Does the author have an obvious bias? Are there flaws in the methodology that make you question its validity?

Critical Thinking in Practice Once you have determined that an article is from a scholarly journal, you must still examine the article with a critical eye. Does the author have an obvious bias? Are there flaws in the methodology that make you question its validity? Even if the research appears sound, the findings might not apply to the topic you are studying. There should be no literature review articles or conceptual articles. For this discussion, use what you learned in the readings from your Critical Thinking in Psychology text, particularly about the critical evaluation of flaws in thinking, to analyze the article you found in your library search. Answer the following questions in your initial post, and include an APA-formatted reference to the article at the end of your post: Do you think the author made his or her point in a compelling way? Did you identify any problems with the methodology for any research described? Can the findings be generalized to the general population? Are the conclusions drawn in the discussion section based on the findings reported in the results section, or are they based on something else? Do you see any errors in the article, or anything with which you disagree? Does the article leave you with any unanswered questions? Response Guidelines Read the posts of your peers and respond to at least two. Try to choose those who have had the fewest responses thus far. Using critical thinking skills, what questions might you ask the learners about their chosen articles? What information might you need to decide if their articles are valid and reliable? Your responses are expected to be substantive in nature and should reference the assigned readings or other professional literature, as applicable, to support your views. Resources Discussion Participation Scoring Guide. APA Style and Format. Professional Communications and Writing Guide [PDF]. Attributes and Evaluation of Discussion Contributions [DOC].