EPID600 (Fall, 2006) Final Paper critique (Exam 3) instructions

Instructions for Final Paper critique (Exam 3)

Please note: clarification questions are welcomed. However, if the answer to your question is in these instructions, a half-point may be assessed for the service of having the instructor read the instructions for you! If you do not understand something in the instructions, you can avoid the assessment by quoting the relevant sentence so it is clear that you have read it.

Students will critique an epidemiologic study reported in one or two articles selected by the instructors. Critiques will be structured as a set of questions (see below). Each student must work on her/his critique alone. (THE UNC HONOR CODE APPLIES HERE - see item B, below, for specifics).

Please read over each of the points below well before the critique is due and re-read them prior to beginning work on it.

ARTICLE(s) to critique: The article(s) or citations to them will be posted in the Final Paper module on the course website in Blackboard.

The article(s) for the critique will be announced well before the critique is due (generally soon after the first exam is due). You are encouraged to begin reading the article(s) when they are announced and to re-read them periodically. You are also encouraged to begin making notes for your critique as you learn about the applicable concepts in class (e.g., as each module is covered in class, critique that aspect of the study). Since the written critique is meant to draw upon all the concepts that you have studied this semester, you are not expected to be able to complete the critique until the module on “Data analysis and interpretation, causal inference” has been covered.
HONOR CODE: In conformity with the UNC HONOR CODE, your critique must be accompanied by the pledge, “On my honor, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this assignment”. You are to work on the critique entirely on your own except as indicated here. The Honor Code requires you to inform the instructors of any apparent violation of the Honor Code, and faculty are required to report suspected violations to the Student Attorney General and the Dean of Students. Please do not put anyone in the position of having to do that, since it is a very unhappy business. Ask your TA or the faculty for clarifications if you are unclear about anything related to the Honor Code as it applies to this assignment.

PERMISSIBLE assistance: Except for material that specifically relates to this assignment (e.g., a student's previously written paper on this article), you may use (with appropriate citation if you quote from or rely on it) any published (print or website) document, including published commentary about the article should you find any. You may also obtain assistance from the UNC Writing Center (www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/), as long as you inform them of the nature of the assignment and these instructions. The Center will send a brief report to the instuctor on the nature of assistance provided.

IMPERMISSIBLE assistance: You may not use a student's previously written paper on this article or a grading guide for this assignment. You may not receive assistance from a friend, coworker, spouse, librarian, or anyone other than Dr. Schoenbach or Dr. Alexander, even for help reading the article, typing your critique, or proofreading. Do not discuss the article or your critique with anyone.
DUE DATE and EXTENSIONS: Please check the course schedule for the due date. Please note that a critique arriving more than a day or two after the due date, whether or not an extension has been obtained, may result in a course grade of IN (Incomplete – when the critique has been graded, the “IN” grade gets crossed out on the transcript and the final grade shown next to it). The IN grade is intended not as a penalty but to be fair to the graders, since our deadline for submitting grades is entirely inflexible.
LENGTH and FORMAT: Succinctness will be considered in the grading, and each question has a maximum word limit. A half-point will be deducted from the (0-10) score for each answer that exceeds the indicated maximum and another half-point for every additional 50 words beyond the limit. These word limits have been set based on an analysis showing that of past answers conforming to these word limits over half received at least 8 of 10 points and one-fourth received 9 of 10 points. Increasing the limit typically did not materially raise the score distribution.

Citations (optional) go in a separate location and are not counted against the word limits. Since the citations for each question are provided to the grader along with the answer, you may use citation numbers in parentheses [e.g., "(1)", "(2)"] within the text of your answer and then use these numbers to identify the bibliographic information in the citations section. These numbers need not be sequential and can be re-used across answers, since each answer will be presented and graded independently. You do not need to include citations to the article being critiqued, except for direct quotations. You may want to cite the article if you are referring to something that even our careful article readers might not have spotted or to back up an assertion that might be challenged.
SUBMITTING YOUR CRITIQUE

(We really appreciate your observing these details, since that speeds our handling of the large number of critiques.)

After you compose your critique in a word processing program and print, review, and proofread the final version, please submit your critique using the webform (the webform refers to the critique as “Exam 3”).

The form requires your name, PID, and ONYEN and will send a copy of your submission to YourONYEN@email.unc.edu – please keep these email(s) until you have received your grade, since if the submission goes awry we will need to grade from your copy.

Please be careful to paste each answer into the correct textbox on the form. If you begin each answer with the question number the form can alert you if that answer belongs elsewhere. If you need to correct an answer or answers, you may resubmit them within 24 hours after the first submission. For each question, later submissions will replace previous ones. You do not need to resubmit answers that have not changed (nor will you see them in the form or in the confirmation email).

Note: Do NOT compose your answers in the webform. Compose them offline and then copy and paste them into the form. Because of the vagaries of electronic submission, be sure to retain your original electronic copy.
SCORING

Graders will not know your identity during the grading process. Each of the questions will have equal weight. Each answer will be scored based on the following scale. The overall score for the assignment will be computed as 10 times the average score on the questions.
- Not answered: 0% (0 points)
- Very poor / Seriously Deficient – reflects very little learning from EPID600 (5-24%: 1-2 out of 10 points)
- Poor / Unacceptable – disappointing (25-44%: 3-4 out of 10 points)
- Fair / Acceptable – we would not want this work to be regarded as typical of EPID600 graduates (45-64%: 5-6 out of 10 points)
- Good / Very Good – we would be pleased for this to be regarded as an example of what students learn in EPID600 (65-84%: 7-8 out of 10 points)
- Excellent / Outstanding – we would like to display this as an example of the fine work that EPID600 graduates can do (85-100%: 9-10 out of 10 points)
Answer each question in a well-constructed paragraph, with complete sentences. Although it is suggested that you prepare an outline of the points you want to include, your answers should be written as well-structured paragraphs, i.e., written in complete, grammatically correct sentences, in a logical sequence, with appropriate transitions and good diction (see above, Permissible assistance, for information about the UNC Writing Center; if you wish to use their services it is suggested that you begin well in advance of the due date. In addition, their website has various writing aids). An answer that is, essentially, a list or an outline can earn a maximum score of 9.5

Your critique should be carefully proofed (reading it aloud to yourself is a good technique – remember: you should not obtain the assistance of a friend, coworker, or spouse for proofreading). We try to avoid unduly penalizing a critique for minor spelling or grammatical errors if English is not your native language, so you are welcome to indicate (in the citations section) if that is the case. We do expect you to use a spellchecker.

In their evaluation, the graders will consider accuracy, understanding of the epidemiologic concepts relevant to the article, appropriate use of epidemiologic terminology, and evidence of critical thinking and mastery of epidemiologic concepts. For each question, up to 20% of the points (i.e., 2 out of 10) may be awarded for the quality of expression, in terms of logical sequence, clarity, succinctness, diction and usage, sentence structure, grammar and spelling, careful proofing, and adherence to the instructions.

Since different questions will be evaluated by different graders, cross-references are not possible. Thus, if an issue or observation applies to more than one question, you will need to mention it each time. The word limit is designed to allow for necessary repetition across questions.

QUESTIONS

Below is a list of 10 questions that provide a framework for critiquing an epidemiologic study. We recommend that you answer all of them, but we are asking you to submit only the ones that have not been grayed out. When critiquing an article, you evaluate each aspect in respect to the authors’ research objectives, since different objectives call for different study methods and interpretation. Several of the questions below specifically ask you to evaluate aspects of the study in relation to the study research objective(s) and rationale (the reasoning that supports the study’s objectives). In order that we will all be evaluating the study from the same vantage point, please consider the following as the research objectives for the assigned article:

Investigate the association between mobile phone use and the risk of glioma and meningioma:
1. Detect an association if one exists;
2. Assess the strength of an observed association;
3. Assess the evidence that mobile phone use increases the risk of brain tumors.
The subquestions (with lower case letters) following each of the numbered questions are provided to help indicate the scope of the numbered questions and as prompts for you and the graders. These subquestions are written for general purpose use, so some may not be relevant or important for this article. Conversely, there may be points relevant for this article that are not included among these specific subquestions.
1. Research objective and study rationale: [will not be graded in Fall 2006]
1. What is the primary research objective of this study?
2. What is the rationale for this objective (i.e., the reason(s) that this objective is important to achieve and/or the research questions are important to answer)?
3. In terms of public health importance and contribution to knowledge, how strong is the rationale for this study and how well is it presented by the authors (e.g., conceptual framework, supporting evidence, logic)?
4. How well grounded is the rationale in the published literature (biological, epidemiological)?
2. Study design and study population, such as the following: [250 word maximum]
1. Identify the important design features of the study, such as its basic design, or architecture (e.g., case-control, cohort, etc.) and how the design is implemented (e.g., incident vs. prevalent cases, randomization by group, whether data are collected multiple times, what follow-up or any is involved, how follow-up if any is carried out, etc.])
2. Compared to other reasonable choices, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this study design and its features for the specific objective(s) or question(s) of this study?
3. What is the study population for this investigation?
4. What are the major eligibility criteria (inclusion and/or exclusion criteria)?
5. How suited is this choice of study population, including elibigility criteria, for the objectives of the study?
3. Key variables, measures, and data collection modes, such as the following: [250 word maximum]
1. What are the key variables and what are their roles (e.g., primary outcome or dependent variable, “exposure” or study factor, major potential confounders and other covariables)?
2. How are these variables defined and measured?
3. What are the major modes by which data are being collected? (e.g., self-administered questionnaire, interviewer-administered questionnaire, medical record review, biological specimens, etc.)
4. How suited are these variables, their definitions, their measurement methods, and the data collection modes for the objectives and rationale of this study? Would other ones have been better for meeting the objectives? If yes, which methods and why?
4. Study conduct and quality control, such as the following: [will not be graded in Fall 2006]
1. How has the study population been recruited (e.g., patients in a clinic, volunteers to advertisements, random digit dialing, area sampling of households, etc.)? If different groups of participants are recruited through different mechanisms (e.g., cases and controls, exposed and unexposed), provide this information for each primary group).
2. What steps were taken to minimize non-participation and selective factors in recruitment? In retention? How effective were these steps?
3. How successful, overall, was the data collection? What major steps were taken to improve and document the accuracy of the data collected?
5. Data analysis, such as the following: [250 word maximum]
1. What are the primary data analysis strategies and/or methods used in the study (e.g., stratified analysis, mathematical modeling, graphical analysis)?
2. How are the primary variables coded for analysis? (e.g., as binary or dichotomous variables, in categories, as ordered categories, as counts, as continuous measures?)
3. What were the primary statistical parameters (measures) estimated in the data analysis (e.g., means, prevalences, incidences, incidence rate ratios, odds ratios, survival curves)?
4. How well suited is the choice of these parameters to the objectives of the study? Are there other parameters that you think should have been estimated?
5. How many participants are included in the primary analyses, and what percentage do they constitute of the people who were eligible and selected for inclusion? Have a substantial number of observations been dropped from the analyses?
6. How well do the authors deal with issues of multicausation (e.g., measurement of and control for potentially confounding variables, investigation of important interactions)? Do the authors analyze the data separately in respect to a major variable to assess similarity or differences?
6. Findings, such as the following: [200 word maximum]
1. What are the main findings, including both those related to the primary study question(s) and other important results?
2. Are there particular results you regard as most important?
3. How well have the authors reported and presented their findings?
4. Are there additional results or analyses that you believe should have been reported, data that should have been shown?
5. Are extraneous results presented?
7. Potential concerns in interpreting the findings, such as the following: [250 word maximum]
1. How completely do the authors account for the disposition of all prospective members of the study population (e.g., persons sampled but not contacted, refusals, exclusions from analysis, etc.)
2. Does the study population seem to reflect the target population well? What sources of selection bias, if any, are likely to be a problem?
3. What are the major possible sources of bias and other threats to validity that are important for interpreting the findings?
4. How well did the authors discuss these threats to validity? Did the authors present them objectively, evaluate their likely importance, and provide evidence in support of that evaluation? Did the authors conduct any specific analyses to evaluate reliability, validity, selection bias, or information bias? What were the results of these analyses?
8. Linkage with previous knowledge, including the following: [200 word maximum]
1. How well did the authors compare their results to the findings from other relevant studies? How well did the authors discuss reasons for differences between previous findings and their own?
2. How well did the authors evaluate the evidence concerning the study objective or question in regard to possible biological or other mechanisms that could account for their findings and other criteria for causal inference (for this subquestion, please ignore concerns about bias)?
3. How relevant and responsive to the study rationale was this discussion?
4. In what ways, if any, have the authors advanced previous knowledge?
9. Conclusions, implications, and recommendations, including the following: [will not be graded in Fall 2006]
1. What are the primary conclusions? Are they stated clearly?
2. How well are they supported by the findings and discussion?
3. How directly do the conclusions relate to the primary study objective and rationale?
4. How well did the authors address implications of their study and/or give insightful recommendations for next steps.
10. Overview of strengths and limitations, such as the following: [will not be graded in Fall 2006]
1. What were the key strengths of this study in regard to its objective and accomplishments?
2. Has the study taken advantage of new methodology?
3. Do these strengths or new methodology advance the field? How?
4. What were the key limitations of this study in regard to its objective(s) and accomplishments?
5. Are these limitations shared by other studies of this topic?
6. What would be needed to overcome these limitations?
Please note: Your critique is expected to demonstrate critical thinking in the evaluation of the article. Critical thinking is defined as “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” (taken from a draft statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction).

Citations: You do not need to refer to literature other than the article you are critiquing, though you are welcome to do so. To cite the article(s) for the critique, you need give only the first author’s name with “et al.” If you use information from the literature in your critique, be sure to provide the complete citation to the source. Plagiarism is a type of scientific misconduct and UNC Honor Code violation that can easily be avoided.

Go to submission form
(Note: the submission form will refer to the critique as “Exam 3”.)

vschoenb Last updated: 6/13/2006vs, 7/3,4/2006vs, 10/13/2006vs