This research constitutes the second part of a critique of an article by Kandl Stinson, Judith Lasker, Janet Lohmann, and Lori Toedter (1992, pp. 218223) that dealt with parental grief following pregnancy loss. This part of the critique is concerned with (1) the review of literature reported in the article, (2) the theoretical framework, (3) the research hypothesis and/or research questions, and (4) the research design.
The literature review reported in the article appeared to thoroughly cover the area of investigation. The sources reviewed spanned a wide time range. The latest source reviewed was an article in press at the time this critiqued article was published. The in press article (Goldbach, et al, in press) dealt with the effects of gestational age and gender on pregnancy loss grief and two of its authors were also two of the authors of this critiqued article. An article one year old at the time the critiqued article was published was also reviewed. This article (Dunn, et al, 1991) dealt with pregnancy loss generally. The authors of the 1991 article were the same as those of the inpress article. Seven additional sources reviewed were two to four years old at the time the critiqued was published. Four of these seven articles had joint authors who were also joint authors of the critiqued article. The seven articles dealt with pregnancy loss grief generally (Borg and Lasker, 1989; Lasker and Toedter, 1990; Polvin, et al, 1989; Toedter, et al, 1988), the
relationship between masculinity and pregnancy loss grief
(Harrison, et al, 1989; Thompson, 1989), and the effect of gender on pregnancy loss grief (Rollins, 1988)All other sources reviewed ranged from five years old to 23 years old at the time the critiqued article was published.
The literature review included an acceptable balance of secondary and primary sources. Research studies (primary) predominated (40 of 44) the sources reviewed, with opinion and...