3-2

PSY 560 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Overview

The �nal project for this course is focused on one speci�c personality theory (or set of theories) for which you will demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, provide a nuanced, critical

analysis of the subject matter, and illustrate the theory’s relevance in the �eld today. This will be accomplished by producing a theoretical analysis which will include a detailed description of the theories'

major concepts, the key theorists, and the published research regarding the theory. You will provide a critical analysis of the validity of the theory, its strengths and weaknesses, and the cultural utility of

the theory. Finally, you will consider the theory’s contemporary relevance and its place within the larger context of the �eld of personality psychology by proposing an application of the theory to a

contemporary issue or phenomenon and discussing the possible future development of this theory.

The project will be developed over the length of the course as you will submit three outlines for feedback before completing the �nal draft. The outlines will be due in Modules Three, Five, and Seven. The

�nal product will be submitted in Module Nine.

Refer to the Project Topics document (linked in the project review task in Module One) for a list of approved theories for this project.

In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:

Evaluate the use of personality theories in published research for validity and contemporary relevance

Analyze contemporary theories in personality psychology for their changing roles in the �eld over time

Defend the use of personality psychology theories by assessing them against alternative theoretical perspectives

Illustrate the applicability of theories in personality psychology to contemporary issues and different cultural perspectives

Formulate conclusions on the contemporary use of theories in personality psychology based on theoretical analysis

Prompt

Speci�cally, the following critical elements must be addressed:

I. Background and Basics of the Theory

A. Provide a historical overview of your selected theory, including relevant historical events that in�uenced the theory.

B. Analyze the historical development of the theory based on when and where it was developed. Consider what the prevailing theories of the time were. How does this theory relate to the earlier

theories?

C. Identify the key theorist (theorists) associated with this theory. Provide the relevant biographical information and historical events that may have in�uenced the theorist’s work and led to the

development of the theory.

D. Articulate the key concepts of this theory as conceived by the key theorist(s). Support your response with relevant research. Be sure to include primary sources and noteworthy or historically

relevant research.



E. Discuss how the theory is used today, identifying key differences from its initial application. What key concepts in the theory have changed over time, and how has the theory’s role changed?

II. Evaluation and Comparison

A. Develop a position statement regarding your theory’s continued relevance in personality psychology today. Your statement must be supported with logical rationale.

B. Evaluate the validity and accuracy of your theory. Consider both primary and secondary resources and cite speci�c examples from the research to support your evaluation. Include both

historical and current research in your evaluation and consider the differences where applicable

C. Determine the theory’s appropriateness for a range of cultural perspectives in its contemporary use. Be sure to cite relevant research. How well does this theory make testable predictions

about human behavior across a range of cultural perspectives, including those of special populations? Give speci�c examples from the research where possible.

D. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Support your claims with research-based evidence.

E. Based on the weaknesses you discover, choose two alternative personality theories to discuss. Be sure to explain how these alternative theories challenge the validity, weaknesses, or biases of

your theory.

F. Defend the usefulness of your theory in contemporary settings against the alternative theories and the challenges you just presented.

III. Application and Conclusion

A. Discuss the contemporary relevance of how your theory is used in the larger context of the �eld of personality psychology. Utilize current (within the last �ve years) research.

B. Apply your theory in explaining a real-world problem or phenomenon.

i. How would your key theorist(s) understand this problem in terms of its root cause and primary characteristics?

ii. Assess published contemporary research for solutions with the potential to address this problem or phenomenon. Does the contemporary use of your theory provide viable approaches to

this problem? What are they?

iii. Explain how this application of your theory demonstrates the theory’s contemporary relevance and potential to advance knowledge within the �eld of personality psychology.

C. Summarize the changing use of your theory over time, including how its use compares with other theories in personality psychology.

D. Consider the future relevance of this theory within the �eld of personality psychology. How might it develop in order to remain relevant? Be speci�c about aspects of the theory that are most or

least likely to contribute to the future relevance of the theory.

Milestones

Milestone One: Background and Basics of Theory

In Module Three, you will submit an outline of the Background and Basics of Theory section of the �nal project. This will include the historical overview of the theory, information about the key theorist(s)

associated with the theory, and an introduction to the key concepts of the theory. Furthermore, the way the theory is used today will also be discussed. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone

One Rubric.

Milestone Two: Evaluation and Comparison

In Module Five, you will create an outline of the Evaluation and Comparison section of the �nal project. This will begin with a position statement. Then evaluate the validity and accuracy of your theory

based on both primary and secondary research, discuss the theory’s appropriateness for a range of cultural perspectives in its contemporary use, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

Based on the weaknesses you discover, choose two alternative personality theories to discuss and then defend the usefulness of your theory in contemporary settings against the alternative theories. This

milestone will be graded with the Milestone Two Rubric.

Milestone Three: Application and Conclusion

In Module Seven, you will submit an outline of the Application and Conclusion section of the �nal project. Utilize current research to support an explanation of the role this theory plays in the larger

context of the �eld of psychology. Apply this theory to a real-world problem, including how the key theorists might understand the problem, how the theory could lend support for solutions to the problem,

and how this relates to the role of your theory in the current �eld. Create a conclusion that considers the future of this theory in the �eld and how the theory might develop in order to remain relevant in

the �eld. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Three Rubric.

Final Submission: Theoretical Analysis

In Module Nine, you will submit your �nal project. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the �nal product. It should re�ect the incorporation of feedback gained

throughout the course. This submission will be graded with the Final Project Rubric.

What to Submit

Your theoretical analysis should be 10 to 15 pages in length with double spacing. Use APA style for formatting and citations. Your paper must utilize a minimum of ten scholarly resources, including primary

resources from your selected theorist. Use the Final Project Template and submit it as a Microsoft Word document.

Final Project Rubric

Criteria Exemplary (100%) Pro�cient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Background and Basics of

Theory: Historical Overview

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

the overview shows keen insight

into historical details that were

in�uential for the theory

Provides a historical overview

that expands upon the historical

events that in�uenced the theory

Provides a historical overview of

the selected theory but does not

reference relevant research, is

cursory, or contains inaccuracies

Does not provide a historical

overview of the selected theory

6.4

Background and Basics of

Theory: Historical

Development

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

analysis demonstrates a nuanced

understanding of the

development of the theory

Analyzes the historical

development of the theory and

supports it with relevant research

Analyzes the historical

development of the theory, but

analysis is not supported by

relevant research, is cursory, or

contains inaccuracies

Does not analyze the historical

development of the theory

6.4

Background and Basics of

Theory: Key Concepts

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

shows a keen ability to clearly

articulate the key concepts of the

personality psychology theory as

conceived by the theorist

Articulates the key concepts of

the theory and supports response

with relevant research

Articulates the key concepts of

the chosen theory, but response is

unclear, is not supported with

relevant research, or contains

inaccuracies

Does not articulate the key

concepts of the theory

6.4

Criteria Exemplary (100%) Pro�cient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Background and Basics of

Theory: Key Theorist(s)

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

identi�es the key theorist(s)

associated with the selected

theory, including relevant

biographical information and

historical events that in�uenced

the theorist(s) and development

of this theory

Identi�es the key theorist(s)

associated with the selected

theory, including relevant

biographical information and

historical events that in�uenced

the theorist(s) and development

of this theory

Identi�es the key theorist(s)

associated with the selected

theory, but the overview is

cursory or contains inaccuracies

Does not identify the key

theorist(s) associated with the

selected theory or provide a

historical overview

6.4

Background and Basics of

Theory: How the Theory Is

Used Today

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

discusses how theory is used

today, identifying key differences

from its initial application

Discusses how theory is used

today, identifying key differences

from its initial application

Discusses how theory is used

today, identifying differences

from its initial application, but

response is cursory or contains

inaccuracies

Does not discuss how theory is

used today or identify differences

from its initial application

6.4

Evaluation: Position Statement Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

rationale establishes especially

pertinent support for position on

the theory’s continued relevance

in personality psychology

Develops a position statement

regarding the theory’s continued

relevance in personality

psychology today, supported by

rationale

Develops a position statement

regarding the theory’s continued

relevance in personality

psychology today, but statement

is cursory, or rationale contains

gaps in logic or accuracy

Does not develop a position

statement regarding the theory’s

continued relevance in

personality psychology

6.4

Evaluation: Validity and

Accuracy

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

examples are especially well-

suited to supporting evaluation of

the validity and accuracy of

secondary research

Evaluates, using speci�c

examples, the validity and

accuracy of secondary research

that uses the theory, explaining

how research supports position

statement

Evaluates the validity and

accuracy of secondary research

that uses the theory, but

explanation is illogical, or

evaluation contains gaps in

accuracy or support

Does not evaluate the validity and

accuracy of secondary research

that uses the theory

6.4

Evaluation: Cultural

Perspectives

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

sources cited are especially well-

suited to supporting the

evaluation of the theory’s

appropriateness for a range of

cultural perspectives in its

contemporary use

Evaluates, using relevant sources,

the theory’s appropriateness for a

range of cultural perspectives,

explaining how this supports

position statement

Evaluates the appropriateness of

the theory for a range of cultural

perspectives, but explanation is

illogical, or evaluation contains

gaps in accuracy or support

Does not evaluate

appropriateness of the theory for

a range of cultural perspectives

6.4

Criteria Exemplary (100%) Pro�cient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Evaluation and Comparison:

Strengths and Weaknesses

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

evaluates the strengths and

weaknesses of the theory and

supports with research-based

evidence

Evaluates the strengths and

weaknesses of the theory and

supports it with research-based

evidence

Evaluates strengths and

weaknesses but explanation is

cursory, lacks research-based

evidence, or contains gaps in

support

Does not evaluate both strengths

and weaknesses or fails to

provide research-based evidence

6.4

Evaluation and Comparison:

Alternative Personality

Theories

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

compares the theory to

alternative personalities in

personality psychology and

demonstrates how the alternative

theories challenge the validity,

weaknesses, or bias of the theory

Compares the theory to

alternative personalities in

personality psychology and

demonstrates how the alternative

theories challenge the validity,

weaknesses, or bias of the theory

Compares the theory to

alternative personalities

currently used by researchers in

personality psychology, but

comparison is cursory or illogical

Does not compare the theory to

alternative personalities

6.4

Evaluation and Comparison:

Defense

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

defends the usefulness of the

theory in contemporary settings

against the alternative theories

that were used to challenge the

theory

Defends the usefulness of the

theory in contemporary settings

against the alternative theories

that were used to challenge the

theory

Defends the usefulness of the

theory against the alternatives,

but assessment is illogical, lacks

support, or contains inaccuracies

Does not assess the extent to

which alternative positions

challenge the theory

6.4

Application: Contemporary

Relevance

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

explains how this theory is

currently used and how its

application relates to the theory’s

larger contemporary relevance in

the �eld; utilizes current research

(within �ve years) to support

Explains how this theory is

currently used and how its

application relates to the theory’s

larger contemporary relevance in

the �eld; utilizes current research

(within �ve years) to support

Explains how this application

relates to the theory’s larger

contemporary relevance, but

explanation is cursory or illogical

or contains inaccuracies or

insuf�cient research support

Does not explain how this

application relates to the theory’s

larger contemporary relevance

6.4

Application: Real-World

Problem or Phenomenon

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

applies selected theory in

explaining a real-world problem

or phenomenon, considers

viewpoint of key theorist(s), and

cites relevant research that

suggests solutions/ explanations

for the problem/ phenomenon;

includes discussion of how this

problem/ phenomenon

demonstrates current relevance

of the theory

Applies selected theory in

explaining a real-world problem

or phenomenon, considers

viewpoint of key theorist(s), and

cites relevant research that

suggests solutions/ explanations

for the problem/ phenomenon;

includes discussion of how this

problem/ phenomenon

demonstrates current relevance

of the theory

Applies selected theory in

explaining a real-world problem

or phenomenon, but does not cite

relevant research, or response is

illogical or contains inaccuracies

Does not apply selected theory in

explaining a real-world problem

or phenomenon

6.4

Criteria Exemplary (100%) Pro�cient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Conclusion: Summary Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

summarizes the changing use of

the theory over time, including

how its use compares with other

theories in personality

psychology

Summarizes the changing use of

the theory over time, including

how its use compares with other

theories in personality

psychology

Summarizes the changing use of

the theory over time, but

summary is lacking in detail or

contains inaccuracies

Does not summarize the changing

use of the theory over time

6.4

Conclusion: Future Relevance

of the Theory

Meets “Pro�cient” criteria and

considers the future relevance of

this theory within the �eld of

personality psychology and how it

might develop in order to remain

relevant; speci�cs aspects of the

theory that are most or least

likely to contribute to the future

relevance of the theory are

included

Considers the future relevance of

this theory within the �eld of

personality psychology and how it

might develop in order to remain

relevant; speci�cs aspects of the

theory that are most or least

likely to contribute to the future

relevance of the theory are

included

Considers the future relevance of

this theory within the �eld of

personality psychology and how it

might develop in order to remain

relevant, but conclusions are

limited or lack insight; aspects of

the theory that are most or least

likely to contribute to the future

relevance of the theory are

included but are not speci�c or

not well considered

Does not consider the future

relevance of this or how it might

develop in order to remain

relevant, or speci�c aspects of the

theory are not provided

6.4

Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, and organization

and is presented in a professional

and easy-to-read format

Submission has no major errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization

that negatively impact readability

and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization

that prevent understanding of

ideas

4

Total: 100%