922 A C A D E M I C M E D I C I N E , V O L . 7 6 , N O . 9 / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 1
C H A P T E R 2
Review Criteria
ABSTRACT
Following the common IMRaD format for scienti®c re-
search reports, the authors present review criteria and dis-
cuss background information and issues related to the re-
view criteria for each section of a research report.
Introduction. The authors discuss the criteria reviewers
should be aware of for establishing the context for the
research study: prior literature to introduce and describe
the problem statement, the conceptual framework (the-
ory) underlying the problem, the relevance of the re-
search questions, and the justi®cation of their research
design and methods.
Method. The authors discuss a variety of methods used
to advance knowledge and practice in the health profes-
sions, including quantitative research on educational in-
terventions, qualitative observational studies, test and
measurement development projects, case reports, exposi-
tory essays, and quantitative and qualitative research syn-
thesis. As background information for reviewers, the au-
thors discuss how investigators use these and other
methods in concert with data-collection instruments,
samples of research participants, and data-analysis pro-
cedures to address educational, policy, and clinical ques-
tions. The authors explain the key role that research
methods play in scholarship and the role of the reviewer
in judging their quality, details, and richness.
Results. The author describes issues related to reporting
statistical analyses in the results, particularly data that do
not have many of the properties that were anticipated
when the data analysis was planned. Further, the author
discusses the presentation of the body of evidence col-
lected within the study, offering information for reviewers
on evaluating the selection and organization of data, the
balance between descriptive and inferential statistics, nar-
rative presentation, contextualization of qualitative data,
and the use of tables and ®gures.
Discussion. The authors provide information to enable
reviewers to evaluate whether the interpretation of the
evidence is adequately discussed and appears reliable,
valid, and trustworthy. Further, they discuss how review-
ers can weigh interpretations, given the strengths and
limitations of the study, and can judge the generalizability
and practical signi®cance of conclusions drawn by inves-
tigators.
Title, authors, and abstract. The author discusses a re-
viewer's responsibility in judging the title, authors, and
abstract of a manuscript submitted for publication. While
this triad orients the reader at the beginning of the review
process, only after the manuscript is analyzed thoroughly
can these elements be effectively evaluated.
Other. The authors discuss the reviewer's role in eval-
uating the clarity and effectiveness of a study's written
presentation and issues of scienti®c conduct (plagiarism,
proper attribution of ideas and materials, prior publica-
tion, con¯ict of interest, and institutional review board
approval).
Acad. Med. 2001;76:922±951.

A C A D E M I C M E D I C I N E , V O L . 7 6 , N O . 9 / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 1 923
MANUSCRIPT INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement, Conceptual Framework, and Research Question
William C. McGaghie, Georges Bordage, and Judy A. Shea*
REVIEW CRITERIA
n The introduction builds a logical case and context for the problem statement.
n The problem statement is clear and well articulated.
n The conceptual (theoretical) framework is explicit and justi®ed.
n The research question (research hypothesis where applicable) is clear, concise, and complete.
n The variables being investigated are clearly identi®ed and presented.
ISSUES AND EXAMPLES RELATED TO THE CRITERIA
Introduction
A scholarly manuscript starts with an Introduction that tells
a story. The Introduction orients the reader to the topic of
the report, moving from broad concepts to more speci®c
ideas.1 The Introduction should convince the reader, and all
the more the reviewer, that the author has thought the topic
through and has developed a tight, ``researchable'' problem.
The Introduction should move logically from the known to
the unknown. The actual components of an Introduction
(including its length, complexity, and organization) will vary
with the type of study being reported, the traditions of the
research community or discipline in which it is based, and
the style and tradition of the journal receiving the manu-
script. It is helpful for the reviewer to evaluate the Intro-
duction by thinking about its overall purpose and its indi-
vidual components: problem statement, conceptual
framework, and research question. Two related articles, ``Ref-
erence to the Literature'' and ``Relevance,'' follow the pres-
ent article.
Problem Statement
The Introduction to a research manuscript articulates a prob-
lem statement. This essential element conveys the issues and
context that gave rise to the study. Two examples of problem
*Lloyd Lewis, PhD, emeritus professor of the Medical College of Georgia,
participated in early meetings of the Task Force and contributed to the
earliest draft of this section.
statements are: ``With the national trend toward more pa-
tient care in outpatient settings, the numbers of patients on
inpatient wards have declined in many hospitals, contrib-
uting to the inadequacy of inpatient wards as the primary
setting for teaching students,'' 2 and ``The process of profes-
sional socialization, regardless of the philosophical approach
of the educational program, can be stressful . . . few studies
have explored the unique stressors associated with PBL in
professional education.'' 3 These statements help readers an-
ticipate the goals of each study. In the case of the second
example, the Introduction ended with the following state-
ment: ``The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify
stressors perceived by physiotherapy students during their in-
itial unit of study in a problem-based program.'' In laying
out the issues and context, the Introduction should not con-
tain broad generalizations or sweeping claims that will not
be backed up in the paper's literature review. (See the next
article.)
Conceptual Framework
Most research reports cast the problem statement within the
context of a conceptual or theoretical framework.4 A descrip-
tion of this framework contributes to a research report in at
least two ways because it (1) identi®es research variables,
and (2) clari®es relationships among the variables. Linked
to the problem statement, the conceptual framework ``sets
the stage'' for presentation of the speci®c research question
that drives the investigation being reported. For example,
the conceptual framework and research question would be
different for a formative evaluation study than for a sum-
mative study, even though their variables might be similar.