Critique | Research Questions, Ethics, Data Analysis

Running head: CRITIQUE 1
Critique
Name
Institutional Affiliation

CRITIQUE 2
3 CRITIQUES
Critique 1
Title and Introduction/Background
The title of the paper remained effective and was able to tell at a glance the intended
purpose of the study. The introduction remains precisely outlined making readers well-informed
of the study purpose. Indeed, the purpose of the study is clearly presented in the first sentence as
to probe the Janis &Mann (1977) DCT utility to explain the decision to participate in exercise
after myocardial infarction (MI).
Literature Review/Theoretical Framework
The literature review remains comprehensive and gives sufficient info regarding the past
studies on the topic. First the study has cited Janis and Mann (1977) and explicated how this
study incorporated both psychological stress and cognitive belief into DCT whereby decision-
making behaviors individual utilize in management of threatening situations stood described
properly. This study proposed that decision conflict surges as decision makers perceive surged
negative and positive results for a particular course of action. The study further cited Folkman
and Lazarus (1985) which discovered that the more losses and gains individuals expected from
future events, the more probable they stood to experience stress.
Research Question, Ethics, Sampling and Data Collection
There was no direct research question but rather clearly stated hypotheses which gave
clear direction of the study to meet the intended purpose. For instance, the first hypothesis
clearly stated that interaction between perceived barriers to exercise and benefits of exercise
positively predicted decisional conflict-linked stress amongst MI patients. This hypothesis was in
line with the literature review findings which had suggested that anchored on DCT, interaction

CRITIQUE 3
between perceived benefits of alongside perceived barriers to exercise dictated the degree of MI
patients’ stress being experienced whenever they contemplated exercise conduct. The second
hypothesis was also appropriate by stating that benefits-barriers interaction, stress alongside
decision-making behavior substantially predicted MI patients’ decision to exercise. This was also
in line with literature review findings which revealed that levels of stress dictated the specific
decisions making behavior to be dominance.
Sampling method was merely convenience in nature thought it stood less effective and
culminated in smaller sample size of 120 which was also not well-defined. However, the
sampling was done from the right persons as had been reflected in the study purpose since they
were only MI patients who were attending cardiology clinics associated with 2 Jordanian
military hospitals. Data collection method was effective as the researcher used correct instrument
(a 22-item Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire derived from Mann et al. 1996 study) to
correctly measure 4 decision making behaviors. The data on perceived benefits and barriers to
exercises was correctly gathered using Perceived Barriers and Perceived Benefits Scales
(BAS/BES) developed by Murdaugh and Hinshaw (1986) hence effectively measuring perceived
barriers to and benefits of health actions, smoking cessation and exercise.
Ethics was guaranteed since the interviewers only started reviewing the patients’ files
waiting in cardiology clinics upon getting approval from the Institutional Review Board and after
being granted the hospital permissions. Moreover, the interviewers approached the patients who
met the inclusion criteria and obtained a written informed consent.
In sum, the cross-sectional design stood inappropriate and longitudinal design alongside,
a larger as well as well-defined sample, valid instruments would have clarified how alterations in

CRITIQUE 4
perceptions of barriers and benefits to exercise dictate decisional stress over period and
consequent exercise participation.
Data Analysis, Discussion and Conclusion
The data analysis was appropriate. The researcher correctly used Pearson product-
moment correlation to effectively describe the relationships amongst the variables of the study.
Significant relationships were discovered between stress and both perceived benefits and
barriers. Stress stood linked to two non-adaptive decision making behaviors including hyper-
vigilance and procrastination. However, stress never significantly related to buck-passing,
vigilant decision-making or even interaction variable. The researcher also correctly used
univariate statistics to clearly show that groups stood equivalent in income, age, level of
education, rehospitalization for cardiac events alongside physical health perception. Nonetheless,
exercise participants stood increasingly likely to be males, previously regular exercisers prior to
MI as well as regard recommendations of physicians to exercise more highly as opposed to non-
participants.
The discussion of results stood comprehensive and showed that significant contribution
of interaction variable to stress for exercise non-participants demonstrated that levels of stress in
MI patients that evaded or delayed exercising surged as perceived more benefits and barriers to
exercise. Such findings stood confirmed to be aligned with White et al. (1994) results that
interaction between costs and benefits contributed to stress solely for decision-makers delaying
health action.
In conclusion, the researcher clearly identified the limitations of the study like exercise
measure not including an intensity measure despite it being essential for determining if
exercisers undertake physical exercise at intensity level gainful to their respective health.