EVALUATING A PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH REPORT: A scoring system (50 points)

SECTION ADVANCE (10 pts.) EFFECTIVE (8 pts.) LESS EFFECTIVE (3 pts.)

Abstract/ Abstract includes research question, Abstract includes all essential Abstract is missing essential
variables, number and type of participants, information but is misleading information from two paper
References major results, and implications/limitations of due to a lack of concise sentence sections or is significantly over
those results stated clearly and concisely structure, or there may be some the word limit.
within the word limit. information missing (one paper
section). Some references may not be
Reference page includes all and only cited appropriate for the assignment.
articles. The articles are appropriately Reference list may leave out Key references are clearly cited
scholarly and appropriate to the topic. some cited article or include one from other sources and not
Sufficient recent sources make the review that was not cited. The articles likely read by the student.
current, and classic studies are included if are appropriately scholarly but Sources do not include a good
applicable and available. Original may be somewhat tangential and mix of recent and classic, if
articles/chapters were clearly read by the were likely read by the student. necessary.
student. Sources include a good mix of
recent and classic, as necessary.
Introduction Paper (i.e., first paragraph or two) begins in a Paper starts somewhat broadly, More clarity in the opening may
broad manner and clearly explains the and provides some theoretical or be needed or the paper may
problem to be investigated. Appropriate topic real- world context for the main begin with a definition of the
in level and in content (e.g., thesis makes concept in the study. An topic but provide very little
novel contribution to field). explanation of the key concept context for the idea (e.g., may
or question is provided, but it begin immediately with review
Studies are described in enough detail so that could be clearer. The topic is of previous research). The topic,
their relation to other studies and to the appropriate for the class but not while generally appropriate for
relevant theoretical and methodological necessarily novel in the field. the class, may be simplistic.
issues can be understood by the reader.
Studies are generally described Some of the reviewed literature
A brief summary of the literature is provided, in enough detail so that their seems to be inappropriate or not
and there is a specific, clear description of relation to other studies and to well-linked to the topic.
what is missing from this literature or what the relevant theoretical and Literature may not reviewed in
researchers do not yet know. A clear methodological issues can be enough detail for the reader to
explanation of how the proposed study will understood by the reader be sure of its relation to other
answer this question or fill this research gap (although some sections could studies or to the relevant
is included. Specific issues, variables, be more specific). It is usually theoretical or methodological
populations, or methods are mentioned. clear whether each general issues or it may be one-sided,
statement is a hypothesis, a omitting contrasting viewpoints.
result of a specific study, or a The review may discuss key
general conclusion (though concepts from the literature
some statements may need without paraphrasing adequately
clarification). The review may (i.e., over-reliance on
include unnecessary quotations quotations).
or poor paraphrases of the
original articles.
Methods Sample is appropriate given hypotheses and Materials are appropriate but not Materials are incomplete and not
large enough for power. Participant complete (e.g., too few checked for reliability, or they
information includes number and all questions) or not checked for lack validity given the
necessary characteristics. reliability. The description is hypothesis. They may also be
adequate but could use more adequate but simplistic given the
Materials are appropriate given hypotheses detail. The measures are study goals. The description is
and pilot tested and/or checked for reliability. appended or cited, as needed. lacking in details but the
They are described with enough detail that a measures are appended or cited,
reader could replicate the study and appended Procedure is appropriate and as needed.
if self-created, cited if not. ethical. The description is
primarily complete but some Procedure is appropriate and
Procedure is appropriate and ethical. It is minor details may be missing, or ethical. The description is not in
described, in order, with enough detail that a some procedural aspects could order or difficult to follow, or a
reader could replicate the study; instructions be explained more clearly. few major details are absent.
and protocol are included. Condition
assignments are clear; randomization and
counterbalancing are explained as necessary.

Results Statistics are appropriate (e.g., means and Results section includes Results section includes
SD; frequency, etc.) and computed correctly used inferential inferential statistics, but they
accurately. Tables and figures are correct, statistics, but they may be may be incorrect or incomplete.
organized by relevant variables, and called incomplete (e.g., lacking Results do not seem linked with
out in text. appropriate post hoc tests) or the the hypothesis of the study.
findings are unclear. Results
Inferential analysis is appropriate for may not be linked to hypotheses.
addressing each hypothesis. Each finding is
stated in “plain English” and supported with
statistics in APA format.
 Discussion Discussion includes a restatement of the Discussion includes a Potential confounds or
findings. Patterns in the data and relations restatement of the findings, but methodological limits are listed
among the variables are explained and the analysis of their meaning but not clearly discussed, and
conclusions do not go beyond the data. The may be weak or not well future research is not suggested.
explanation/ interpretation is well connected connected to the hypothesis. Author has not considered to
to the hypotheses and to the broader There may be lack of what extent the results are
psychological problem as represented in the consideration for the broader conclusive and can be
introduction. Any discrepancies between the psychological problem. Only generalized.
expected results and the actual data are some results are explained (esp.
explained. The take-home message is clearly only positive), or the links to
summarized at the end. previous literature simply restate
the introduction.