Critique of the article In the quantitative study by Turid Moller and Olav Linaker (2010), they examined and compared records of information provided by psychotic patients regarding their alcohol problems and drug. In their study, the research question is: “Do psychotic patients underestimate themselves during early clinical interventions, and what are the effects of underestimation on treatment outcomes?” The null hypothesis is that failure to diagnose and explain substance abuse will not lead to high rates of relapse and hospital readmissions. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is that failure to diagnose substance abuse will lead to high rates of relapse and hospital readmissions. First, the study focused on evaluating the psychometric adequacy of self-reports and staff reports of alcohol and drug problems in patients with serious mental health conditions (Moller and Linaker, 2010). Second, the study aimed to find an answer to the question of whether psychotic patients provide inadequate assessments of their alcohol and drug abuse problems. Methods Data collection was carried out through a random sampling of patients in the city of Trondheim. Data were collected from September to October 2001 from a total of 48 participants, 22 and 26 outpatients and inpatients, respectively (Moller and Linaker, 2010). The sample population provided primary data by completing questionnaires: the Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (SMAST-13) and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-20). Similarly, nurses collected secondary data on staff reporting tools, namely the Alcohol Use Scale (AUS) and the Drug Use Scale (DUS). The SMAST-13 and DAST-20 tools were used in the study for simplicity and accuracy in predicting substance use disorders. Simplicity ensures that the participant... halfway through the document... is able to use tested and reliable clinical tools that demonstrate a high degree of consistency and accuracy. However, the number of participants is small and may not be a true representation of the sample population of psychotic patients. For example, when comparing 48 people to millions of people suffering from psychotic conditions, this has no practical meaning. Regarding weaknesses, the generalizability of the findings is limited because the sample population is not an accurate representation of the entire psychotic patient population (Francis, 2008). For example, people from other cities should have been selected. Therefore, future research should conduct similar studies in different cities around the world so that the results can be compared. Comprehensive comparison with results from other cities will facilitate generalization of the results.