help

Running Head: CRITICAL REVIEW        1
CRITICAL REVIEW         2
ASSESSMENT 3 – CRITICAL REVIEW OF ARTICLE BY Bailey et al. (2013)
Table of Contents
PART A    3
1.) General    3
2.) Sampling & Participants    3
3.) Design & Methods    4
4.) Ethics    6
PART B    6
1) Summary of the Main Findings of Chosen Article    6
2) Key Strengths and Weaknesses of Chosen Article    6
3) Clinical Recommendations based on these    7
References    8
PART A
1.) General
a. Appropriateness of Title
    The title of the paper by Bailey et al. (2013) is moderately appropriate, as it contains most of the elements of informing the research topic dealt with, such as the research design, the independent variable and the concerned population; however, does not mention the dependent variable. The dependent variable can only be assumed from the research that it is the habit of smoking, which is why it cannot be said that the title is detailed enough.
. Appropriateness of Rationale
The rationale of the research has been clearly presented by Bailey et al. (2013) in the context that the increasing numbers of young smokers, their increasing health issues relevant to smoking and the associated consequences of the same have made it necessary to conduct a research in this field to identify the most effective treatment method for it. Therefore, it was adequate.
2.) Sampling & Participants
a. Selection bias
i.
The implemented recruitment strategy was quite appropriate as the students, who participated in the investigation, were studying in the chosen 10 high schools in San Francisco Bay Area, and were informed about the research through classroom presentation. The recruitment process has been described in details by Bailey et al. (2013), where the method of screening, seeking consent and establishing inclusion criteria have been mentioned clearly. The sample technique used was non-rolling basis.
ii.
    Since the concerned research focused on analyzing the effectiveness of extended smoking cessation treatment for young smokers, therefore, the chosen sample of the school students, aged between 14 and 18 years, was appropriately representing the target population.
iii.
    The selected sample size was not quite a large one for such a big population of the target group of individuals. Only 141 adolescents representing such a global issue should not have been used for generalizing the findings into such a large population, because according to Law et al. (1998), a sample size should be large enough to be the representation of the entire target population.
. Allocation bias
i.
    The risk of allocation bias was marginally high in the paper by Bailey et al. (2013), because the authors have mentioned that although all the characteristics are almost similar between the participants in the intervention group and the comparison group; however, their average baseline varied considerably. There were lower average baseline for extended group that it were for the non-extended group.
ii.
    According to McNeish and Stapleton (2016), in an experimental study design, the baseline presents the initiating characteristics of the sample, based on which they are included in the research. Therefore, in order to eliminate the chances for any discrepancy or biases, it is very important to high similarities between different groups at the baseline.
iii.
    The two groups were similar at baseline, in terms of their number of participants being 71 under extended treatment and 70 under non-extended treatment, age, number of cigarettes smoked per week,...