o “Golden retrievers who were provided reinforcement for every successful task completion evidenced no better long-term recall of the behavior than did golden retrievers who were provided reinforcement for every two, three or four successes (Ames, 2014; Crealin & Franks, 2011; Marses, Konvalin, & Ramses, 2013).” o “Authorities are in agreement that the primary learning intervention is always effective, although they differ in the magnitude of reported performance increases (Bates & Bates, 2009; Mayfield, 2013; Watson and Adirondack, 2014).” o “There is no discernible improvement in the rate of cartilage repair for small tears, using letter vitamin supple- mentation (Martin & Kynes, 2013; Vernon, 2012).” o “No major results supported any additional benefit through the use of compression hose 23 hours per day as op- posed to 16 (Ariel & Lamb, 2013; Barsonaby, Fytes, McAlister, & Arnold, 2012; Meese & Abigail, 2014).” Writing the review of the literature depends on organization. Organization can be accomplished by topic, by research evidence strength, by research design, by variables, or by another idea. As long as the organization is logical and sup- ports reader understanding of the state of the literature and its gaps, it will suffice. Making an outline before writing the review is probably a good idea. Comprehensive (or exhaustive) literature reviews customarily present the theoretical literature first, and then the em- pirical. However, it is not incorrect, when organizing by variables or themes, to present theoretical and empirical liter-
ature on each variable, as each is discussed. At the end of the review, there is a statement about what is not known: the gap. This should relate closely to the pur- pose of the study. The actual writing of the review should paraphrase what the individual authors stated, or else it is plagiarism. The strict rule is that if one uses more than three consecutive words from any source, the words should be placed in quotes and cited. Obviously the rule does not apply to short phrases such as, “In any case the...” but are of course required for those that are original, such as, “...winter of our discontent” (Shakespeare, 1592). When pointing out what authors did not do in their studies, a factual statement rather than an indictment is tasteful and maintains a positive collegial tone. “The authors did not control for the potentially extraneous variable of intervening hospitalizations during the 1-year recovery period, although they noted its presence in their discussion” would be preferable to, “The research is of poor quality, as evidenced by the authors’ failure to control for the potentially extra- neous variable of intervening hospitalization. This fuzzy thinking has diluted the credibility of the entire study.” When submitting research studies for publication, an article’s references should always be checked against its cita- tions, and vice-versa.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 13 pages?
- Fall '16
- Denise Cauble
- Nursing, researcher, Research Reports