Introduction
The literature review introduces the topic in detail by restating the definition of PTSD. Appropriate statistics are provided to explain the issue researched. It is explained that military conflicts result in the severe destruction of individual cognitive functions, resulting in multiple disorders. The issue is linked to morbidity and mortality rates derived from the source itself. While the problem is fully addressed, the guiding question for the literature review is not stated. There is no linkage between the purpose and the means of the research conducted to the actual analysis provided. Therefore, the introduction does not fully address the idea because of the absence of a guiding question, which appears to be the relationship between diagnostic status and self-destructive behavior and the effects of post-deployment risk-taking behavior provided (James et al., 2014, p. 358). According to the literature review rubric, the introduction is “developing.”
The flow of the Literature Review
The author of the literature review gradually processes from general information to concrete research that is done in the analyzed study. Then, specific findings are discussed, and appropriate achievements are outlined. The tone of voice is academic and professional throughout the text. However, the review does not appear to be a narrative discussion, as most sentences are rather annotations than a summarization of the research. According to the literature review rubric, the body is “unacceptable” and requires major revision.
Coverage of Content
Most of the review provides an in-depth analysis of the study conducted. Most vital points are discussed, and ideas are supported by multiple peer-reviewed sources. Content is fully relevant to the study’s topic. However, deriving from the absence of a clearly stated purpose of the review, there is no possibility to evaluate its significance. The content of the literature review does not fully respond to the significant sections of the study conducted, making it difficult to understand the research. According to the literature review rubric, coverage of content is “developing” and requires revision.
A Synthesis and Analysis of Ideas
There are no concrete conclusions, which would derive from the study, provided in the analysis. There is no minimal superficial of the problem, but insights are not supported. There are no concrete findings provided, despite the fact in the examined study, the relevant discussion is provided (James et al., 2014, p. 361). Considering that there is no possibility to analyze the conclusion detailed in the literature review, this point is “unacceptable” according to the literature review rubric and requires major revision.
Clarity of Writing and Writing Technique
Concerning clarity of writing and writing technique, there is substantial difficulty in understanding certain sentences of the literature review. Despite there being no grammar mistakes detected, the passive tone is overused. The writing technique does not facilitate expressing ideas in a precise manner. APA guidelines on a writing style are partially followed in the review. According to the literature review rubric, clarity of writing is “developing” and requires revision.
Appropriate Sources, Proper APA Format, Timeliness
Concerning the APA formatting and sources used in the literature review, the conducted analysis is credible. Several resources (43) used are appropriate, and nearly all of them are peer-reviewed studies that are relevant to the research analyzed. Studies are properly, and bias-free cited throughout the literature analysis. However, sometimes, in the review, page numbers of cited resources are out of APA formatting. According to the rubric, APA formatting is “developing.”
done in as little as 1 hour
Reference
James, L. M., Strom, T. Q., & Leskela, J. (2014). Risk-Taking Behaviors and Impulsivity among Veterans with and without PTSD and Mild TBI. Military Medicine: International Journal of AMSUS, 179(4), 357–363. Web.