Health Psychology

Assessment Task 1:

Paper Review:1800 words

A review of a journal article based on a psychological intervention

For example you could use one of these examples:

Cherkin, D. C., Sherman, K. J., Balderson, B. H., Cook, A. J., Anderson, M. L., Hawkes, R. J., ... & Turner, J. A. (2016). Effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction vs cognitive behavioral therapy or usual care on back pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Jama, 315(12), 1240-1249.

Heron, K. E., & Smyth, J. M. (2010). Ecological momentary interventions: incorporating mobile technology into psychosocial and health behaviour treatments. British journal of health psychology, 15(1), 1-39.

Martin, A., Sanderson, K., & Cocker, F. (2009). Meta-analysis of the effects of health promotion intervention in the workplace on depression and anxiety symptoms. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 7-18.

Suggested guidance for the paper review:

1. Write in the third person.

2. Give details of the paper, date, authors, where published

3. Present a summary of the key points along with a limited number of examples. You can also briefly explain the author’s purpose/intentions throughout the text and you may briefly describe how the text is organised. The summary should only make up about a third of the critical review.

4. The review should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths in the form of a critique, weakness and notable feature, and key arguments of the text. Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also include other sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference).

5. Give a conclusion – drawing on the key issue raised regarding the text, with recommendations for further work, or/and application, impact, etc

6. Remember to cite any sources which you have used to support/refute arguments etc (references)

Possible focus questions: Significance and contribution to the field  *   What is the author's aim?  *   To what extent has this aim been achieved?  *   What does this text add to the body of knowledge? (This could be in terms of theory, data and/or practical application)  *   What relationship does it bear to other works in the field?  *   What is missing/not stated?

 *   Is this a problem?

Methodology or approach (this usually applies to more formal, research-based texts)  *   What approach was used for the research? (eg; quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection etc...)  *   How objective/biased is the approach?  *   Are the results valid and reliable?  *   What analytical framework is used to discuss the results? Argument and use of evidence  *   Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis?  *   What claims are made?  *   Is the argument consistent? Evidence/conclusions/assumptions  *   What kinds of evidence does the text rely on?  *   How valid and reliable is the evidence?  *   How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument?  *   What conclusions are drawn?  *   Are these conclusions justified? Writing style and text structure  *   Does the writing style suit the intended audience? (eg; expert/non-expert, academic/non-academic)  *   What is the organising principle of the text? Could it be better organised?

Suggested Reading:

Concise/Indicative Reading List

Books: Davey, G.C. Psychopathology: Research, Assessment and Treatment in Clinical Psychology. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons. Morrison, V. (2016). Introduction to Health Psychology (4th Edition). Harlow: Pearson. Wedding D and Corsini, R (2013). Current Psychotherapies.(10th Edition) San Francisco: Wadsworth Publishing

Journals: British Journal of Clinical Psychology British Journal of Health Psychology Clinical Psychology Review Health Psychology Review Journal of Counselling Psychology

Learning Outcomes to be assessed: To critically appraise research on psychological interventions to promote mental and physical health and well being.

Grading Criteria:

CRITERIA	MARKS AWARDED
Introduction – 25% · Give details of the paper, date, authors, where published. · What was the authors aim, predictions/hypotheses? · To what extent has this aim been achieved? · What does this text add to the body of knowledge? (This could be in terms of theory, data and/or practical application) · What relationship does it bear to other works in the field?	/ 25
Main Body – 50% · Present a summary of the key points along with a limited number of examples. · You can also briefly explain the author’s purpose/intentions throughout the text and you may briefly describe how the text is organised. The summary should only make up about a third of the critical review. · The review should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths in the form of a critique, weakness and notable feature, and key arguments of the text. E.g. · What approach was used for the research? (eg; quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection etc...) · How objective/biased is the approach? · Are the results valid and reliable? · What analytical framework is used to discuss the results? Argument and use of evidence · Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis? · What claims are made? · Is the argument consistent? Evidence/conclusions/assumptions · What kinds of evidence does the text rely on? · How valid and reliable is the evidence? · How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument? · What conclusions are drawn? · Are these conclusions justified?	/ 50
Conclusion– 25% · A summary of your key points. · Ability to draw main points of discussion together · Linkage of conclusions to assignment title.	/ 25

Students should recognise that the marking criteria are weighted to indicate its importance in relation to the information required.

NB: these subsections should only be used as guidance towards marking and content. This is an academic essay and subsections should not be used within the main body of work.