Survey research and design in psychology/Assessment/Lab report/Feedback/2015

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
General feedback about the lab report (2015)

Marking distribution[edit | edit source]

This will be finalised when all reports have been marked Descriptive statistics:

  • Mean 66.4
  • Median 68.0
  • SD 36.21
  • Min 0
  • Max 100
  • N 131

Grade breakdown:

  • HD 22%
  • DI 18%
  • CR 18%
  • P 24%
  • F 18%

Title[edit | edit source]

  • Check APA formatting regarding, header, page numbering and placement of abstract.
  • Check that title accurately conveys the contents of the report

Abstract[edit | edit source]

  • Check that the abstract accurately conveys the contents of the report
  • To improve the abstract, include more information about the practical implications of the results.

Introduction[edit | edit source]

  1. Title should be presented at the top of the page above the introduction as per APA formatting
  2. Provide logically derived and clearly stated research questions/ hypotheses are logically derived and clearly stated.
  3. Review relevant research literature.

Method[edit | edit source]

Participants[edit | edit source]

  1. Generally, this was a well written section, with good overviews of the characteristics of the current sample.
  2. To improve, provide comparisons with the wider UC population

Measures[edit | edit source]

  1. Provide a brief summary of the development of the survey instrumentation
  2. Describe the proposed factors and items.
  3. Include definitions when explaining the proposed factors.

Procedure[edit | edit source]

  1. Identify the target population, sampling frame, and sampling technique used.
  2. Comment on any procedural abnormalities.
  3. Provide more detail about what happened during and after the participants had completed the surveys (e.g. thanked for their time, instructed to keep to first page of the survey etc.).

Results[edit | edit source]

Data screening[edit | edit source]

  1. Provide more detail on the number of cases that were removed or retained during the data screening process.

Factor analysis[edit | edit source]

  1. Generally, a well-handled analysis by most.
  2. Assumption testing was thorough.
  3. Provide the inter-item correlations in an Appendix (as per marking criteria).
  4. Be transparent in the labelling of each identified factor and provide a description.
  5. Provide the correlations between the composite scores for each factor.

Multiple linear regression[edit | edit source]

  1. Specify the IV’s and DV’s used within this analysis and indicate any recoding or manipulations that have occurred to form these variables.
  2. Assumption testing was thorough.
  3. Present the correlations between items, and provide an interpretation for what they mean.

Discussion[edit | edit source]

  1. Good use of research literature to interpret results.
  2. Provide more detail about the strengths and weaknesses of the study.
  3. Comment on the statistical power of the study.
  4. Provide more information on the practical implications of the results.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Check APA formatting - it was rarely perfect, e.g.,
    1. Ensure DOI’s are provided where appropriate
    2. Remove hyperlinks