Step 4 describes how to do Part 3 of Assignment 1.

1. Intermission. Revise, if necessary, the one sentence topic statement that defines the area of your research topic (This may have changed since you handed it in for Part 1). You can change your topic sentence (even get a totally new one if necessary). Store this topic sentence in a file on your computer's hard drive or a floppy disk - you will need to hand it in again as one section of Part 3.  

2. Doing Part 3 of Assignment 1
   1. Using the health science literature search program of your choice find at least five articles that, based on the abstract, relate directly to your topic. These five articles can be of any type - research, review, clinical report, etc. Copy and paste each full citation from the search engine into a Word file. If the full citation has an abstract, copy and paste that also. Some articles do not have abstracts; that's OK, you can still use the article as one of the five. Do this for all five articles and save the one file on your floppy disk. If you save your information in several files, edit them into one file. Save the file in .doc (MS Word) format on your floppy disk. Edit the citations so they are easy to read. You can remove all but: Authors, Title, Journal, Year, Volume, Number, Pages. Keep the abstract, if there was one. Do not include the full text of the articles.  We only need the full text of the ONE you critique.

      You may use any of the computer searching applications available (Ovid, CINAHL, PubMed - Medline, or any other), but the use of Ovid @ Full Text is your best source for finding the full text of the article on-line. See the Reading Assignments section above for links to search programs. The article you write the critique on must be a research article. It cannot be a clinical application or a review article. For an example of an article that is NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE see Malaria at Christmas: Risks of prophylaxis versus risks of malaria. Also, meta-analyses are not the RIGHT kind of research article for this assignment. A meta-analysis is a good source of research articles; look in the references at the end.

   2. Write a critique of one of the five articles you found. Be sure it is a research article. Check with your instructor if you are not sure. The article will NOT be acceptable if it is not a research article. Find the article either on-line or in the library. Either save the text in your file, or, if you went to the paper source, make a copy of the complete text of the article. If you use Ovid @ Full Text you can email the text of the article directly to me. This is an easy option. The point is to get the text to me somehow, not the method you use.

      You cannot use the same article as another student is using in this class or that was used in last year's class. To insure no duplications:

      1. Click HERE to view a database of articles already chosen by other students.  You cannot use any article listed. You may need to either be on-campus or running VPN from home to be able to access this database.
      2. If your article was not listed, enter your article into the database.  You must do this step so that others will know you are doing the article. If for some reason this step does not work correctly - email your article information to Rodger Marion (rmarion@utmb.edu) and he will put it manually into the database.  

      Now that you have a unique article, write a critique of the unique article you selected. Follow exactly the outline presented in Step 3. An example critique is presented below. Write your critique with a word processor or as a web page.

    
3. Submitting Part 3.  Follow these steps to prepare Part 3 of assignment one for submission. Create one MS Word document. It will contain:
   1. Your topic sentence (This may have changed from the original you handed in earlier - That's OK).
   2. The five article citations (including abstract, if available) that you found from your computer search.
   3. The full text of the article you critiqued. This can be the web address (URL) where the full text of your article is found. For a web link to work it must point directly to the web page in question. If you use Ovid to locate the full text of an article, the URL points to a temporary web page created as the result of a database query. This URL will not work for for your instructors to get to the article. There are 3 options.
      • Most Ovid full text articles have an option where you can email the article to someone. Email it to Rodger Marion (rmarion@utmb.edu). This is the easiest method.
      • If the journal is available directly on-line from the publisher, send us that URL.
      • Print the article out from the Ovid display and drop it off at Rodger Marion's office (4.230).
      • Select the text by dragging the mouse over it, copy and paste it to a file, and email the file to Rodger Marion (rmarion@utmb.edu) as an attachment. We do not need the tables and figures. Just the text will do fine.
   4. The critique of your article.  The article you critique is one of the five. Sometimes you cannot obtain a web address (URL) that will work directly. If that is the case please obtain a paper copy of the article. The library has most of the possible journals. If your article is on paper, you need to deliver a copy of the article to Rodger Marion - Without the article your work will not be graded. Use the US Mail (Rodger Marion, UTMB - SAHS, Galveston, Texas 77555-1028 or fax to 409-772-3014).
      
      You can also drop it off at Rodger's office, room 4.230. Also, we will not track you down to get a copy from you. If your URL does not work we will e-mail about that, but your assignment will be late. Check the URL yourself.

      To turn in your assignment, use your e-mail package, and compose a short message to your instructor. In your message say that assignment one is contained in the attached file or that it may be seen at the following URL. Sign your name. Just don't send the bald attachment; be polite and enclose a little note. Then send it to Rodger Marion (rmarion@utmb.edu). The e-mail must be sent bon or before the time and date specified in the Schedule (Click on the button at the top to go back to the Assignments page where the menu has a link to the Schedule)..

1. Part 1 - Original Topic Sentence. Maximum = 20. 
   • Ten points for 1) emailing your first draft to everyone, and 2) for providing a critique the draft's of two other students. Zero points if you do not do both. Because the purpose of this dialog is to help one another, you cannot do this late. No credit will be earned for the dialog portion if you participate in the discussion after the due date in the Schedule.
   • Ten points for emailing a final version of the topic sentence, that is a complete sentence and includes all elements, to Rodger Marion (Late - 10% of 10 points).
   
   
   
2. Part 2 - Scoring the Practice Critique. Maximum = 30 if emailed on-time and includes all elements of an acceptable critique. Everything must be spelled correctly and composed in correct technical English. There are seven parts to a complete critique (See the outline). If you wrote something about each part, you get full credit. Leave off a part, or part of a part, and you lose 3 points. Example: The section on research design has three components, name and diagram of the research design, validity and reliability of the DVs, and internal validity. You need to have said something about each for full credit. You need not be perfectly correct. Partial credit is awarded as appropriate. Five points will be deducted for glaring errors of English usage (specially watch verb tenses and plurals). Late -10% of 30 points.

3. Part 3 - Literature Search and Original Critique
   1. Final Topic Sentence. You can change your topic sentence (even get a totally new one if necessary) and you do not need to tell us in advance or run it past your partner; Just include it here. DO NOT FORGET TO INCLUDE YOUR FINAL TOPIC SENTENCE IN THIS IN THE FINAL PART. Maximum = 10 points.
      
      
   2. Critique. Follow the outline just as you did for the practice critique. Maximum = 100. Any section of the seven sections that is incomplete or incorrect is -14 points. Partial credit is awarded as appropriate.
      1. RESEARCH QUESTION
      2. VARIABLES - Defined using operational definitions
      3. HYPOTHESES
      4. RESEARCH DESIGN
         • Identify the research design(s) used and provide a diagram of the design(s)
         • Discuss the validity and reliability of the dependent variable(s)
         • Discuss the internal validity of the study
      5. POPULATION
         • Explain how the sample was selected from the population
         • Discuss the external validity of the study
      6. DATA GATHERED
      7. RESULTS
         
         
   3. Search. Edit search entries so they are easy to read. Maximum = 30 points
      
      
   4. English Usage and Grammar. Everything must be spelled correctly and composed in correct technical English. Ten points will be deducted for glaring errors of English usage (specially watch verb tenses and plurals). Maximum = 10 points.
      
      
   5. Late -10% of 150 points.

4. TOTAL - Maximum = 200

Your critique cannot be graded until your instructor has the article - either a working web address (URL), email from OVID@Full Text, or a physical xerox copy. Be careful as some full text web sites do not really have a URL. You are seeing data pulled from a data base and formatted on the screen. Test your URL to insure that it works. If you find your article using an Ovid database, there is an option to e-mail the article. If so, email it to Rodger Marion.

If you cannot send an electronic copy of the article, then print or zerox a paper copy and drop it off at Rodger Marion's office, 4.230.

Your grade will be communicated to you via e-mail. Any paper items will be thrown away, unless you make arrangements to pick them up.

SAMPLES OF ASSIGNMENT ONE, PART THREE Below is a sample your instructor wrote and these links lead to examples done by previous students. None of these articles can be used in your critique.

• Sample 1
• Sample 2

Name: Ima Student

Revised Topic Sentence: Does sensory integration therapy increase cognitive skills?

CRITIQUE

Article Reference: Angelo, Jennifer K. B. Effects of sensory integration treatment on the low achieving college student. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1980, 34, 671675.

Research Question: The research question addressed by the study was: Can young adults with limited academic success respond to SI therapy, thereby improving their ability to learn and increasing their opportunity to enter a profession? The study was a limited attempt to investigate this question.

Variables: The independent variable was a categorical variable with two nominal categories: no therapy and therapy. The subjects were tested before therapy and after therapy. The therapy consisted of selected SI modalities done in groups for 50 minutes three times a week and individually for 30 minutes twice a week for ten weeks. There were three dependent variables. They were all continuous variables using interval measurement. The first was a test of vocabulary skills, the Nelson Denny Vocabulary subtest. The second was a test of reading comprehension, the Nelson Denny Comprehension subtest. The third was a test of oral reading skills, the Wide Range Achievement Tests (WRAT): Reading subtest. All these tests were standardized for young adults and published reliability and validity information is available.

Hypotheses: There was one directional hypothesis for the study: SI therapy will increase the reading skills of low achieving college students in three measured areas, vocabulary, comprehension, and oral reading skills.

Research Design: There was only one group of subjects. The study was a pre/post, simple experimental design, without a control group.

The data on the dependent variables were probably reliable since the tests used were standardized, published instruments. The validity of the dependent variables may be in question because achievement tests may not be sensitive to the changes induced by the particular courses the students took. A better measure of might be course grades or a standardized test that focused on occupational therapy concepts. The study did not appear to have any threats to the internal validity. The researchers had no problems with subjects dropping out or not participating in the therapy. As a control on the history threat, the students were not receiving any remedial academic tutoring. Ten weeks is not a very long treatment period, but it apparently fit the time available for the study. The internal validity would appear to be acceptable.

Population: The population described in the research question was young adults with limited academic success. The sample consisted of twelve female students who had: ACT/SAT scores under 15/650 respectively, or GPA's below 2.5, or identified academic or motor skill deficits. The subjects were administered the visual perception and clinical observations subtests from the Southern California Sensory Integration Tests (SCSIT). The subject's scores on the SCSIT were not reported, but the authors said the scores were "low." The sample does not appear to be composed of people with accurately identified, serious academic deficits. The twelve subjects were either OT students or applicants to the OT program, and all were female. The sample then was a nonrandom sample of young, female adults who had some visual perception deficits and who had average or below average academic records. This study will have little external validity because the sample was not a random sample from the population defined in the research question. The study is not a total loss however, the results do indicate the effect of an SI program on reading skills for this particular group.

The measures of the DVs were administered before the treatment period of SI therapy and at the conclusion of the ten week treatment period. There initially were 13 students, but one dropped out. The authors felt the loss of one subject had no effect on the internal validity.

Data Gathered: Mean scores for pre-treatment and post treatment observations were computed for the three dependent variables. Dependent t-tests were used to see if the means changed after treatment. The t-values indicated no improvement on the Nelson Denny Vocabulary subtest, but significant gains were made on the Nelson Denny Comprehension and the WRAT: Reading subtests.

Results: Given that two of the three DVs showed a significant increase we can conclude that the hypothesis is supported. The authors concluded that SI therapy appeared to be useful in improving reading skills. To provide more information about the research question, several changes could be made in the design: longer treatment period, chose subjects with serious academic difficulties caused by skill deficits known to be influenced by SI therapy, and use more sensitive measures of academic achievement.

SEARCH

Article 1

TITLE: Including the family perspective in sensory integration outcomes research.
AUTHORS: Cohn ES; Cermak SA
SOURCE: Am J Occup Ther 1998 Jul-Aug;52(7):540-6
ABSTRACT: Occupational therapy, along with other health and rehabilitation professions, is experiencing an increased emphasis on measurement of intervention outcomes. The results of outcomes research are being used to develop practice guidelines, set standards for reimbursement, and justify health care policy. The outcome assessments used by therapists reflect our belief systems and the assumptions about behaviors we expect to influence. Using a sensory integration perspective to illustrate key points, we present a conceptual framework that is based on the disablement framework and Coster's occupational functioning for children model. We highlight the need to examine each of the multiple levels at which intervention may influence child and family function and the links among levels. Sensory integration theory and efficacy studies are reviewed to identify assumptions relative to how sensory integration affects the everyday occupations of children in the context of their families. Potential research methods and assessments are suggested to include the family perspective in outcome studies.

Article 2

TITLE: Symbolic play language during sensory integration treatment.
AUTHORS: Cross LA; Coster WJ
SOURCE: Am J Occup Ther 1997 Nov-Dec;51(10):808-14
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Clinical writings on sensory integration treatment and theory have long professed that play serves as an important means of implementing treatment goals. However, to date, there has been little research that examines this aspect of the intervention. With the use of play language as an indicator for the occurrence of play, this study examined the frequency and characteristics associated with symbolic play language that therapists and children use during sensory integration therapy. This study is part of an ongoing research program designed to examine therapist-child interactions. METHOD: The frequency of symbolic play language observed in 41 videotaped treatment sessions of therapist-child dyads (21 children, 12 therapists) was recorded with the Challenge Coding System. The presence of symbolic play language was recorded if the child or therapist used language that incorporated the child, therapist, equipment, or activity into a symbolic or pretend play theme. The frequency of symbolic play language and percentage of time spent using play language were calculated. Associations among frequency of play language, child age, and behavior during the session (e.g., seeking assistance, cooperation) were also examined. RESULTS: Symbolic play language proved to be a major feature of sensory integration treatment sessions. It also correlated with child age and with some features associated with therapeutic interactions (i.e., child tries hard, child seeks assistance, therapist assists child, therapist modifies activity, therapist structures activity). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that these therapists used play language frequently and that this usage may support children in sensory integrative therapy to successfully accomplish activities.

Article 3

TITLE: A critique of the application of sensory integration therapy to children with learning disabilities.
AUTHORS: Hoehn TP; Baumeister AA
SOURCE: J Learn Disabil 1994 Jun-Jul;27(6):338-50
ABSTRACT: Sensory integration (SI) therapy is a controversial--though popular-- treatment for the remediation of motor and academic problems. It has been applied primarily to children with learning disabilities, under the assumption that such children (or at least a subgroup of them) have problems in sensory integration to which some or all of their learning difficulties can be ascribed. The present article critically examines the related issues of whether children with learning disabilities differentially exhibit concomitant problems in sensory integration, and whether such children are helped in any way by means specific to SI therapy. An overview of theoretical contentions and empirical findings pertaining to the first issue is presented, followed by a detailed review of recent studies in the SI therapy research literature, in an effort to resolve the second issue. Results of this critique raise serious doubts as to the validity or utility of SI therapy as an appropriate, indicated treatment for the clinical population in question--and, by extension, for any other groups diagnosed as having "sensory integrative dysfunction." It is concluded that the current fund of research findings may well be sufficient to declare SI therapy not merely an unproven, but a demonstrably ineffective, primary or adjunctive remedial treatment for learning disabilities and other disorders.

Article 4

TITLE: Effects of sensory integration treatment on the low-achieving college student.
AUTHORS: Angelo JK
SOURCE: Am J Occup Ther 1980 Oct;34(10):671-5
ABSTRACT: This article had no abstract

Article 5

TITLE: Sensory integration and learning disabilities: Ayres' factor analyses reappraised.
AUTHORS: Cummins RA
SOURCE: J Learn Disabil 1991 Mar;24(3):160-8
ABSTRACT: Between 1965 and 1987 Ayres published eight papers that contain among them 10 multivariate analyses that bear upon her conception of sensory integration. These analyses purport to have identified factors that emerge from the scores of children with learning disabilities but not from the scores of academically nondisabled children. A reappraisal of these analyses in combination finds no support for this claim. As a consequence, these data provide no validity for either the diagnostic procedures or the remedial programs for children with learning disabilities that have been derived from this work.