Critique of Lin Article Part Three

Critique or Result

Que1: Comparing the result study composed by Lin, Enright, Krahn, Mack, and Baskin (2004) with Pyrczak’s (2008) evaluation, shows that elements are missing from Lin et al.’s (2004) article. For instance, Pyrczak (2008) indicates the importance of percentages to be accurately reported and not to mislead the reader. The end number of participants in the follow up study was determined to have decreased from 40 to six (Lin, et al., 2004). The determined information given was misleading because the data is not coherent throughout the entire study.

Que 2: Means reported only for the approximately symmetrical distribution (Pyrczak, F. 2008) in the article were not completed in other to distinguish whether or not the distributions have been skewed to the right. For example, the raw data was not given and this may suggest misinformation from the authors (Lin, et al., 2004).

Que 4: The results section of the article was not a cohesive essay (Pyrczak, F. 2008) though it was summarized in two paragraphs but not written in an essay format as Pyrczak (2008) suggested. The two paragraphs contained information regarding the statistical findings. With the group of statistics, the results section produced a detailed portion of a case study that is unrelated to the results of the study.

Que 5: The idea, research hypothesis, or the questions in the introduction of the article (Pyrczak, F. 2008) were never referred back to in the result section (Lin, et al., 2004).

Que 10: Overall, the presentation of the results was not adequate (Pyrczak, F. 2008). The case study in the article was biased and favored the use of Family Therapy (FT) (Lin, et al., 2004). The authors were concerned with getting favor from the reader thus providing unclear results (Lin, et al., 2004).

Critique of Discussion

Que 1: In the first paragraph the researcher briefly summarized the purpose of the study (Pyrczak, F. 2008) but did not state the hypothesis or the result of the study...