Research Paper- Graduate-level Psychology

1

Research Proposal Rubric Student Name: _______________________________________________________________ Score: ______________/50 = ______________% x 30 possible = _______________ points

You are graded on a standard academic scale: 100-93 = A, 92-90 = A-, 89-88 = B+, 87-83 = B, 82-80 = B- 79-78 = C+, 77-73 = C, 72-70 = C-, 69-65 = D, <65=F. If you would like more explanation about your grade and how to improve your writing, please see Dr. Sibrava. If you receive a 1 in any area on the score sheet you should visit my office hours. If you have problems specifically related to writing and organization skills, you may also visit the Writing Center on campus for free assistance.

Area 1- - - - - -3- - - - - -5 Score LITERATURE REVIEW A. Phenomenon of interest, prior research

• Does not clearly describe the background literature • Not clear how the literature and research cited supports the rationale for the study • Literature is not critiqued

• Description of general trends in the literature is adequate but would benefit from more emphasis on how literature cited supports the rationale for the study

• Some critique of the existing literature

• Literature review succinctly summarizes current state of knowledge in the area of investigation; depth and breadth are appropriate/adequate • Rational for study is clearly supported; very thorough critique of existing literature

B. Statement of the Problem/ Purpose of the Study

• No clear gap or inconsistency in the literature is summarized

• Some identification of the conceptual gaps and inconsistent findings in the literature is summarized

• Some citations supporting the conceptualized statement of the problem are included

• Conceptual gaps and inconsistent findings identified in the literature are clearly summarized • Citations fully support the conceptualized statement of the problem

D. Hypotheses

• Hypotheses are missing, incomplete (e.g., missing variables), or mostly inaccurate, and/or don’t follow logically from SOTP • Hypotheses do not follow most of the APA guidelines

• Hypotheses are moderately complete and/or accurate and specific but are only loosely linked to SOTP

• Hypotheses follow some APA guidelines (e.g., may not suggest either nature or direction of relationship between 2 or more variables, or may not imply design to be used, population studied)

• Hypotheses are complete, very specific and accurate and follow logically from the statement of the problem • Hypotheses follow all APA guidelines (e.g., they all suggest nature and direction of relationship between variables, and implies design to be used and population to be studied)

METHOD E. Participants

• Description of sample (e.g., size, age, gender, ethnicity) is missing • No relevant inclusion/ exclusion criteria • Relevance of the sample for the specific questions and measures is unclear

• Some description of sample included but some relevant features (e.g., size, age, gender, or ethnicity) missing • Some relevant inclusion/ exclusion criteria included • Relevance of the sample for the specific questions and measures is somewhat clear

• All key features of the sample (e.g., size, age, gender, and ethnicity) are included • All relevant inclusion/ exclusion criteria included • Relevance of the sample for the specific questions and measures is very clear

2

Area 1… …3… …5 Score F. Procedure

• Recruitment procedure is missing or very vague and confusing • Study procedure is missing or very vague and confusing

• Recruitment procedure is somewhat specific and clear • Study procedure is somewhat specific and clear

• Recruitment procedure is very specific and clear • Study procedure is very specific and clear

G. Measures • Description of measures is missing OR; • Measures described are not included in the variable list and/or hypotheses

• Description of measures is somewhat specific and clear (e.g., some examples of items and scoring) • Some relevant psychometric properties are included (e.g., reliability, validity

• Description of measures is very specific and clear (e.g., detailed examples of items and scoring) • All relevant psychometric properties are included (e.g., reliability, validity)

H. Proposed Study Design and Statistical Analyses

• Proposed study design and corresponding statistical analyses are vague, inaccurate, and/or not clearly articulated; do not correspond to variables and hypotheses (e.g., many variables missing/ not clearly incorporated) • Relevant preliminary analyses are not proposed/conducted (e.g., power analysis, covariates, pilot testing)

• Proposed design and corresponding statistical analyses are somewhat specific/accurate and somewhat clearly articulated

• Proposed design and analyses correspond somewhat to the variable list and hypotheses (e.g., a few variables are missing or are not clearly incorporated) • Some relevant preliminary analyses are proposed/ conducted (e.g., power analysis, covariates, pilot testing)

• Proposed design and corresponding statistical analysis are highly specific, accurate and very clearly articulated • Design and analyses correspond directly to the variable list and hypotheses (e.g., no variables are missing and all are clearly incorporated) • Any relevant preliminary analyses are proposed/ conducted (e.g., power analysis, covariates, pilot testing)

I. Possible Limitations

• Student does not identify any potential limitations or shortcomings of their design, choice of measures, etc. • No mention of possible alternative interpretations of their data based on their design • Important confounds are not identified or addressed

• Some generic limitations are mentioned, but are not detailed or are not specific to the design (e.g., may not generalize, participants may not engage, etc).

• Some confounds or alternative interpretations are mentioned, but no explanation of steps taken to mitigate them are mentioned.

• Possible limitations specific to the design are clearly identified, as well as the student’s rationale for why they chose their design despite these shortcomings. • Thoughtful discussion of alternative interpretations and confounds (as well as steps taken to mitigate them) are presented. • It is clear that the student understands the strengths and limitations or their design.

3

Area 1… …3… …5 Score WRITING & STUDY QUALITY J. Organization, Language & Grammar

• Many sentences have grammatical errors, typos, awkward phrasing • The paper is poorly organized, making it difficult to read (e.g., does not use the ‘hour glass’ model; missing or confusing subheadings, segues, introductory, summary statements)

• Some sentences contain grammatical errors, typos, awkward sentences,

• The writing is fairly coherent and well organized making it somewhat easy to read (e.g., some attempt to use the ‘hour glass’ model is noted; some headings, segues, introductory and summary statements included)

• Sentences are essentially free of grammatical errors • The writing is coherent and very well organized making it a pleasure to read (e.g., the ‘hour glass’ model is used throughout; headings help to organize the content; clear segues and/or introductory, summary statements that contribute to organization)

K. References & APA Style

• Several APA style formatting errors found • Several citations are either not referenced or are not in APA format (either in the text or the Reference section)

• Some APA style formatting errors found

• Most citations were correctly referenced and Reference section was mostly correctly formatted

• Formatting is consistent with APA style with no errors found • References are correctly cited in the text and are accurately formatted in the Reference section

Comments: