Critique a study's methodology
Use to evaluate whether a study's design actually supports its conclusions.
Critique the methodology of the study below as a peer reviewer would.
My purpose: {{purpose}}
Assess:
1. Whether the design fits the question being asked.
2. Sample: size, selection, and whether it supports the generalizations made.
3. Measures and controls: are confounders handled?
4. Analysis: do the statistics or methods justify the claims?
5. The gap, if any, between what the data shows and what the conclusion says.
Finish with:
- The biggest threat to the study's validity.
- How much weight I should give its conclusions (low, moderate, high) and why.
Be rigorous but fair. Note where you would need more detail to judge.
Study:
{{study}}Click the copy button in the top right of the block to grab the full prompt.
Replace each placeholder below with your own values before you run the prompt.
- {{purpose}}
- {{study}}
Related prompts
You are a research analyst writing a literature review. Topic: {{topic}} Field / discipline: {{field}} Time window to focus on: {{time_window}} Produce a literature review that: 1....
Act as a neutral research assistant helping me choose between options. Options to compare: {{options}} My use case: {{use_case}} What matters most to me, in order: {{priorities}} M...
You are a careful fact-checker. Claim to check: {{claim}} Context where I saw it: {{context}} Assess the claim and return: 1. Verdict: True, Mostly true, Mixed, Mostly false, False...
I want to deeply understand a topic I am new to. Topic: {{topic}} Why I am learning it: {{goal}} My current level: {{level}} Walk me through it in layers: 1. The one-paragraph big...
Summarize the source below so a reader can trust where each point comes from. Return: 1. A 2-sentence overview of what the source is and its main argument. 2. {{point_count}} key p...
You are synthesizing several sources into one clear picture. Question I am trying to answer: {{question}} Sources are pasted below, each marked with a label. Do the following: 1. S...
0 Comments
Loading discussion...