User talk:Kevin McHugh/sandbox

Dayon's Peer Review In regards to the additions Kevin has made to the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire Wiki-Page I believe he was very detailed and thorough. I noted that he added who the originators of the questionnaire were as well as the year it was created; very insightful for someone who may potentially be researching. I thought it was a great idea to rename the title; MFQ Scoring and Interpretation provided more clarity. The original title was rather vague. I also like his additional commentary explaining how the scoring works. The Validity section needs to be further explained and elaborated on. As well as, there needs to be a section to list the references used. All together very informative and inclusive additions to the Wiki-Page can’t wait to see the finish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarouqDa (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Daryl Peer review : I like the way that your article is constructed its well orgainzed and have great detalis .The way that the context key  is presented  is cool theres not many problems that i see wrong with your article.One thing you can improve at just have all your refrences stated. Also you can add more infromation to the validity section and add limiations. But besides everything is great

Sam's Peer Review
The article accurately defines the purpose and structure of The Mood and Feeling Questionnaire (MFQ). The lead does this successfully while remaining neutral about its efficacy as a test. I noticed that the developers of the questionnaire were added, although it might be nice for them to be linked to further information on background such as whether the creators were psychologists, research students, etc.

While I find the lead to be adequate in defining the test, I would elaborate on reception in the psychological community. You could also provide alternative questionnaires/tools currently used, the tools that were used before 1987 to measure depressive symptoms in children and young adults, and how depressive symptoms are measured in older individuals.

The tone seems unbiased but there are is one area of redundancy. The short and long version of the test is explained twice, once in the lead and a second time in the “Scoring” section. I also wish the jargon of “cut-points” was defined prior to use.

The “Validity” section is a good addition. I would add AUC as a link so that it is put in context. The language and translation limitations are important. I don’t know if there is research on other limitations of this specific questionnaire, but one of the obvious limitations of any self-assessed test is the participants willingness to honestly answer the survey questions. Another limitation might be the degrees of separation along the rating scale, which only have three levels ranging from “not true” up to “true”. A responder of the survey might feel their answer could be more accurately defined as someplace between these ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samnoling (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)