User:Alaynna2023/Single-subject research/Psychologylearner1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Alaynna (Campbell Smith)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alaynna2023/Single-subject_research?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Single-subject research

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

-       I appreciate you choosing a topic that not a lot of people wouldn’t have chosen. I think research topics and their methods scare a lot of us because of complexity, so it is fun to have to learn about this. That being said, I am not sure if the information added in the lead is appropriate. I do believe it is an important point of this research that deserves to be talked about, but maybe as its own section? Like you could do a Controversy section to flesh this out. Obviously, it would need to be mentioned in the lead, but as stands it almost feels like commentary instead of a highlight if that makes sense. Even if you simply leave your edits as is, the main article will still need a section talking about your edits. I would suggest just going ahead and creating the section with the information you have.

Content

-       I do like the angle of your edits. As stands, the article is incredibly simplistic. Here is a method and here is a definition of that method. Your choice to add commentary on the subject brings new life to an otherwise static article. Your edits allow readers to know that this type of research has its pro and its cons and why. In the article in general there seem to be some sections that are underdeveloped and could stand some serious attention. I don’t think it would be hard to find relevant information to add legitimacy to this article. The article currently does not address pretty much anything other than the definitions of different methods of research. I would be interested in seeing if there are cultural experiences that may make this type of research superior or inferior to other modes of research. Are there noted limitations regarding biases or discrimination of results, especially as it seems this type of research is the main one used for behavioral analysis (stated in the lead)? Behavior can, at times, be incredibly subjective and no method is bias free, so I would be interested to see if there was literature addressing that potential shortcoming.

Tone and Balance

-       Be careful to not add debate energy to the information that you add. Qualifying adjectives like important and critical add bias in tone. I would add a commentary to the lead about the controversial air of the research, but in a neutral way. Something like, “Single- subject research allows researchers to track changes in an individual over a long period of time. This type of research can provide data used by several professional fields, though it is predominantly used by Psychology related fields. Experimental and applied analysis of behaviors (is/are? I’m not sure if Experimental and Applied Analysis are one subject or if this is a combination of different concepts) the primary user(s) of the data collected by this group of research methods. This research can be controversial as there are proponents for its use, as well as against it.” I won’t lie to you, I do not know enough about the subject to comment on if the article does a good job of describing this type of research, but the added value of sections about how it was established as a group of research methods, how the methods address or fail to address biases or discrimination, and the controversy of its use/ effectiveness would expand this article past its current clinical nature. The article, as stands, is not persuasive and is very matter of fact, which is desired.

Sources and References

-       Currently there are no sources added to your Sandbox. I did a quick Google search of “bias” and “single subject research” and was able to find at least a couple of scholarly articles that might be able to be used. I think the research and commentary is there, but finding the wording to find it might be challenging, so don’t give up!

Organization

-       The organization of this article is pretty good right now. I don’t think there is importance in the order in which these methods are presented, though I do appreciate that the section on Experimental questions is added before details of each method. The article does a good job at making clinical information readable and relatively easy to conceptualize. There are still some points that would only be comprehended if you were familiar with research methods already though. I would suggest revising some of these sections to be more easily understood universally. I didn’t find any obvious spelling or grammar errors (though I’m not sure if I can say that confidently as it is 4am and I am at work, tired. Ha!)

Images and Media

-       N/A though I do think this article would do well with some visual aids or graphics to aid the reader in conceptualizing the set-up of a few methods. I would be careful not to add anything to science-y that readers can’t interpret easily. Think basic graphic of method set up.

Overall Impressions

-       I appreciate the very straightforward and simplistic set up of this article. There is no “look under section 1, subsection 8”. I can also appreciate the readability. I would suggest adding sections pertaining to history, cultural implications and biases (controversy), and maybe how the results are used. I appreciate the viewpoint you brought to this article and I can’t wait to see your contributions.