Reverted edits by Sofia.camaglia (talk | contribs);
changed back to last revision by Admin (talk | contribs).
Return to Quality check.
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
| |
|
| * literary quality: is the article distinguished by a good, poor, average, remarkable, excellent, great, qualified, extraordinary literary quality ? Please point out the most appropriate adjective and evaluate it independently by the journalistic genre | | * literary quality: is the article distinguished by a good, poor, average, remarkable, excellent, great, qualified, extraordinary literary quality ? Please point out the most appropriate adjective and evaluate it independently by the journalistic genre |
|
| |
| * Bias: is the author of the article part of any movement/organization/institution etc. that might have influenced his view of what he expresses in the article? Is there any bias due to funding received, pre-established ideals, or "company visions" ? Assess the writer's independence.
| |
|
| |
| + (Relevance: Is the research method/study design appropriate for answering the research question?
| |
| Are specific inclusion / exclusion criteria used?
| |
| Reliability: Is the effect size practically relevant? How precise is the estimate of the effect? Were confidence intervals given?
| |
| Validity: Were there enough subjects in the study to establish that the findings did not occur by chance?
| |
| Were subjects randomly allocated? Were the groups comparable? If not, could this have introduced bias?
| |
| Are the measurements/ tools validated by other studies?
| |
| Could there be confounding factors? )
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|