| Course | MSW 507 Research Methods and Applications |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Research article critique |
| Length | About 570 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 507 Week 2
Research Article Critique of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study: A Survey of Adults Restated in My Own Words, Variables and How They Were Measured, the Claim of a Graded Relationship and Whether the Design Permits It
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 507: Research Methods and Applications
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Research Article Critique of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study: A Survey of Adults Restated in My Own Words, Variables and How They Were Measured, the Claim of a Graded Relationship and Whether the Design Permits It
The Study and Its Design
Felitti et al. (1998) mailed a questionnaire about childhood experiences to adults who had completed a standardized medical evaluation at a health appraisal clinic of a large health plan in San Diego. Of those surveyed, 9,508 responded, a response rate of about 70 percent. The authors describe relating the number of categories of childhood exposure to adult risk behaviors and disease. In my own words: this is a cross-sectional survey in which adults recalled their childhoods at one point in time, linked to health information about those same adults.
Variables and How They Were Measured
The independent variable is exposure, counted as the number of seven categories a respondent reported: three kinds of abuse (psychological, physical, sexual) and four kinds of household trouble, namely substance use, mental illness or imprisonment of a household member and violence against the mother. Each category was scored present or absent, so the count runs from 0 to 7. Dependent variables included smoking, severe obesity, depressed mood, suicide attempts, alcoholism, drug use and diseases such as ischemic heart disease, drawn from the questionnaire and the medical evaluation.
Because exposures were reported as present or absent, the study cannot tell how often or how severely something happened, only whether it did.
The Claim
The authors report a graded relationship: as the count of exposure categories climbed, so did the share of adults with each risk behavior and disease. People reporting four or more categories had between 4 and 12 times the risk of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression and suicide attempts compared with people reporting none. They interpret this as evidence that childhood exposures are linked to the leading causes of adult death through behaviors adopted over the life course.
Does the Design Permit It?
It permits the association and the dose-response pattern. It does not establish sequence for many outcomes, because exposure and outcome were reported at the same time, and recall of childhood may be colored by present health or mood. A depressed adult may remember childhood more harshly. The sample, insured adults attending a health appraisal, was mostly white and many had attended college, so the findings may not hold for the young parents in my question.
Beyond the Authors' Own Limits
The authors acknowledged recall limits. I would add that a simple count treats every category as equal, so witnessing violence and living with a depressed parent weigh the same, which limits what a practitioner can do with a score.
What It Means for My Question
The study supports screening for exposures in a young families program, but it does not tell me whether any intervention lowers stress. That needs a different design.
In a study of the peer group, a parent's own exposure count could be measured at the start and used as a covariate, so that differences in stress are not wrongly credited to the group.
References
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
Reading the MSW 507 Week 2 instructions
The second week asks for a critique of one research article. Name the design in the authors' own terms, then restate it in yours, since that second sentence is where a misreading shows. Identify the independent and dependent variables and how each was operationalized. At the center, take a claim the authors made and judge whether their design permits it. A large sample does not rescue a design that cannot show sequence. Treat the limitations the authors admit as a starting point, not the answer, and add one of your own. Close by saying what the study means for your own question. Statistics can be appraised in plain terms without advanced training.
How the MSW 507 Week 2 example is put together
The design section reports a questionnaire mailed to adults after a medical evaluation at a health plan clinic in San Diego, with 9,508 responses, and restates it as a cross-sectional survey of adults recalling childhood. Variables are set out: a count of seven exposure categories scored present or absent, and outcomes from smoking and depressed mood to heart disease. The claim section reports the graded relationship, including 4 to 12 times the risk for some outcomes at four or more exposures. The judgment section accepts association and dose-response but not sequence, citing recall bias and a mostly white, insured sample. An added limit notes that a simple count treats all exposures as equal. The final section links the study to screening in a young families program.
MSW 507 Week 2 rubric: what full points look like
Article critiques are graded first on the central claim and the judgment about design. A critique that fills in a template, listing sections without judging any of them, earns little. Restating the design correctly in the writer's own words is credited. Variables must appear with their measurement, not only as labels. The judgment on whether the design permits the claim carries the most weight. Faculty reward at least one limitation the authors did not raise. Linking the study to the writer's own question shows the critique has a purpose. The article should be cited in APA form.
MSW 507 Week 2 help from the desk
Critiques commonly summarize the article section by section and end with the authors' own limitations, which shows reading but not judgment. Another frequent gap is praising a study for its size without asking whether its design fits the claim. Some critiques also avoid criticizing a peer-reviewed article at all. If your section assigns a different article, send the citation and any template; we would name and restate the design, set out the variables with their measures, judge one central claim against the design, add a limitation of our own and connect the study to your question. If your section uses a critique template, its headings would be kept and filled with judgments rather than summaries.
Get a MSW-507 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 instructions, the article you were assigned or asked to choose, and the rubric if your section posts one. A custom critique is written to those instructions and comes back inside 24-48h, free the first time, so you can read its judgments against the ones in your own draft.
More MSW 507 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 507 Week 1: Research Question Post
- MSW 507 Week 3: Literature Matrix
- MSW 507 Week 4: Research Design Memo
- MSW 507 Week 5: Sampling Plan Write-up
- MSW 507 Week 6: Research Ethics Analysis
- MSW 507 Week 7: Qualitative Study Critique
- MSW 507 Week 8: Research Proposal
- MSW 506 Week 2: Social Security Act History Analysis
- MSW 505 Week 2: Engagement Skills Analysis
- MSW 504 Week 2: Theory Application Paper
MSW 507 Week 2 questions, answered
Can a study with a very large sample still be weak?
Easily. Size controls precision, not what a design is able to show. Twenty thousand people measured at a single moment still cannot tell you which variable came first, so a claim about sequence stays unsupported no matter how narrow the confidence interval around it. Markers watch for the student who treats a big number as a substitute for reasoning about design.
Am I allowed to criticize a peer reviewed article?
That is the assignment. Peer review filters for competence rather than for correctness, and published papers carry design limits their own discussion sections often understate. What faculty want is criticism with a reason attached, so name the feature of the study, say what it prevents the authors from concluding, and keep the register analytical rather than dismissive.
How do I appraise statistics without a statistics background?
Appraise what the numbers were asked to do rather than the arithmetic behind them. You can ask whether the outcome used a validated instrument, whether the comparison group was reasonable, whether attrition was reported, and whether the size of the effect would matter to a client system or only to a significance test. Those questions carry most of the available marks.
Where can I find a free MSW 507 Week 2 sample paper?
A complete MSW 507 Week 2 critique of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, judging its claim against its design, is on this page.
Why does the MSW 507 Week 2 sample say the design cannot show sequence?
Because adults reported childhood exposures and current health at the same time, and present health or mood may color how childhood is remembered.