School of Psychology

Lab Report Marking Criteria

This is a general set of criteria that ALL lab reports in the School of Psychology will
be marked to. The weighting of each section will be determined by individual subject
coordinators and so will vary slightly from subject to subject, but generally speaking,
the bulk of the marks will come from the Introduction, Results and Discussion
sections.

Abstract

 Summary of rationale and research questions.

 Concise outline of method.

 Brief statement of key findings

 Concise statement of conclusions

Introduction

 Definition of key terms/concepts

 Review of appropriate, relevant research and experiments, providing

context/motivation behind the current study.

 Hypotheses. Should follow logically from review of previous research and

rationale.

Method

 Participants: Number & demographics (if recorded and if relevant). Reasons

for participation.

 Materials/Apparatus: Description of materials or apparatus used in the

experiment, give examples where appropriate

 Procedure: Chronological account of what happened during the experiment.

Include instructions.

Results

 Design (this can be put in either the methods or results section but will be
marked as part of the results)

 Clear and concise reporting of analyses, incorporating descriptive statistics in

text OR figure OR table.
  The relationship between statistical analyses and the research hypotheses
being tested is clear.

Discussion

 Appropriate opening paragraph

 Discuss the implications of obtained results in the light of past research/theory

 Discuss any problems/limitations of study (constructive).

 Recommendations for future research. Should follow logically from review of

results in terms of past research.

 Appropriate concluding comment.

Referencing

 Proper APA format: citing/referencing is done properly in text as well as in the

reference list. Do not use footnotes.

 Use of appropriate, original sources.

General

 Formatting: Report is in correct APA format (i.e., double spacing with 12 pt

font and appropriate margins for comments, pages are numbered) and is
properly sectioned.

 Clarity, grammar, spelling, & style:

 Adhering to word limit.

 Lab Report Marking Criteria:
An explanation and guide to writing each section

Abstract

The purpose of the abstract is to summarize the paper so that a reader can decide
whether this study is relevant to their own research or interests. It should summarize
the entire paper in as concise a manner as possible.

 Summary of rationale and research questions.

In bare bones terms state why the study was conducted. Contrary to what some
of the examples in O’Shea suggest, this should not be in terms of broad social
issues (unless the study happens to be addressing broad social issues, which is
actually quite rare). Generally, a study is conducted to fill a very small gap in
our understanding and the rationale should reflect this and be suitably precise.

E.g. Instead of
“Reading is an important activity in everyday life, and this study was conducted
to better understand it. We investigated the Speedy Ready Effect by looking at
whether high or low frequency words were recognized more quickly”

something more like

“The speed with which a person recognizes a word is influenced by how often
they have been exposed to that word. Past research investigating this Speedy
Ready Effect (SRE) found that training participants on words improves their
recognition times. This paper tested word recognition speed for high and low
frequency words (which are naturally encountered more and less often) to
determine if the SRE is only found when words are explicitly trained or is also
caused by natural exposure to words.”

Note the clearly defined research question (last sentence in the example above).

 Concise outline of method.

This should be the bare minimum for the findings to make sense:
E.g. “Participants were presented with a series of words and nonwords and
were required to distinguish between them. Half of the words were high
frequency, half were low frequency. Reaction time was recorded.

 Brief statement of key findings

 Concise statement of conclusions

Often these two points can be integrated to avoid repetition. It is important to

cover the important findings and their implications, in terms of your
hypotheses/research questions.
 “High frequency words were identified faster than low frequency words,
indicating that the SRE can be caused by natural exposure to words in the
absence of explicit training.”

Introduction

A logical structure is essential to this section. Some possible general structures might
be
- Theory says/predicts x and y
- X has been investigated, but not y
- Therefore we are investigating y

OR

- Theory says/predicts x and y

- X has been investigated using this method
- we are investigating X using a different method because . . .

 Definition of key terms/concepts

In general you should define any jargon that you use (although not necessarily
all in the first paragraph). Jargon includes any expression or word that is
particular to the field of research or any word that, in the context of
psychology or of the particular field of research, has a different meaning to its
everyday meaning.

It is also important to define any abstract concepts. You can think of concepts
as having two kinds of definitions, one is a conceptual definition, e.g. a
conceptual definition of ‘processing speed’ might be ‘the speed with which a
person recognizes and responds to information’ a conceptual definition is
abstract. The second is its operational definition. This is how the abstract
concept is defined in concrete measurable terms. For example reaction time is
a possible operational definition of processing speed. In your review of the
literature you may find that there is agreement on a conceptual definition of
whatever your report is about but there are disagreements on the appropriate
operational definition, reflected by the use of different methodologies.
Reviewing these differences can provide some solid material for your
discussion of past research.

 Review of appropriate, relevant research and experiments, providing

context and motivation/rationale behind the current study.

The point here, and really of the introduction as a whole, is to provide context
for the experiment. You need to explain where the literature stands now. What
is known and what is unknown? Rationale can be thought of simply as what
does this experiment add (i.e. what is novel about it?)

Consider how do we know what we know?

What has past research told us about the topic? In this it is important be
explicit about how research relates to theory. Often a theory will make
 multiple predictions which are subsequently tested by different studies. You
need to be clear about what aspect of a particular theory is supported/not
supported by a particular piece of evidence.

E.g. Instead of
“Jones et al (2006) found this, Davis et al (2005) found another thing and
Knight et al (2003) found yet another thing. This supports the Thing Theory.”

something like
“the Thing theory predicts this, which was found by Jones et al (2006) in their
experiment . . . “

Consider why it is we don’t know what we don’t know.

Your focus should be on why we don’t know what this experiment will
hopefully tell us.
Do we not know something because of limitations of prior methods?
Do we not know it because it has never been investigated before?
This should build logically, and by the end of the introduction it should be
clear why the study was conducted and why it was conducted in the way it was
(any methodological differences between it and similar research).

 Hypotheses. Should follow logically from review of previous research and

rationale.

By the end of the introduction these should be obvious to the reader in general
terms. The job here is simply to state them and to relate them sensibly to the
design of the experiment. It can be helpful to put these statistically (e.g. we
predict that word recognition times will be shorter for high frequency words
(i.e. we expect a main effect of word frequency).

The important thing is to be logical about your hypotheses. These should come
sensibly from past research or as a logical prediction from a theory. It is not to
the detriment of your report if they turn out to be incorrect.

Method

This must have sufficient information for someone to be able to replicate the
experiment. Do not include details that could not possibly affect the outcome,
such as the kind of pencil used to record responses.

This must be written in normal prose. Do not use bullet points or sentence
fragments.

 Participants: Number & demographics (if recorded and if relevant).

Reasons for participation.
This should be the total number of participants. If any data was excluded from
the analysis this should be explained in the results section.
E.g. 34 participants (12 male) aged between 19 and 45 (M = 26, SD = 2.2)
completed the experiment as part of their laboratory class.
  Materials/Apparatus: Description of materials or apparatus used in the
experiment, give examples where appropriate

 Procedure: Chronological account of what happened during the

experiment. Include instructions.

Results

 Design (this can be put in either the methods or results section but will be
marked as part of the results)

You must state the dependent and independent variables.

IV = what is manipulated (the conditions of the experiment)
DV = what is measured.

It must be clear whether the conditions were within subjects (did participants
complete multiple conditions?) or between subjects (did different participants
complete different conditions) and exactly what levels these conditions had. In
second and third year the design may be a more complex mixed design (a
combination of within and between subjects), in which case it needs to be
clear which conditions were within and between subjects.

E.g. “This experiment employed a within-subjects design with two levels of

word frequency (high and low). The dependent variable was reaction time.”

If the design is more complex, say reaction times for each participants were
recorded for high and low frequency words that also varied in length (3, 4 or 5
letters):

“This experiment employed a 2 (word frequency: high and low) x 3(word

length: 3, 4 and 5 letters) within-subjects design. The dependent variable was
reaction time”

Or if the design was mixed: Say participants were split into two groups, where
one group was tested on high frequency words of different lengths and the
other was tested on low frequency words of different lengths.

“This experiment employed a 2 x 3 mixed design. 2 levels of word frequency

(high and low) were completed between-subjects and 3 levels of word length
(3, 4 and 5 letters) were completed within subjects. The dependent variable
was reaction time.”

 Clear and concise reporting of analyses, incorporating descriptive

statistics in text OR figure OR table.

Don’t copy SPSS output. Just don’t do it.

You need to report the means and standard errors (standard deviation is OK,
but the standard error is better, because it directly relates to whether a
comparison will be statistically significant). You only need to do this ONCE,
either in a figure or a table or in text. In any case this should not be a separate
section but integrated with discussion of the analysis.

Please see “Making figures in Excel” (attached) for instructions on how to

make APA formatted figures in Excel.

Below are 3 examples of how to report an analysis incorporating descriptive

statistics. These are using hypothetical data (and the F statistics are entirely
made up) for the second design given above (i.e. the 2 x 3 within subjects
design).

If reporting in text you need to be as efficient as possible, therefore only those

descriptive statistics that are directly relevant to the comparison being reported.
So for a main effect state the total mean and SE of the condition, rather than
the individual cell means. If you are using a table or figure it is fine to report
descriptive for all conditions.

In Text

A 2 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA revealed a main effect of word frequency,

F(1,32) = 14.36, p = .011, indicating that reaction times were significantly
shorter for high frequency (M = 14.00, SE = 2.20) relative to low frequency
words (M = 18.00, SE = 2.13). A main effect of word length was also found,
F(2,31) = 13.21, p < .001, with 3 letter words showing the shortest reaction
times (M = 14.00, SE = 2.11), followed by 4 letter words (M = 16, SE = 2.11),
then 5 letter words (M = 18, SE = 2.13).

In Figure
A 2 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA confirmed that high frequency words
elicited significantly shorter reaction times, relative to low frequency words,
F(1,32) = 14.36, p = .011. The ANOVA also revealed a main effect of word
length, F(2,31) = 13.21, p < .001. As can be seen in Figure 1, as word length
increased, so did reaction times.

25

20
Reaction Time (milliseconds)

15

10 High Frequency
Low Frequency

0
3 Letters 4 Letters 5 Letters
Word Length
 Figure 1. This graph shows mean reaction times to high and low frequency words of 3, 4
and 5 letters. The error bars represent +/- 1 standard error.

In Table
A 2 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA confirmed that high frequency words elicit
significantly shorter reaction times, relative to low frequency words, F(1,32) =
14.36, p = .011. The ANOVA also revealed a main effect word length, F(2,31)
= 13.21, p < .001, as word length increased, so did reaction times. Table 1
displays means and standard errors for each condition.

Table 1. Mean reaction time to high and low frequency words of 3, 4 and 5 letters.

3 Letters 4 Letters 5 Letters Total

M(SE) M(SE) M(SE) M(SE)

High Frequency 12.00 (2.20) 14.00 (2.20) 16.00 (2.20) 14.00 (2.20)
Low Frequency 16.00 (2.10) 18.00 (2.10) 20.00 (2.10) 18.00 (2.10)

Total 14.00 (2.10) 16.00 (2.10) 18.00 (2.10)

 The relationship between statistical analyses and the research hypotheses

being tested is clear.

It needs to be clear what hypothesis is being tested by what

analysis/comparison and whether the obtained results are consistent with your
hypotheses or not, but save any theorising for the discussion.

Please note that the obtained data may be consistent or inconsistent with your
hypothesis but no hypothesis is ever confirmed or proven with 100% certainty
by statistical analysis.

Discussion

 Appropriate opening paragraph

The first paragraph of the discussion should re-iterate the aims of the study,
the hypotheses, the results and whether they were consistent or inconsistent
with the hypotheses.

 Discuss the implications of obtained results in the light of past

research/theory
The important thing here is to demonstrate what this study has added to the
body of knowledge, and what it has not.
Has it clarified some theoretical or methodological issue?
What do we know now that we didn’t before?
What do we still not know? Why?
If your results contradicted your hypotheses, this is important and must be
explored. If your hypotheses were derived logically from past research/theory
and your results say something different then this means there is something
wrong, either with theory, past research, or this research. You need to appraise
 the most likely solution. This can often provide a nice lead in to
recommendations for future research.

 Discuss any problems/limitations of study (constructive).

There are almost always limitations to a study, particularly ones run in large
groups in tutorial classes. The idea here is to look beyond the “participants
might have been tired” or “university students are all just too smart” and
discuss issues that can potentially explain your pattern of results. These may
be methodological (perhaps a better/more specific/different measure could
have been used) or conceptual/theoretical (maybe the concepts were too broad
or narrow to capture any differences).

 Recommendations for future research. Should follow logically from

review of results in terms of past research.
The idea with recommendations is to point out the next logical step that
research should take. From the discussion above it should be clear what
discrepancies or ambiguities still exist in the literature, and what your
hypothesized reasons for these are. What you need to do is give a few (you
don’t need to cover everything) practical suggestions to future researchers that
follow on sensibly from the current research.

If your study had a major methodological flaw then it is fair enough to point it
out and suggest ways of addressing this. However recommendations should
not be limited to things like “increasing the sample size” (in fact lab reports
are often based on rather large sample sizes – compare with other studies), or
looking at an effect in other genders/races unless there is a good reason to
expect that this would add something important (e.g. for most perceptual tasks
you would not really expect different races to perform differently).

 Appropriate concluding comment.

Summarise as briefly as possible what the study aimed to do, what it did, and
what should be done in future.

Referencing

 Proper APA format: citing/referencing is done properly in text as well as

in the reference list. Do not use footnotes.

Check O’Shea or APA publication manual. If you feel like learning how to use
EndNote (a program for storing and formatting references), it might save you
some hassle.

 Use of appropriate, original sources.

At this level you should avoid using dictionaries or text books for definitions.
Find a key/landmark reference and use it instead.

You don’t have to read absolutely everything ever written on the topic, but
you should have a good understanding of the current state of the literature, so
stick to the most recent papers (there may be some older seminal works, which
are also fine and important for understanding the context in which more
 current work was carried out) and the most influential. The most influential
papers are generally those that are cited the most. Google Scholar is by far the
easiest way to find material as it is easy to search and has a useful citation
index under each search result. If the article full text is not available directly
through Google Scholar these can be easily found by putting the paper title
into the Summon engine on the UOW library website. You can access most
papers this way. If it fails you can search the library catalogue for the journal
and then access the paper through that. If you are having trouble locating
papers you can always ask a librarian.

A note on the perennial “How many references do I need?” question. Unless

you are given a number, students are often uncertain on this issue. You can
have too few references, and you can also have too many. With a word limit to
deal with you simply don’t have the space to adequately discuss loads and
loads of different studies. Use common sense. There is no formula. You need
enough references to properly support your research question and plan.

General
 Formatting: Report is in correct APA format (i.e., double spacing with 12
pt font and appropriate margins for comments, pages are numbered) and
is properly sectioned.

 Clarity, grammar, spelling, & style: Ideas are expressed clearly. Poor
grammar and spelling can make for difficult reading. Paragraphs should be
structured properly and not too long or short (e.g., one sentence is not a
paragraph!).

 Adhering to word limit.

 Making figures in Excel

1. Create two tables with the same structure. One with the means for each condition,
the other with the standard errors. If you only have the standard deviations you can
compute the standard errors by dividing the standard deviations by the square root of
the number of participants in that condition.

2. Select the “mean” table, including the category labels (e.g. 3,4,5 and High
Frequency and Low Frequency). Select Insert and the chart type you wish to add.
column or line graphs will generally be the most appropriate.

The figure that is created should look like this.

25

20

15
High Frequency
Low Frequency
10

0
3 Letters 4 Letters 5 Letters

3) Adding axis labels

You need it to be clear what the information along each axis means, so you need to
label them. Click on your chart and you should see a “chart tools” tab appear at the
top of the screen. Select “Layout”
Then in the layout tab select “Axis titles
”

Select “title below axis” and “rotated title” for the horizontal and vertical axis
respectively. Text boxes should appear where you can type the titles on your figure.
Make sure you include the units if appropriate. For example “Reaction Time
(milliseconds)”. Your figure should now look like this.

25

20
Reaction Time (milliseconds)

15

10 High Frequency
Low Frequency

0
3 Letters 4 Letters 5 Letters
Word Length

4) Adding Error Bars.

For each series of your graph (each will be a different colour), click on it, and, still in
the layout tab select ”error bars”. and select “More error bar options” and click OK in
the dialog box that comes up.
The screen that comes up should look like this:

select “custom” and press “specify values”.

To specify the positive and negative error values select the corresponding cells of the
standard error table. Note that the positive and negative error values are equal.
Repeat for each series of your figure.
Your figure should now look like this:

25

20
Reaction Time (milliseconds)

15

10 High Frequency
Low Frequency

0
3 Letters 4 Letters 5 Letters
Word Length
.

5) There is just a bit of tiding up to do to get it into APA format.

i) remove gridlines by right clicking them, select “format gridlines’ in the
dialog box select “solid line” and set the colour to white.
ii) remove the border of the figure by right clicking somewhere in the outer white bit
of the chart. Select “Format chart area”. Select “border colour” and select “no line”

iii) as most academic publications, which a lab report is supposed to mimic, are in
grayscale (because it is cheaper) your graph should also be in grayscale., if you right
click on a line in your figure and select “format data series” there will be a dialog box
in which you can play with line colour and style.
by the end your figure should look something like this.
25

20
Reaction Time (milliseconds)

15

10 High Frequency
Low Frequency

0
3 Letters 4 Letters 5 Letters
Word Length