An example of how to step-by-step critically evaluate a section of a method from a journal article is provided below: Step 1.
Identify our critical point: The sections outlined in red below identify two sections where psychometric properties (e.g. Cronbach's alpha or convergent validity) have not been provided for the measures. Step 2.
We have two examples from the method so lets present the idea in a critical evaluation paragraph about the method. Step 3.
Write our critical point first (blue font) and then explain why it's a weakness of the research (red font): "Although the research by Cseh, Phillips, and Pearson (2015) provide innovative findings, the method of their study has a few limitations. Firstly, the authors did not report psychometric properties for the Flow State Scale 2 and the Post-task creativity questionnaire. Therefore, the reliability and validity of these measures is not certain and the trustworthiness of the research findings is questionable." Step 4.
Continue find more critical points within the method to finish your paragraph.
Content adapted from Chapter 2 of The SPSS Manual provided in RMS1 and RMS2.
Graziano, A.M. & Raulin, M.L. (2007). Research methods: A process of inquiry (6th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Educational Group.
Cseh, G. M., Phillips, L. H., & Pearson, D. G. (2015). Flow, affect and visual creativity. Cognition and Emotion, 29(2), 281-291. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.913553