Using the MAARIE framework to read the research literature.

journal, readers of the American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) have been encouraged to become familiar with the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP) and to apply those principles to occupational therapy. At the heart of EBP is the need for practitioners to be critical consumers of the research literature. The purpose of critical consumption is not only to determine whether the study reported has merit; perhaps more importantly, critique is needed to understand how the study relates to circumstances, populations, or settings beyond those in the study. In other words, does the research apply to your particular practice, and if so, how? The purpose of this editorial is to introduce the MAARIE framework for reading and critiquing the research literature (Riegelman, 2005). MAARIE is an acronym for six components of the framework: Method, Assignment, Assessment, Results, Interpretation, and Extrapolation. The goal of briefly discussing each component is to provide an additional tool to practitioners to support EBP. Studies that provide the most convincing evidence consist of meta-analyses (Level 1) and randomized controlled trials (Level 2) (Holm, 2000). Richard Riegelman (2005) grouped Level 1 and Level 2 studies (plus any Level 3 studies that used a control condition) together under the term analytical studies and developed the MAARIE framework to critique this type of research. Analytical studies compare one or more treatment groups with a control group in order to demonstrate causality; the independent variable (treatment) caused a change in the dependent variable (outcome). In this issue of AJOT, Lee et al. report a Level 3 study that compares the stress of individuals with chronic schizophrenia during the period of time when no treatment was received (control condition) to immediately following treatment for stress management. Because the study has a control condition, it meets the criteria of an analytical study and can be critiqued using the MAARIE framework. Analytical studies are different from primarily descriptive studies (Levels 3–5) in which the investigator is attempting to describe a change in the dependent variable but does not assume that change was caused by the independent variable. No control conditions are implemented in a descriptive study. These types of studies are numerous in the research literature, and include several in this issue. In comparison to descriptive studies, analytical studies offer the higher levels of evidence because the investigator has attempted to control the influence of all possible variables on the outcome(s); therefore, the differences in the groups are assumed to be caused by the independent variable. Let’s examine each component of the MAARIE framework. Method—This component involves identifying and evaluating key issues about the study hypothesis, population, and sample size. The report should be clear about what was studied, how the study was conducted, and who participated in the study. Evaluating the methods also includes critiquing the study’s “power,” or ability to accurately detect a relationship between two variables. Power, determined by several factors such as sample size and statistical techniques, is a major focus of the review process for AJOT. Assignment—This component refers to information in the study about how the participants were assigned to the groups (treatment or control), which are later compared statistically. The astute reader should consider whether there were any differences between the groups that could affect the results (confounding variables), including the potential for bias if the investigator is in a position to knowingly or