Running head: Lin Article Critique
1
Article Critique: Forgiveness Leigh B. Freberg Liberty University
Critique
2
Effects of Forgiveness Therapy: Lin Article Critique Part 1 The title of any piece of work is the most important piece. It is the number one phrase
that will capture the reader‟s attention. The title must be specific enough allow the reader to believe that what is contained in the article will be exactly for what they are searching. The author of this critique seeks to divulge the important aspects of the title related to an article written by Lin, Mack, Enright, Krahn, and Baskin (2004) and titled, Effects of Forgiveness Therapy on Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability to Substance Use Among Inpatient Substance Dependent Clients. This author will be utilizing questions posed in Evaluating Research in Academic Journals by Fred Pyrczak (2008) in order to come to a more accurate dissection of the
Lin, et al (2004) article. One of the first questions posed is regarding the specificity of an article title. The
question is, “Is the title sufficiently specific”? This question alone brings about a nother question: How specific is sufficient? This author believes that titles should include important aspects such as the who, what, when, where, and why that help in most investigational procedures. Reading a title should be an investigational procedure to help the reader understand those aspects. When taking those into consideration, does the Lin, et al, article title meet a sufficiency for specificity?
It does state the „who‟ the article is about: “inpatient substance -dependent clients” (Lin, Mack, Enright, Krahn, & Baskin, 2004). Even this small piece is very specific. The authors chose an inpatient population over an out-patient population or a combination of both. The authors also
chose a population with a very specific identifier: “substance-dependent” (Lin, et al, 2004) and not just inpatients in general.
When evaluating if the title meets the „what‟, this author would describe that as “What does the title define”? In this case the „what‟ would be the words, “Effects of Forgiveness
Critique
3
Therapy” (Lin, et al, 2004). The authors were looking to define the effects of a specific event. They further defined the „what‟ by including a specificity to three aspects of the effects: “Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability” (Lin, et al, 2004). The „when‟ in this title can be further evaluated by incorporating the „who‟ and the „what‟. When will the „who‟ and the „what‟ come together? According to this title, the Effects, or the „what‟, will meet the „who‟ or inpatient population d uring the forgiveness therapy, the „when‟. The „where‟ is clearly defined with the specificity the author s made when choosing the population: both while in forgiveness therapy and while inpatient (Lin, et al, 2004).
The one piece this author feels is missing but no t necessary is the „why‟ piece of the sufficient specificity. To add the „why‟ piece would seem to make the title longer and more ambiguous for a reader. Most readers should have an idea of why they are researching the topic before-hand.
Another question presented in the guide is the question of “Are the primary variables referred to in the title” (P yrczak, 2008, p. 14)? In the title presented in the Lin, et al (2004) article, there are variables that are clearly identified. Those variables are: forgiveness therapy, anger, mood, vulnerability, substance use, inpatient, and substance dependence. The primary purpose of variables in studies is to define the characteristics of participants (Pyrczak, 2008, p. 14). In this study, the variables have been fleshed out and represented as people who are 1) inpatient and 2) have a substance abuse problem, and 3) are participating in a forgiveness therapy (Lin, et al, 2004). However, the differences of the variables come into play when considering the effects of the therapy on the individuals involved. Those variables include the participants‟ anger, mood, and vulnerability after the forgiveness therapy (Lin, et al, 2004). This is the point in
Critique
4
which the participants will vary. Some participants may have greater mood disorders than others and likewise, some participants will have a greater vulnerability to substance use than others.. This author also investigated if the title of the Lin, et al (2004), article identified the individuals who participated in the study. Clearly, the authors who are responsible for the Lin, et al, study, were able to make an identification of the participants by the use of their specific titles: inpatient, substance-dependent clients (2004). While the title does not specifically state that other clienteles are not included in any capacity, it is very specific to this particular population. Another critique of the Lin, et al (2004) article title regards whether the authors made any attempt to describe results of their study in the title. This title, Effects of Forgiveness Therapy on Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability to Substance Use Among Inpatient Substance -Dependent Clients
(Lin, et al, 2004) purports to describe the effects of a specific type of therapy on a specific population of study participants. In no way does the title describe the outcomes of the study performed. By not including the outcomes of the study, this author believes the technique helps to keep the reader engaged in reading and discovering further the study. Lin, et al (2004) did not make the title of their work be such as to purport a simple question. In fact, the title of the article does not even present a question at all. Instead, the title of the article states that the research will show what the effects of a specific type of therapy will have on a specific type of population. It does not ask the reader to draw his/her own conclusion about the outcome of the study. This author found a question in Pyrczak (2008, p. 18) to be of great significance to in this
critique. That question is posed as, “If the title implies causality, does the method of research justify it” (Pyrczak, 2008, p. 18). The main intention of this author bringing this specific question to the forefront is because the title of the Lin, et al (2008), article contains the word “effect”
Critique
5
which implies a causal relationship within the study (Pyrzcak, 2008, p. 18). In the case of the Lin, et al (2004) article, the title does imply that the study has found a causal relationship between the specific type of therapy (Forgiveness Therapy) and the outcome of variables (Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability) on a specific type of population (Inpatient Substance-Dependent Clients) (Lin, et al, 2004). However, this author is aware that even if the title does indicate a causal relationship, it does not necessarily mean that a relationship does indeed exist. It is difficult for this author to determine if the results of the Lin, et al (2004) study actually does have a correlation based solely
on the title of the article. While the article does use the term, “Effects” it does not indicate t hat results of the study and therefore make it difficult to determine if a relationship(s) between variables does indeed exist. Finally, this author analyzed the overall effectiveness and appropriateness of the Lin, et al (2004), article title (Pyrzcak, 2008, p. 21). The most obvious way to analyze the title is to
determine whether or not the title was able to gather and maintain the reader‟s attention without revealing the meaty parts of the study. In this case, based on the answers this author was able to generate from the overall critique of the article title, this author feels compelled to state that the
title of this article was indeed effective and appropriate. The title was able to grab this author‟s attention, would have been easy to discover using a refined search engine based on the specificity of the title, presumed a causal relationship, and did not release the relevant outcome of data pertinent to the study.
Critique
6
References Lin, W-F., Mack, D., Enright, R.D., Krahn, D., & Baskin, T.W., (2004). Effects of Forgiveness Therapy on Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability to Substance Use Among Inpatient Substance-Dependent Clients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, pp. 1114-1121. Retrieved August 31, 2011 from http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/journals/ccp/72/6/1114.html Pyrzcak, F. (2008). Evaluating research in academic journals: A practical guide to realistic evaluation. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
