducted. The limitation of this type of design includes

the difficulty in determining cause and effect relationships, which the authors were not

specifically focusing on (Setia, 2016).

Data collection

The authors used questionnaires, a common form of data collection (Bassett et al.,

2003) in quantitative research studies. Interestingly, one of the questionnaires was based on

drug use, yet, there were no drugs mentioned within the hypotheses. The authors stated drug

use was excluded, critiquing this area within the introduction, showing transparency,

nevertheless, drugs were not mentioned within the hypotheses, or during the literature

review. So, the need for having a questionnaire relating to this seemed pointless.

Measures

The authors have used previously designed instruments for collecting their data, which

have been explained clearly to the reader. This is essential for the reader as it allows them to

understand the reasons for the authors choices, and for anyone who wishes to replicate the

study the instruments which they have used. The authors have achieved this by outlining the

measurement tools, briefly describing how they work including the Likert scales and

subcategories if the tools use them. Surprisingly, the authors did not reference the measures

used, by doing this the author could have authenticated by showing validity and reliability,

in turn, showing the reader the trusted sources used (Ortet-Fabregat et al., 2002).

Validity and reliability

A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

The researcher has also thoroughly explained the appropriate evidence required

regarding these scales and tests in relation to validity and reliability by critiquing themselves

any issues faced with certain scales. Although critiquing these scales they have continued to

say why these scales are still being used and are the best, which shows the reader although

there is doubt with these scales, there is enough reliability to run an effective study.

Specifically, the authors show great criticism regarding the personality questionnaire,

suggesting although it is a little weak it was chosen specifically. Interestingly, the authors did

not opt for one of the stronger scales MPS (Witt & Donnellan, 2008). Ideally, the authors

could have specified their reasoning behind this choice. On all accounts, the option the

authors chose covered all three crucial areas of Eysenck’s theory. As Eysenck’s is one of the

fundamental theorists for personality traits and specifically the psychological theory

underlying the study this measure was indeed a positive choice. Overall the outline of the

study showed a clear process of how the data was being collected, thus allowing repetition to

be easy (Russell, 2005).

Ethical Considerations

Although it is obvious all studies must be ethical approved by institutes and committees

before undertaken (British Psychological Society, Ethics Committee, & British

Psychological Society, 2018) the lack of coverage in this study is disappointing.

Unfortunately there is no mention in regards to whether the rights of the individual were

adhered to (Miles & Huberman, 1994) which is of notable important, especially with the

participants being of a student age. The reader would want to ensure there was no coercion

(British Psychological Society et al., 2018) just complete transparency of how these young

adolescents were involved, yet nothing is mentioned. Research involving young people is

sensitive not only through ethical guidelines, regarding the psychological effect it may have

but also due to the nature of what is being asked in this case. This study is in relation to
A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

alcohol and drug use by adolescents, causing triggers, emotional response or for some at risk

of harm if unbeknown to parents their children are taking these substances. Research cannot

be conducted without parental consent which positively has been briefly mentioned in the

report, as those without consent were excluded from the study. However, very limited has

been said on the matter.

It is important to note that this critique is from a perspective using British

Psychological Society (BPS) guidelines, whereas, the authors whom conducted this research

would have followed the ethical guidelines implemented by Nordic Ethics (Ethical Principles

for Nordic Psychologists, 2019). This is then further complicated, as five countries follow

these guidelines, each country, in this case Sweden, may have adapted them slightly (Ethical

Principles for Nordic Psychologists, 2019). If this is the case it will be difficult to critique in

depth due to different countries differing with guidelines, transparency in terms of the

protection of young and vulnerable adolescents within this study should have been

mentioned, as by not doing so this could cause serious doubts in both the process of the study

and findings to whether they are truthful.

Analysis and Results

Eklund & af Klinteberg (2005) have clearly identified what statistical tests were

undertaken, why these were the better choices to be used and the results. The simplicity in

which they have illustrated and presented this analysis is clear and understanding for the

reader. It has very neatly been put together. Quantitative writing can be quite daunting to the

nature of how it is written, in spite of this, the authors efforts to keep the simplicity, allowing

non complex jargon essential for any reader has been well demonstrated. There is a clear

process which is identified of how the statistical analysis was ran ensuring the correct
A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

descriptive analyses were covered and that they identified the lowest level of significance a

(P=Probability) P<0.05 (Clegg, 1990). With patterns needing to be identified regarding the

personality scores, selection of analysis was key. The choice made was Configural Frequency

Analysis (CFA) (Schrepp, 2006) which the authors explained the reasoning behind their

choice and why it was a perfect match for what they were trying to achieve. This is well

executed.

The way in which the results have been presented is frequent in accordance to other

researchers (Russell, 2005) under clear and readable headings. By using these subheadings,

this has allowed the reader to be able to determine the results in relation to the hypotheses

and research question itself. The authors have also accurately summarized some of their

results through tables and graphs, enhancing the presentation of the results, thus making it

easier for the readers to understand. The authors have done extremely well in presenting this

and the way in which it is has been written is exciting, engaging and effortless. Limiting the

technical jargon which can be used. However, their later charts, showing mean scores could

have been improved by having the taglines underneath each of the charts. There is no

apparent reason why they are at the side, when all others have been set according to the APA

layout, the journal itself does not have specific requirements set (Hogrefe, 2019). Finally, to

add, the authors showed no bias when interpreting the associations and direction of the results

which can tend to happen with a cross-sectional design, again, professional piece of work.

Discussion

This has been written fairly well, with the authors reflecting back to the literature

review within the introduction. The hypotheses were deemed to be fully supported by the

findings and the authors have discussed this within the discussion. Interpretations or
A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

inferences drawn are identified and consistent with the results. The significance of the

findings have been noted and have been considered for the strengths and limitations of the

study (Polit & Beck, 2006). In addition the authors have made relevant suggestions for future

research, (Connell Meehan, 1999)

The discussion section started well. Theoretical aspects were linked between the

literature review, the literature review findings and the findings of study which had been

conducted by the authors. These likes were found to have quite significant similarities, thus

providing the evidence to suggest the psychological theory of Eysenck (1982) (Matthews,

2016) was not only seen within adults, as stated in the literature review, but also within

adolescents. This in turn, giving the researchers space to work and investigate further and to

perhaps look at longitudinal studies over time to investigate the cause and effect relationship

between the two. As this was a one – off study to identify the links between the two the

authors achieved their hypotheses well (Setia, 2016). The style and how it was written,

allows a story to evolve and allows a summary to be concluded bringing the study to an end.

Unfortunately, mid-way through the discussion there was an element where new literature

was introduced and included. The authors began discussing MAO, which had not been

previously mentioned within the introduction or in fact at all throughout the report. It appears

the authors were trying to link and develop their ideas further which is great, however, this

can become quite frustrating for the reader as these ideas can appear confusing as new

additional information appears (Morse, 2001). Despite this, the conclusion goes on to discuss

the strengths and weaknesses, where the authors scrutinise their work, using an objective and

balanced approach which fundamentally shows the reader the authors themselves and this

piece of research is trustworthy and unbiased. One further point to make during the

conclusion is the lasting sentences seem a little unfinished, retrospectively the authors would

have been better off with this being within the centre of the conclusion, finishing with the
A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

recommendations they wish to do in the future at the end. This would have just flowed better

having a more polished finish.

Additional

The style in which the report is generally written is well, concise and grammatically

correct, allowing it easy for the reader to follow, this is essential for a research report (Polit &

Beck, 2006). The work is well referenced and structured, although there is one reference

which does not seem to be included within the work, authored by Yates et al (1990), yet has

appeared on the reference list. Research into both authors suggest this is an area which

specifically interested them both as they have both gone onto and conducted further research

within and around this topic.

Overall

From the critique, it has been highlighted although some improvements could have

been adjusted and made. The process in which the study follows is clearly linked between

steps, from the literature review and the purpose of the study to the theories behind the study,

all the way through to the analysis and discussions before concluding and suggesting the

emerge of the further research. This is what any report is expected to do (Ryan-Wenger,

1992) giving a logical and understanding report.

A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

References
Bassett, C., Bassett, J., & Tanner, J. (2003). Reading and Critiquing Research. British Journal of

Perioperative Nursing (United Kingdom), 13(4), 162–164.

https://doi.org/10.1177/175045890301300402

British Psychological Society, Ethics Committee, & British Psychological Society. (2018). Code of

ethics and conduct.

Burns, N., & Grove, S. (1997). The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique and Utilization.

3rd Edn. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia.

Caspi, A., Begg, D., Dickson, N., Harrington, H., Langley, J., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1997).

Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: Evidence from a

longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1052–1063.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1052

Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and

Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

66(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.93

Clegg, F. (1990). Simple Statistics. A Course Book for the Social Sciences. 2 nd Edn. WB Saunders

Company. Philadelphia.

Connell Meehan, T. (1999). The Research Critique. In: Treacy, P., & Hyde, A.eds. Nursing Research

and Design. UCD Press. Dublin: 57-74.

A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Ethical Principles for Nordic Psychologists. (2019.). Retrieved 1 December 2019, from Psychology

Resources Around The World website: https://psychology-resources.org/explore-

psychology/standards/ethics/codes-of-ethics-of-national-psychology-organisations/ethical-

principles-for-nordic-psychologists/

Conkin, D. (2005). Critiquing research for use in practice. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 19(3),

183–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2005.02.004

Krueger, R. F. (2002). Personality from a realist’s perspective: Personality traits, criminal behaviors,

and the externalizing spectrum. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 564–572.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00506-8

Matthews, G. (2016). Traits, cognitive processes and adaptation: An elegy for Hans Eysenck’s

personality theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 61–67.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.037

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. 2 nd Edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Ca

Morse, J. M. (2001). Are there Risks in Qualitative Research? Qualitative Health Research, 11(1), 3–

4. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129118867

Nash Parker, R., & Auerhahn, K. (1998). Alcohol , Drugs, and Violence. Annul Review of Sociology,

24, 291-311.

Parahoo, K. (2006) Nursing Research: Principles, Process and Issues. 2 nd Edn. Palgrave Macmillian,

Houndmills Basingstoke.

Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2006) Essentials of Nursing Care: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. 6 th Edn.

Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Philadelphia

Ryan- Wenger, N. (1992) Guidelines for Critique of a Research Report. Heart Lung, 21(4), 394-401

Russell, C. (2005). Evaluating Quantitative Research Reports. Nephrol Nursing Journal, 32(1), 61-64.

Setia M. S. (2016). Methodology Series Module 3: Cross-sectional Studies. Indian journal of

dermatology, 61(3), 261–264. doi:10.4103/0019-5154.182410

Tanner, J. (2003) Reading and Critiquing of a Research. Br J Perioper Nursing, 13(4), 162-164
A QUANTITATIVE CRITIQUE ON A JOURNAL ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Tehrani, J. A., & Mednick, S. A. (2000). Genetic Factors and Criminal Behaviors. Federal Probation,

(Issue 2), 24.

Witt, E. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2008). Furthering the case for the MPQ-based measures of

psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 219–225.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.002