'Critical review of a research paper from the literature Essay\r'

'Orthotic devices, though precise utiliseful in treating set down extremity injuries, cause become very expensive, which makes many an(prenominal) patients be inefficient to afford them. This proves to be a challenge to the many patients in need of these healthc atomic matter 18 services. As a result of this, trailer truck- utilisation alternatives were introduced in the market in localize to act as alternatives to supremacyful treatment of these injuries (Zifchock and Davis 2008: 1287). The suggest of this study was to evaluate the triumph of these devices, especially when treating great deal who make believe extreme cases of either racy or blue puckishes.\r\nA rese swerve was subsequently carried prohibited in a laboratory which was equipped to tumble the soothe takes and rear ass kinematics of the contents. These subjects were thirty seven in topic and were subjected to various tests, which included their behavior under semi-orthotics, custom orthotics and no-orthotic conditions. The findings of the study showed that both semi-orthotics and custom orthotics had originatorably spirited success rates in the reduction of jaunt and eversion velocity.\r\nThe custom orthotics had a higher success rate in reducing the eversion excursion. and, the semi-orthotics pull in higher success rates in comfort among high arced subjects, especially in the arch and heel regions. Generally, the look into findings proved that the semi-orthotics were reasonably functional alternatives to custom orthotics in ground of controlling the rear bag front and comfort. Critical review. The writers begin the paper by explaining the success of the foot orthotics, which they stead at 75%.\r\nThey in addition explain the uses of these devices with regards to correction of deformities, and they explain that the devices ar apply in extreme problems that occur in the note part of the body. Such argonas include the Achilles tendonitis and the precedent knee . The authors pass on explain the reasons behind the success of these devices, and their prohibitive apostrophizes which make many people be unable to afford them. The authors in this case clear discussed a lot ab knocked out(p) the orthotics but rich person not really defined what they be. In fact, a lay man, may have got no brain of what the subject of the study is.\r\nThe authors should have began by explaining that foot orthotics argon special devices that correct or restrain musculoskeletal abnormalities or deformities, that occur in the unhopefuler parts of the human body, such(prenominal) as the legs (Advanced Orthotic Designs 2008). They should have explained the nature of these devices through the use of a diagram, if possible. The authors go on explain the prohibitive nature in the cost of these orthotic devices and go further to give the wrong range, which they place between $100 and $400.\r\nThe authors must be commended for braggy the price range, since it gives the readers of the article an insight of how affordable these devices are. However, the authors may have g single further and explained the reasons for this large price range and explained which types of orthotic devices cost $100, and which ones cost $400. The semi-orthotics are on that pointafter introduced to the article, and the authors explain how they are made. They explain that moulds are created base on the measurings of a person’s foot, and withal explain the cost benefits that are gained through this alternative.\r\nHowever, since the authors have not described how custom orthotics is developed, it is difficult to use the creation process of semi-orthotics described by the author to understand the difference between the two. The authors go on to describe the differences that people with excessively high and start arches face. They as well go into detail explain the designing of the study, which had been briefly discussed in the abstract page. The next material body is the introduction of the query methods. look for Methods. The look utilise a priori analysis, which only requires 18 subjects. The researchers employ 37 subjects; 19 low-arched and 18 high-arched.\r\nIt is clear that the number of low arched subjects were higher than the number of high arched subjects. Since the research tests the subjects in terms of low arch and high arch characteristics at this stage, it is fair to differentiate that they should have both been given a level ground when testing these characteristics. The number of subjects should have been the identical, in order not to introduce preconception in the experiment (Yin 2003: 62-67). The fact that the low arched subjects are more increases the probability that testing them will ready a lesser margin of error, since the s vitamin Ale coat is higher. The average age of the subjects was 23.\r\n6 years, 66. 5 kilograms in weight and 1. 7 metres in height. There were 20 fe masculines and 17 males . The number of females is greater than that of males. Since the genders are cosmos tested for similar characteristics, they should have been equal in number so that any conclusions made in terms of gender can be veracious. Since females are more, it means that there will be a lesser margin of error due to a larger s antiophthalmic factorle size, as opposed to their male counterparts. Any subjects who had injuries did not take part in the experiment, which is a good decision, since the injuries would have affected the results of the research.\r\nThe measurement of the arches using an arch height index clay of measurement is commendable since it is a very accurate system of measurement. Subsequently, measurements of the feet of these subjects were performed, and the plaster casts created by professionals. After existence developed, the subjects received the casts without knowing if they were custom or semi custom. The decision not to inform the subjects was wise, since it would prevent bias or manipulation of results (Tansky and Heneman 2006: 123-125).\r\nHowever, the authors do not denotation the checks and balances which were developed to prevent the manufacturers from manipulating the manufacturing process, which would have enabled them to manipulate the results. This is very important info which the authors did not give, since custom manufacturers are likely to manipulate the results to favour them and vice versa. bear upon of selective information was done through the Visual 3D software, mixed ANOVAs amongst early(a) means. Statistical significance used was 0. 05. The authors should have mentioned the various strengths and helplessnesses of the data processing methods and other hardware and software used.\r\nThe conflict of interest notes at the end of research briefly explains some of these concerns. Results. The everyday results indicated that both the semi orthotics and the custom orthotics considerably reduce excursion and eversion velocit y. The custom orthotic significantly rock-bottom eversion velocity in par to the no-orthotic conditions. This was also observed in the semi-orthotic conditions. When comfort was analysed, the findings revealed that the semi-orthotic devices significantly modify comfort in the heel region, in high arched individuals.\r\nThese findings reveal that the semi custom orthotic is expert as effective as the custom orthotic. However there is a neglect of clear culture on the exact differences between the two, in terms of superiority. It is not disclosed if indeed the custom orthetics are superior to the semi-custom orthetics. The major aim of the experiment appears to be the measurement of performance of the custom orthetics and the semi-orthetics, in congeneric to the characteristics of the subject of the study. There is very little comparison between the two types of orthetics, on their own.\r\nWe cannot therefore guarantee which is superior, and for what reasons. This can be say to be one weakness of the study. Methodology. The authors used case studies, academic journals as sources of information. These methods of collecting information can be categorize as secondary sources of information. This is because they are obtained from research carried out by other people. According to Gall et al. (2003: 78-83), advantages of using academic journals include the fact that they more authoritative than virtually sources of information, since they are written by scholars who are experts in the field of study.\r\nThis makes the probability of making errors or having bias reasonably low. They can also be accessed at low costs over the earnings and cover a wide range of topics. Finally, match According to Kothari (2005: 53-62), they are useful when carrying out preliminary studies, where there is limited information on the subject of the study. However, just as other sources of secondary data, there are limitations of using these forms of data (Maxwell 2000). Th e first weakness of the use of secondary sources of data is the inability to prove confirmation or further explanations from the authors of the work.\r\nThis is due to the reason that unlike some methods of collecting data such as observation, there is a very low possibility of seeking audience with the authors and getting further explanations on the topic of study. According to Steinberg (2004), another weakness is that the researchers face the possibility if relying on diagonal information when conducting their research, which may distort their findings. If the original author was biased when conducting the research, then relying on the comparable information may lead to inaccurate findings and conclusions.\r\nHowever, it has been seen that the possibility of this risk has been cut through the use of academic journals when conducting the research. Finally, the authors must be commended for conducting a all-encompassing research, judging from the vast number and credibility of the references. They used over twenty references, most of which are academic journals, which enabled them to acquire a minute report on the subject of study. Conclusions and recommendations. The overall research paper has been seen to have relied on a comprehensive research, judging from the validity of the references.\r\nThe research method was also consistent with the expectations of this type of experiment. However, there were a few flaws that needed to be addressed. In analyzing the format of a research paper, it becomes clear that the hypothesis is missing from this research. The education of hypothesis is absent, and though the authors explain the intention of the research, the lack of it may make some people head teacher the authenticity and validity of the research paper (Creswell 2000: 52-58). other weakness that was discussed involved the use of secondary sources of data to obtain information.\r\nThe authors did not present these weaknesses to the readers, or other pe ople who will rely on the same research when conducting future researches. In future, they should explain the weaknesses of the studies in order for readers to know the risks involved when relying on the same (Hinkel 2005: 239). In summary, the research can be said to be a success, since the weaknesses are far much lesser than the strengths of the research. Bibliography. Advanced Orthotic Designs. 2008. What is an orthotic device? Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from <http://www. aodmobility. com/body_orthotic_devices. htm>. Creswell, J. W. 2002.\r\n search Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. modern York: quick of scent Gall, M. D. , Borg, W. R. , Gall, J. P. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. New York: Longman. Hinkel, E. 2005. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. capital of the United Kingdom: Routledge. Kothari, C. R. 2005. Research Methodology: Techniques & angstrom; Methods. New York: New Age Publishers. M axwell, J. A. 2000. Qualitative research design. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from <www. socresonline. org. uk/1/4/hammersley. html †7k>. Steinberg, D. M. 2004. Social work students research handbook. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from <books. google.co. ke/books? isbn=0789014815>. Tansky, J. W. , Heneman, R. L. (2006).\r\nHuman Resource Strategies for the High offshoot Entrepreneurial Firm. London: IAP. Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research methods and designs. New York: SAGE. Zifchock, R. A. , Davis, I. 2008. A comparison of semi-custom and custom foot orthotic devices in high and low arched individuals during walking. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from <:http://www. sciencedirect. com/science? _ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T59-4TB6SK9-3-C&_cdi=4997&_user=899537&_orig=search&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2008&_sk=999769989&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkzV&md5=332b44c790485c5c32fa77c5cab24d08&ie=/sdarticle. pdf>.\r\n'