Overview of the article
This article sought to identify psychological work related factors and the confounding issues that are associated with back pain. The researcher used a questionnaire to gather data on the various variables to be used in the study (Bongers, Ijmker, Heuvel, & Blatter, 2006).
The results of the study revealed that none of the subjects studied had an independent effect on the onset low work pain. However, potential intermediate factors were observed between psychological work characteristics and onset of low back pain.
The researcher concluded that a combination of psychological work characteristics may result into increased risk of low back pain, however, the relationship could not be explained using the physical work risk factors.
Critical analysis
First of all the abstract does not adequately summarise the main components of the research process. For instance, it does not explain how the different variables were used. The researcher has not given a statistical summery of the results and findings of the study, for instance, the percentages of the different responses. Thus the abstract is generally weak.
The introductory part is rather confusing; the researchers are not giving readers an opportunity to understand the issue of back pain and how it may be related to psychological work characteristics. The researcher seems to be bent on justifying his/her study rather than introducing other aspects of the study.
Important information such as characteristics and prevalence of back pain, the mechanism that facilitate a possible link between back pain and work characteristics are completely absent (Power, Frank, Hertzman, & Schierhout, 2001;Linton, 2001). The research objectives are not clear and the hypothesis is completely lacking, thus it is not easy to identify what the researcher was really testing
As revealed by the researcher, the methodology part draws its significance from suggestions of a previous study conducted. The researcher fails to give an adequate justification that is based on the study type.
In addition, there is no clear information on the process of recruitment; some important information regarding the characteristics of the subject such as the number of years that they have worked is completely omitted therefore it is not easy to tell if this sample is representative and there is a great possibility of selection bias.
The methodology does not show us how the researcher deals with the respondents. Furthermore, the methodology is not clear enough to allow for the replication of the study and does not address all the variables captured in the introductory part. It can also be seen that all the variables were assessed through self reported questionnaires. This approach is quite common in this field of research.
However it has serious limitations because of the fact that it is vulnerable to a great number of biases (Watson & Clark, 1988;Weijters, 2010). Although the researchers are trying to give some evidence on reliability and validity of the measurements they used, the information is efficient in explaining the specific structures and objectives of the questionnaire.
The article also refers to some medical examinations but does not give the specific descriptions or reasons to why they were used (Devereux, Buckle, & Vlachonikolis, 1999).
The ethical consideration is correctly depicted as the researchers have indicated that ethical approval was sought from the Surrey University ethics committee. However this information is given in the wrong part of the report and thus may cause confusion to the reader (Skov, deddens, Petersen, & Endahl, 1998).
In regard to the statistical processes that were used, the researchers applied Cox regression analysis which is quite common in epidemiological research. However, the researchers do not give an adequate justification as to why they used this kind of analysis.
In addition, this test usually produces large standard errors and therefore may not be the best statistical analysis to be employed in this paper (Skov, deddens, Petersen, & Endahl, 1998;Veldhoven & Broersen, 2003). Moreover, the researchers referred to multivariate tests without explaining which variables are tested and what the results were established.
Generally the results that are given in the research article are presented inappropriately without any coherence. Particular important information such as the exact numerical results of the tests and the p value is missing (Kerr, et al., 2001). The tables that are used in the article give information that is inconsistent with the research variables and thus it makes it difficult for the reader to interpret them.
The discussion fails to summarise the article clearly and it includes many arguments that don’t follow a clear line of reasoning leading to ambiguous conclusions. Furthermore there is no logical interpretation of the results and satisfied comparisons between the present research and the previous ones that have been conducted in the same area of study.
Though the researchers indicate that there are limitations associated with self report questionnaires, they fail to explain how they dealt with the limitations posed by self report questionnaires and even to give suggestions on alternative ways to approach the issue (Karasek, Brisson, Kawakami, Houtman, & Bongers, 1998).
The researchers have also referred to some variables that are not included in the research, for instance, the role of conflict and fear of injury. Thus it cannot be assumed that the writers offer clear suggestions for further research.
The conclusion part is not in coherence with the rest of the paper. It fails to summarise the correct “take home message” (Karasek, Brisson, Kawakami, Houtman, & Bongers, 1998). The authors are seen to add new information related to the mechanical factors of the work in the conclusion and this is not considered as correct scientific practice.
The in text references are placed in a way that is not helpful for the reader to attribute the ideas correctly. In addition, there are pages without any reference for this reason there is a great possibility of plagiarism. The references at the end of the text are not given in the same format and also they have not been written according to the alphabetical order making it difficult for the reader to relate them to vital information.
Generally the article doesn’t follow the appropriate academic writing style it includes very long and ambiguous sentences with grammatical mistakes. It can be further identified that there are some co-localism and the first person is not completely avoided as it is required in academic writing.
To sum up, the article has much more limitations than strengths and is completely unacceptable as per the required academic standards. The fact that there is no authors’ name in the article, there is a possibility that it is a made up exaggerate example of malpractice in scientific research that aims to increase student awareness of possible errors and assist them to avoid such mistakes.
Reference list
Bongers, M., Ijmker, S., Heuvel, S., & Blatter, B. M. (2006). Epidemiolgy of work related neck and upper limb problems: Psychological and personal risk factors (partI) and effective interventions from a bio behavioural persepective. J Occup Rehabil , 16: 279-302.
Devereux, J., Buckle, P., & Vlachonikolis, I. (1999). Ineractions between physical and pyschological risk factors at work increase the risk of back disorders: an epidemiological approach. Occup Environ Med , 56: 343-353.
Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., & Bongers, P. (1998). The Job Content Questionaire: An Instrument for Internationally Comparative Assessments of Psychological Job Characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 4:322-355.
Kerr, M., Frank, J., Shannon, H., Norman, R., Wellis, R., Neumann, P., et al. (2001). Biomechanical and Psychological Risk factors for low back pain at work. American journal of public Health , 91: 1069-1075.
Linton, S. J. (2001). Occupational Psychological Factors Increase the Risk for Back pain: A Systematic Review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation , 1: 53-67.
Power, C., Frank, J., Hertzman, C., & Schierhout, G. (2001). Predictors of Low Back Pain Onset in a Prospective British Study. Americanjournal of public health , 10:1671-1680.
Skov, T., deddens, J., Petersen, M., & Endahl, L. (1998). Prevalence proportion ratios: estimation and hypothesis testing. International Journal of epidiemology , 27: 91-95.
Veldhoven, M. V., & Broersen, S. (2003). Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery scale”. Occup Environ Med , 60: 13-19.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. The journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 6:1063-1070.
Weijters, B. (2010). The Individual Consistency of Acquiescence and Extreme Response Stlye in Self-Report Questionaires. Applied pschological measurement , 2:105-123.