PSYC 302: Research Methods in Psychology and Social Science

Assessment 2: Critical Appraisal of an Empirical Journal Article (1,200–1,500 words)

Assessment Overview

This assessment requires a structured critical appraisal of a recent peer-reviewed empirical study in psychology or a closely related social science. The task evaluates students’ capacity to interpret research design, analyse methodological rigor, assess ethical standards, and judge the credibility of evidence. The format mirrors standard undergraduate and taught-postgraduate assessment practices across US, UK, Canadian, and Australian psychology programs.

Assessment Weighting and Submission Details

• Weighting: 40% of unit grade
• Submission format: Academic essay, APA 7th edition
• Length: 1,200–1,500 words (excluding reference list)
• Submission method: Learning Management System (Turnitin enabled)

Assessment Context (for Course Coordinators and Moderators)

This task operationalises core accreditation outcomes expected by bodies such as the APA, BPS, APS, and CPA. It assesses higher-order cognition aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy: analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. The brief uses explicit criteria language to support moderation, double-marking, and external review. The structure mirrors common formats used in research methods and capstone preparation units across Russell Group, Group of Eight, U15, and large US public universities.

Task Description (Student-Facing)

Select one empirical, peer-reviewed journal article published between 2018 and 2026 in psychology, sociology, criminology, or a related discipline. The article must report original quantitative or qualitative data. Conduct a critical appraisal of the study using scholarly language and evidence-based judgment.

Your paper must address the following components

1. Study Overview
   • Identify the research question, aims, and hypotheses.
   • Summarise the theoretical framework and its relevance.
2. Methodological Evaluation
   • Assess the research design and its appropriateness.
   • Evaluate sampling strategy, participant characteristics, and recruitment.
   • Critique data collection tools and procedures.
   • Comment on reliability, validity, and potential sources of bias.
3. Ethical Considerations
   • Identify ethical issues relevant to the study population and procedures.
   • Evaluate whether informed consent, confidentiality, and risk management were adequately addressed.
   • Link your analysis to contemporary ethical guidance (e.g., APA, BPS, APS).
4. Analysis and Interpretation
   • Evaluate the appropriateness of the analytical approach.
   • Assess whether the conclusions are supported by the data.
   • Identify over-generalisation, causal overreach, or unsupported claims.
5. Scholarly Judgment
   • Provide a balanced conclusion on the overall quality of the study.
   • Explain the study’s contribution to knowledge and its limitations.
   • Suggest specific improvements for future research.

Presentation and Referencing Requirements

• APA 7th edition formatting throughout.
• Minimum of five academic sources in addition to the focal article.
• Sources must primarily be peer-reviewed journal articles.
• Formal academic tone. Avoid descriptive summaries without critique.

Marking Criteria and Grading Rubric

1. Conceptual Understanding (20%)

• High Distinction: Accurate and nuanced understanding of theory and research purpose. Demonstrates disciplinary fluency.
• Distinction: Clear understanding with minor gaps in depth.
• Credit: Adequate understanding but largely descriptive.
• Pass: Basic comprehension with limited accuracy.
• Fail: Misrepresents key concepts or lacks understanding.

2. Methodological Critique (30%)

• High Distinction: Sophisticated critique of design, measures, bias, and limitations supported by literature.
• Distinction: Strong critique with occasional underdeveloped points.
• Credit: Identifies strengths and weaknesses but lacks depth.
• Pass: Superficial or inconsistent critique.
• Fail: Minimal evaluation or major inaccuracies.

3. Ethical Analysis (15%)

• High Distinction: Applies ethical frameworks precisely and insightfully.
• Distinction: Clear ethical evaluation with minor omissions.
• Credit: General ethical awareness but limited application.
• Pass: Vague or generic ethics discussion.
• Fail: Ethical issues not identified or misunderstood.

4. Scholarly Argument and Critical Thinking (25%)

• High Distinction: Coherent, persuasive argument grounded in evidence.
• Distinction: Logical structure with strong critical engagement.
• Credit: Some critical engagement but inconsistent reasoning.
• Pass: Predominantly descriptive with limited argumentation.
• Fail: Lacks critical position or coherence.

5. Academic Writing and Referencing (10%)

• High Distinction: Fluent academic expression, accurate APA throughout.
• Distinction: Minor expression or referencing errors.
• Credit: Noticeable issues but meaning remains clear.
• Pass: Frequent errors affecting clarity.
• Fail: Poor expression or academic integrity concerns.

Robust psychological research depends on transparency in design and analysis, particularly when findings inform policy or clinical practice. Preregistration practices reduce researcher degrees of freedom and strengthen confidence in reported outcomes, which remains a critical issue in contemporary behavioural science (Nosek et al., 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618769068). Careful attention to sampling bias is equally important because convenience samples drawn from undergraduate populations continue to limit the generalisability of many high-impact studies. Ethical scrutiny therefore extends beyond procedural consent and must include consideration of how knowledge production affects public trust.

Peer-Reviewed References

• Nosek, B.A., Ebersole, C.R., DeHaven, A.C. and Mellor, D.T. (2018) ‘The preregistration revolution’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(3), pp. 137–176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618769068
• Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2019) ‘Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis’, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), pp. 589–597. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
• Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2018) ‘Meta-research: Why research on research matters’, PLOS Biology, 16(3), e2005468. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468
• American Psychological Association (2023) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Available at: https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Available at: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/qualitative-inquiry-and-research-design/book246896