1. Empirical testability
On a scale of 1-7, I would give the article a 5. It is quite easy to formulate the hypotheses; inconsistency-evaluation hypothesis, inconsistency-order-evaluation, order-evaluation hypothesis, inconsistency-order-structure-evaluation hypothesis, inconsistency-structure-evaluation hypothesis (Ihme & Wittwer, 2015). Data can be gathered by assessing the subject’s level of comprehension of the competing explanations.
2. Replicability
Regarding replicability, I would give the article a 7 primarily because the data was collected from a large population that was selected based on their speed of comprehension of the explanations. The large population increases the reliability (closely related to replicability) of the information. A restudy with a higher population is likely to provide the same results with little deviation.
3. Objectivity
Objectivity is cherished in educational research. According to the way the research was there was some bias against those slow in comprehension. However, a restudy would yield similar results since time factor does not affect the comprehension levels of the participants. I would give the research a 6 on a 1-7 scale.
4. Transparency (publically shared);
The study was open to university students. The method and the results are openly available hence the researchers can receive social recognition. I would give the research a 6 on the 1-7 scale since all the aspects of the study are open to the public.
5. Falsifiability
At the point of formulation of the hypotheses, the researchers expected that the researchers would indicate that the first explanation was the correct one. This means they discounted the fact that the respondents would be knowledgeable about the subject matter and would select the correct description based on the inconsistencies but not the order they were presented (Ihme & Wittwer, 2015). Here I will give a 5.
6. Logical consistency or coherency.
The paper was organized in a logically consistent manner standard to all research papers. The paper started with an abstract to summarize the paper’s content and has section throughout the paper making it easy for the audience to navigate the information presented. From the assessment, the paper will receive a 7 on the same scale of 1-7.
Reference
Ihme, N. & Wittwer, J. (2015). The Role of Consistency, Order, and Structure in Evaluating and Comprehending Competing Scientific Explanations. Retrieved 9th March from http://link.springer.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007/s11251-015-9349-6/fulltext.html
