Survey research and design in psychology/Assessment/Lab report/Feedback/2016

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
General feedback about the lab report (2016)

Title[edit]

  1. The Title is unclear - check that title accurately conveys the contents of the report: The title should clearly and unambiguously communicate the main content of the report (Weaker titles tend to be more vague, lacking in reference to the main constructs involved in the psychometrics and the relationships investigated in the MLR).
  2. The Title could more clearly indicate the IVs and DV.
  3. The Title is OK but it doesn't explain the anticipated relationships or findings.
  4. Longer titles tend to provide more appropriate details than shorter titles (try to mention the key variables or questions).

Abstract[edit]

  1. Sample size?
  2. What factors were identified?
  3. R2?
  4. Explain the direction, size, and significance of the predictors.
  5. Discussion wasn't summarised.
  6. Some text is the Abstract is subsequently self-plagiarised in the body of the report :(

Introduction[edit]

  1. Review background literature relevant to the psychometric aspect of the report.
  2. Include a research question to guide the psychometric analyses.
  3. Provide one hypothesis per predictor in the MLR.
  4. What were the directions of the predicted relationships?

Method[edit]

Participants[edit]

  1. What portion of the sample was from the 3rd year survey research methods in psychology unit?
  2. What was the cultural context of the sample? (i.e., from an international perspective)
  3. Also consider presenting descriptive statistics for variables used in the analysis if they can help to describe the sample.
  4. Also explain the proportion of SRD students in the sample who were involved in the data collection.

Measures[edit]

  1. Only describe measures for variables included in the data analysis.
  2. Provide more detail about how the variables in the current study were measured.
  3. Provide an APA style citation for the survey.
  4. Provide a brief summary of the development of the survey instrumentation.
  5. Type of measurement scale (e.g., Likert?)

Procedure[edit]

  1. Identify the target population, sampling frame, and sampling technique used.
  2. Provide an APA style citation to the survey administration guidelines.
  3. Provide more detail about how the data you contributed was collected (e.g., refusal rate?).
  4. Comment on any procedural anomalies.

Results[edit]

Data screening[edit]

  1. There is no point in describing data screening of variables which are not analysed in the study.
  2. Provide more detail about the number of cases that were removed and/or why they were removed.
  3. Provide more detail about how out-of-range values were treated.
  4. Assumption testing belongs in the section relating to that analysis.
  5. Avoid mentioning specific case ID numbers - these are not relevant to an unfamiliar reader.
  6. Avoid mentioning specific variable names in the data file - these are not relevant to an unfamiliar reader.

Psychometrics[edit]

  1. EFA
    1. It is excessive to examine factorability via any more than one of: correlations, anti-image correlation matrix diagonals, KMO, and Bartlett's test of sphericity - one of these is sufficient.
    2. PC is recommended over PAF when composite scores are going to be created for use in subsequent analyses.
    3. Provide the inter-item correlations in an Appendix.
    4. Present a table of factor loadings and communalities.
      1. Sort the factor loadings by size (makes them easier to read).
      2. Indicate in a table footnote whether any factor loadings have been suppressed.
    5. Label and describe each factor.
  2. Composite scores
    1. Present a table of descriptive statistics for the composite scores.
    2. Provide the correlations between the factor composite scores.
    3. Composite scores are easier to interpret if they are based on the mean rather the sum of responses to the constituent items.

Multiple linear regression[edit]

  1. After the MVOs were removed, did this have any effect on the Results? If not, retain those cases.
  2. What was the internal consistency for the additional composite score?
  3. Present and explain the correlations between items.
  4. Present the regression coefficients.

Discussion[edit]

  1. More discussion is needed about the factor analysis, factor structure, and other possible factor structures or how to further improve the measure.
  2. Comment on the statistical power of the study.
  3. Provide more detail about the strengths and weaknesses of the study.
  4. Vague recommendations/implications - provide more detail.
  5. Emphasise the take-home messages.

General comments[edit]

  1. Some general comments are provided below; please also see the additional feedback comments about each marking criteria.
  2. Check/correct APA style e.g.,
    1. Title page
    2. Running head / page numbers
    3. Heading style
    4. Abstract layout
    5. Title should appear at the beginning of the Introduction
    6. Citations (e.g., alphabetical ordering of multiple citations)
    7. Expression of numbers (e.g,. when used at the beginning of sentences, write as words)
    8. Table formatting
    9. References (e.g., do not include the issue number for seriated journals)
  3. Check/correct grammar e.g.,
    1. use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., student’s vs students' vs students)
    2. that vs. who
    3. affect vs. effect
  4. Check/correct spelling e.g.,
    1. use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize -> hypothesise)
  5. Check/correct proofreading e.g.,
    1. outside of brackets use and instead of &
  6. Quality of written expression:
    1. Avoid one sentence paragraphs; a paragraph should normally be about one idea expressed in three to five sentences.
    2. Scientific lab reports should be written in the third person (i.e., avoid 1st person, "we", "our", and "I").
    3. External assistance (e.g., Study Help) is strongly recommended in order for the quality of written expression to be of professional standard.
    4. Avoid overuse of abbreviations.
  7. The report was over the maximum word count; extra words were ignored, impacting on the marking of the Discussion.

References[edit]