Find two primary peer-reviewed journal articles (No meta-analysis or review articles) that examine the same hypothesis, using different study designs. For example, one article may use a cohort design and the other a case-control study, or randomized clinical trial, or cross-sectional, etc..
For each article:
- State the research objective
- Describe the study design, including their target population, sampling methodology, sample size, recruiting methods, inclusion/exclusion criteria, etc.
- Summarize the results, including univariate and multivariate findings, if applicable. What variables did hey control for, and were the findings different after controlling for confounding variables than before they controlled for them?
- State the article’s conclusions as they relate to the original (null) hypothesis.
- Discuss the study’s strengths and limitations, including sources of bias or possible confounding. How did they account for these issues, and how might they have affected the results (bias toward vs. away from the null hypothesis)?
- Were their conclusions generalizable to the overall population? Why or why not?
Finally, compare the two articles.
- Did they reach the same or different conclusions? If different, what may have contributed to the discrepancy (chance, methodology, bias)?
- Which study had the superior methodology, and why?
- Which one are you more likely to believe?
- How would you design the ideal study to examine this hypothesis?