Client flow through the Women, Infants, and Children Public Health Program

Kindly use this Journal to complete critique

Brotman, B.A., Bumgarner, M., and Prime, P. “Client flow through the Women, Infants, and Children Public Health Program.” Journal of Health Care Finance 2008: 72-77. Print.

Based on the requirements if you cannot answer most of the questions below with the journal from Brotman, Bumgarner and Prime your second option that you can critique is Jacknowitz, A., & Tiehen, L. “Transitions Into And Out Of the WIC Program: A Cause for Concern. Social Service Review 2009: 151-183. Print.

My preference is the first journal article that I’ve listed.

I would like for you to provide either a copy of this journal via pdf or a scanned copy of this document.

• What is the stated purpose of the study? Who are the stakeholders?
• Does the literature review provide a context, background, and direction? Does it support the need for the study? Is the review adequate; if not, what seems to be missing?
• Is a theoretical framework presented? Is it appropriate? Can you think of a different or additional theoretical perspective that might have been useful?
• How does study intend to contribute to knowledge about the field of study?
• What are the research questions, hypotheses, and objectives? If there is a hypothesis, is it directional? What were the independent and dependent variables? Is there a connection between the literature review and the research questions, hypotheses, and objectives?

Research Design
• Is the study descriptive, causal-comparative, or correlation? Longitudinal? Cross sectional?Qualitative? Quantitative?
• How well is this design suited to the research question or hypothesis? Is the design modified in response to any constraints? Are there threats to the internal validity of the
research design?
• Is this an evaluation study? If so, was the model used appropriately?
• Is it a formative or summative evaluation?

• Describe the characteristics of the population studied.
• Identify sampling procedures (e.g., simple random sampling), and explain why it was selected. Indicate the size of the sample and explain why the size is sufficient.
• Was a probability sampling method used? Was it representative of the population?
• What was the sample size? Was it sufficient?
• What was the response/participation rate? How did those who responded or participated differ from those who did not? How was this addressed?

• What measures were utilized? Were the variables ope-rationalized as needed?
• What instruments were used? How were they developed? What did they measure?
Were any standardized instruments used?
• Were the instruments valid, reliable, and appropriate? Describe any reliability and validity tests that were conducted? Was this sufficient?
• What other type of tests would you have recommended?

Data Analysis Procedures
• What kind of data analysis was conducted? What statistical analysis was conducted?
• Were the statistics appropriate for the type of questions and the variables being used?
• What were the units of analysis? Were they appropriate?
• Was the information discussed and described clearly and accurately? Describe the information presented in each of the figures and tables (e.g., in each, select two numbers and discuss what they represent).
• Were any statements made that are open to the ecological fallacy or that suggest reductionist reasoning?
• What were the findings? Do you think the conclusions are valid and reliable?
• Were any causal assertions made or implied in the hypotheses or in subsequent
discussion? What approach was used to demonstrate the existence of causal effects?
Were all four criteria for establishing causal relationships addressed?
• Were any variables controlled to reduce the risk of spurious relationships? Should any other variables have been measured and controlled? How satisfied are you with the internal validity of the conclusions?
• Was the information presented in the figures and tables clear and was it discussed in the text?

• What were the study findings? Were they discussed and described clearly and
accurately? Were explanations proposed for any anticipated and unanticipated
findings? Were the results substantively important? Were conclusions well grounded
in the findings? Was any light shed on the theoretical framework used?
• Are any other interpretations possible? Was any further research recommended? What might you recommend? Are there any questions you feel were not addressed or addressed adequately?
• Were there any confounding variables? If so, how might the research design have been improved to reduce interference from confounding variables?
• Was any further research recommended? What might you recommend? What additional research questions and hypotheses are suggested by the study’s results? Did the study yield additional insights?
• Was the study conducted in an objective fashion? Is there any evidence of bias? Are there limitations to the generalization (i.e., external validity) of the findings?

Ethics and Human Subjects Review
• Did the study seem consistent with current ethical standards? Did it pose any threats to research participants? Were any steps taken to minimize these threats?• How was cooperation of research participants obtained? Was there informed consent?
• If you were on a Human Subjects Review Committee, what kind of information would you want to know about this study’s design and methodology?

• Do you consider this a “good” study? Imagine that you are reviewing this piece as a potential publication. Consider whether you would accept this paper. Why, or why
not? Consider whether the findings contribute to our knowledge in the field. Would you recommend that the paper be revised and subsequently reconsidered?
• If it is the latter, what should be revised?

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!