Extraneous variables in a research study are best: a. ...

[j.rubin]

Extraneous variables in a research study are best:
 
  a. identified by the researcher.
  b. identified by the reviewer.
  c. included in the analysis.
  d. left out of the critique.

Question 2

Which of the following is true about critiquing the literature review?
 
  a. All studies connected with the topic should be presented.
  b. The literature review for a qualitative study is going to be much lengthier than for a quantitative one.
  c. The literature should be summarized and presented in chronological order.
  d. The researcher should gather all relevant literature and present it as it applies to the current study, noting agreements, disagreements, and gaps in the knowledge base.

[elyse44]

Answer to Question 1

ANS: A
It is always best if the researcher has identified all extraneous variables and has accounted for them in the report.
Hopefully, the researcher has already pointed out the extraneous variables and has, in some way, handled them. If the reviewer is pointing them out, it means the study probably has serious flaws.
It is not always possible or desirable to include extraneous variables in the analysis of a study.
Extraneous variables should not be left out of the critique; all identifiable variables should be addressed.

Answer to Question 2

ANS: D
A well-written literature review contains the following: all relevant literature and present it as it applies to the current study, noting agreements, disagreements, and gaps in the knowledge base.
Only relevant, current literature should be presented.
The literature review for a qualitative study is shorter than a literature review for a quantitative study as it is typically the process not to do an extensive search before the study to create researcher bias.
There could be situations in which a chronological order might make sense; ordinarily the literature is presented grouped by variables or concepts in the study.

[j.rubin]

Great answer, keep it coming

[gcook]

Gracias!