Sample Peer Review and Critique Assignment on Substance Abuse

Assignment: Logic Model



Instructions: Review the work of your partner. Complete this form based on your review and critique of your peer’s draft Logic Model. Your feedback should be thoughtful, critical, and professional, as well as framed in a manner that is useful to your peer to make revisions. You will upload your feedback to provide it to your peer; it will also be reviewed by your instructor.

  1. Is there a clear and specific need and/or problem statement?

The paper presents a clear and specific problem statement, thoroughly discussing the issue of substance abuse and how it interferes with person’s relationship, work, education and mental health. The definition of drug abuse as stipulated by the World Health Organization (WHO) is also provided in the piece, further illustrating the problem statement.

  1. Does the inputs section contain an adequate depiction of the resources needed (i.e. if you were to develop a budget from this column, would it be sufficient?)?

The inputs presented in the paper depict an adequate representation of the resources needed to achieve the objectives highlighted. For instance, the paper indicates that the course needs staff, schools, office space, lecturers and money. All these resources can be budgeted for. The resources would also be adequate to achieve the goals.

  1. Are the outputs descriptive enough to give the reader a good understanding of what the intervention will be?

Critical review of the paper indicates that the outputs depict a good understanding of the interventions undertaken to deal with substance abuse (Traag et al., 2018). For instance, outputs indicate that a program would be designed, best practices adopted, technical assistance provided, and prevention infrastructure adopted among others.

  1. Overall, is the content located in the correct categories (i.e. activities are not located in outcomes section)?

Generally, the contents of the paper have been located in the correct categories. The paper is key to classify inputs, activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes, and end outcomes in their respective categories without mix-ups.

  1. Overall, are the items logically linked?  You can use if-then statements to double check the flow of information.

Items have been linked logically. For instance, if lecturers teach students about substance abuse and tests are taken, proposals written, and program designed wells, them there will be effective programs on substance abuse which would lead to more widespread knowledge on how to deal with the menace.

  1. Do the outcomes link appropriately to the need?

The outcomes are a clear result of the need for interventions. For instance, the need to deal with substance abuse leads to the outcome of eradication of substance use in universities.

  1. Are the outcomes stated in a clear, specific, and measurable format (SMART)?

The outcomes are clearly stated, are specific to a certain problem (drug abuse in universities), and can be evaluated (measured), thus, SMART.

  1. Check that the outputs listed are not actually outcomes and vice versa.

All the end outcomes highlighted in the framework are actually outcomes since they all result from the inputs and activities undertaken to tackle the problem.

  1. Is the logic of the interventions based on evidence?

Evidence based practices have been incorporated when creating the intervention strategy. The paper acknowledges that providing effective care based on optimum evidence improves victims’ outcome.

  1. Is the logic of the interventions based on theoretical frameworks?

Frameworks such as the Strengths, Weaknesses, Threats, and Opportunities (SWOT), which have been relied by many researchers in different fields have been utilized in this intervention plan.

  1. Are contextual variables appropriately addressed?

While the paper does not explicitly mention the contextual variables addressed, some factors that may change with context have been highlighted. For instance, the threat of legalization of some drugs such as marijuana may change the intervention objectives (Brook et al., 2012).


  1. As an outsider to the project, can you follow the logic easily?  If not, what could be improved?

Even as an outsider to the project, it is very easy to follow the logic. It is very clear, specific, and well linked.

  1. Does the logic model utilize appropriate terms (constructs) for the population/issue identified?  Check for outdated terms, labeling terms, person-first, etc.

Overall, the paper employs the use of appropriate terms as they relate to the topic. There is no use of first person nouns such as me or us.




Brook, J. S., Lee, J. Y., Brown, E. N., Finch, S. J., & Brook, D. W. (2012). Individuality and contextual influences on drug dependence: a 15-year prospective longitudinal study of adolescents from Harlem. The Journal of genetic psychology173(4), 355-373.

Traag, V. A., Malgarini, M., Cicero, T., Sarlo, S., & Waltman, L. (2018, September). Peer review uncertainty at the institutional level. In 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018), September 12-14, 2018, Leiden, The Netherlands. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).