Critical Review (taken from Subject Outline)

Critical Review (taken from Subject Outline)

Critical Review (taken from Subject Outline) Assessment item 2 - Critical ReviewValue: 40%Due Date: 09-May-2024Return Date: 30-May-2024Length: 2000 word maximumGroup Assessment: NoSubmission method options: EASTS (online)7-Day Automatic Extension availability: Yes

TASKOne of the best ways to cement your knowledge of personality psychology is to apply it to a tangible real-world behaviour or phenomenon. With this in mind your task in this assessment item is to write a 2000 word critical review on one (1) of the following applied topics:

Can Costa and McCrae's Five Factor Model (FFM) be used to predict academicperformance?

Evaluate the clinical utility of the DSM5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders(AMPD).

Can Costa and McCrae's Five Factor Model (FFM) be used to predict social media use?

This assessment item is to be written as a critical review paper. You should write this review in the same general style as you would the literature review section of a research paper or dissertation (i.e., one goal of this assessment task is to help prepare you for writing the literature review section of a research paper or dissertation).

RATIONALEThis assessment task will assess the following learning outcomes:

be able to discuss some important theoretical issues in the study of personality.

be able to outline the main techniques of personality assessment, basic psychometric concepts, (e.g., reliability and validity), and describe various methods of test construction.

be able to evaluate current research in personality, and describe the different research methods used.

be able to discuss and evaluate a number of theories from the major traditions in personality theory, and apply these theories in describing behaviour.

be able to think critically and with increased sophistication formulate independent opinions regarding issues in personality.

be able to reflect critically upon individual differences in human conduct.

This assessment task will help develop the following skilss that are required in psychology:

locate and summarise relevant research articles.

Develop a persuasive evidence based argument. You will be required to think critically and to formulate independent evidence based opinions.

The ability to write in a concise manner consistent with APA formatting requirements.

MARKING CRITERIA AND STANDARDS

Marks will be allocated according to the following component criteria:

Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail

INTRODUCTION SECTION- The introduction presents a clear and comprehensive opening to the critical review that sets out the forthcoming argument and content. It summarises major historical and/or conceptual issues in the topic, outlines the argument to be pursued, its conclusion and the general intention of the critical review. A clear and comprehensive opening to the critical review which summarises major historical and/or conceptual issues in the topic. The argument to be presented and its conclusions are summarised briefly, and intentions in the critical review are detailed. The foregoing are possibly characterised by originality and flair, and a reader is in no doubt whatsoever about what argument is to be pursued in the critical review. Opening paragraphs clearly form a cohesive and coherent Introduction summarising major issues raised by the topic. The argument to be pursued, its conclusions together with intentions in the critical review are delineated but could be stronger and clearer. Notwithstanding, the Introduction bespeaks a knowledgeable student willing to grapple with major issues and argue a case on the topic. The opening paragraphs clearly form an Introduction summarising major issues raised by the topic, but may lack coherence and cohesion. Claims are made regarding an argument to be pursued, and intentions in the critical review are alluded to, but the summarised argument lacks detail, and intentions may remain vague. An Introduction is discernible together with an attempted but unclear summary description of major issues raised by the topic. There may be an attempted summary of an argument to be pursued with some indication of intentions in the critical review, but these are not articulated sufficiently. There is no obvious Introduction. There is no summary description of major issues raised by the topic, no summary of an argument to be pursued, and no coherent indication of forthcoming content or intentions in the critical review.

USE OF RELEVANT LITERATURE- Good quality and a broad selection of reference material including recent publications, showing evidence of wide reading and consultation of a range of sources. Material is predominantly from relevant, peer-reviewed, quality publications. Reference materials used are of high quality and evidence of wide reading through consultation of a range of sources is shown. References include recent publications, and research reviewed is adequate and relevant to the argument. Evidence of wide reading through consultation of a range of sources is obvious. All reference materials may not be of adequate quality or do not include recent publications or some research reviewed is not adequate and relevant to the argument. Reference materials may not be of sufficient quality or quantity. Recent publications may be absent, and research may not relate directly to the argument. References are few, lacking quality, and may be mostly from non-peer-reviewed sources. References may not be relevant or may not be current. There is little evidence of wide reading beyond the set text and/or suggested reading for the topic. None or very few references are provided, or references are not current or appropriate for the topic. Reference material may not be mainly from quality, peer-reviewed sources. There is little or no evidence of wide reading and research.

QUALITY AND CONSISTENCY OF ARGUMENT- The argument is clearly sign-posted throughout, and obviously distinguishable from mere recapitulation of reading. The use of reference materials critically develops a clear, compelling, strongly supported argument. Theoretical and empirical perspectives are examined and links are formed between theory and research to explain and support the argument. Depth of engagement with the literature is demonstrated and evidenced through clear and careful dissection and reflection of findings. Reference materials are critically and carefully evaluated to develop a formidable, well structured and compelling argument. Both theoretical and empirical perspectives are clearly used as a strong framework for the argument, which is obviously sign-posted. The manner in which the argument is pursued and the general approach to the topic may involve originality and flair. Some depth of engagement with the literature is demonstrated and evidenced through some dissection and reflection of findings. Reference materials are critically evaluated to provide a compelling argument. Theoretical and empirical perspectives provide a strong support base for the argument, which is sign-posted and cast within a strong, well structured framework. However, sign-posting of the argument could be clearer or theoretical and/or empirical perspectives may need further detail or a stronger and more coherent exposition. While there may be evidence of wide reading, depth of engagement with the literature is not obvious. Reference materials are used to support an argument. However, the argument could be more compelling and/or may need a clearer framework and more obvious sign-posting. A support base for the argument in terms of theoretical and/or empirical perspectives may be provided but may need further detail or a stronger and more coherent exposition. An argument is attempted using some reference materials as support, but is not compelling, is not clearly sign-posted and lacks clarity and consistency. A support base for the argument, by way of theoretical and empirical perspectives, may not be provided, and the critical review may lack a clear, critical argumentative framework. No argument is presented or the argument is not distinguishable from mere description of research findings and recapitulation of reading.

CONCLUSION SECTION- There is a clear and concise statement of the conclusion together with a brief summary of the central argument, restating the main points for/against and a reminder of how exactly evidence and logic support the conclusion. There are short concluding remarks on paths to further research and/or wider implications of the conclusion. An excellent conclusion is provided with a clear and appropriate summary of the main points of the argument, its logical structure together with supporting and conflicting evidence. Concluding remarks on paths to further research and/or wider implications of the conclusion are articulate, thought provoking with a degree of originality and promise. A strong clear conclusion is provided together with a summary of the main points of the argument, its logical structure and some supporting as well as conflicting evidence. Concluding remarks on paths to further research and/or wider implications of the conclusion are clearly articulated and thoughtful. The conclusion provided is appropriate and highlights some main points in logic and supporting evidence. However, the summary of the central argument may be absent or not contain enough detail. Conflicting evidence may be ignored or concluding remarks on further research and wider implications are absent, vague or confused. A conclusion is attempted but lacks detail, and does not highlight main points in logic and evidence for/against the central argument. Concluding remarks on further research and/or wider implications of the conclusion are absent, vague or confused. No conclusion or concluding remarks are provided. There is no summary of the argument, perhaps because no argument was presented. The critical review simply comes to an end.

WRITING STYLE- Written expression is clear, concise and quality of writing is evidenced in sound sentence construction, linguistic fluency, correct spelling and proficient use of grammar. Writing style, expression, fluency and sentence construction are excellent. Spelling and grammar are flawless, and thorough proofreading has eliminated typographical errors. A joy to read! Writing style, expression, fluency and sentence construction are very good, but still could be improved. Spelling, grammatical and typographical errors may be acceptably few, but still require attention. Writing style is good but clarity and conciseness could improve. Expression, fluency and sentence construction are satisfactory, but spelling, grammatical and typographical errors require attention. Writing style needs further development to improve clarity and conciseness. Expression, sentence structure and fluency need to improve, and a number of grammatical and typographical errors are made. Writing style, expression, fluency and sentence construction are very poor. There are numerous spelling, grammatical and typographical errors.

REFERENCING- References are cited correctly with adherence to APA 7thEdition format both in text and in the reference list APA format is excellent, and has been applied consistently and flawlessly in the Reference list and in-text citations. APA format is very good, and has been applied consistently and well with acceptably few errors in the Reference list and in-text citations. APA format has been applied consistently, but still with a substantial number of errors in the Reference list and/or in-text citations. APA format has been attempted but has been applied inconsistently and with a substantial number of errors in the Reference list and/or in-text citations. APA format has not been applied or has been applied very badly to the Reference List and/or in-text citations.

LAYOUT/PRESENTATION- Title page, margins, page numbering and general presentation adhere to style and formatting guidelines (e.g., double-spaced, 12-point font). Presentation is professional. Word limit of 2000 words (excluding title page and reference list) is complied with. Excellent overall layout and professional presentation adhering to all guidelines. Layout and presentation guidelines on title page, margins, page numbering, spacing, font size, word limit and general presentation have been very well applied, with acceptably few errors. Layout and presentation guidelines on title page, margins, page numbering, spacing, font size, word limit and general presentation have been applied, but perhaps not consistently and with some errors. Layout and presentation guidelines on title page, margins, page numbering, spacing, font size, word limit and general presentation are poorly applied with numerous errors. Word count exceeds 2000 words and/or layout and presentation guidelines on title page, margins, page numbering, spacing, font size, word limit and general presentation are largely ignored.

WeightedMark (out of 40) 34 - 40 30 - 33.5 26 29.5 20 - 25.5 0 - 19.5

PRESENTATION

Assignments should:

stay within the 2000 word limit (the word limit excludes the title page and reference list - but not in-text references).Marks will be deducted if a student goes one word over the limit of 2000 words; be submitted as a Word document (do not submit as a pdf); have atitle page(with the essay title,the student's name, ID number, and the name of the subject);include student name, ID and question number on each page (as a header or footer); be typed in 12 point font, double spaced, with margins of at least 2 cm; have numbered pages; and follow the American Psychological Association (APA) style of referencing.

REQUIREMENTS

Preparation

PLAN your critical review before you start writing it. To begin with of course the structure you impose on the material is likely to be crude, but as you keep reading and take more and more notes the structure will start to emerge. I don't recommend simply highlighting notes as you read through the literature. You are better off trying to impose some logical structure on the material as you go. For instance, you might place every note you take under a heading (reference it) and then, as you read more widely, constantly organise and re-organise your headings (and the material under each heading) in search of a logical narrative. During the write up stage you might want to use some of the headings as subheadings for your early drafts. However, when you get to the final version, remove all (or most) of the subheadings. When you have a critical review that flows logically from one point to the next, subheadings tend to get in the way and disrupt the narrative. If you feel that your critical review needs lots of subheadings, then it is probably a sign that you have not been able to impose sufficient structure on the material (and subheadings are not the way to achieve structure).

Read widely. The more you read, the more you understand, and the more you will be able to offer informed critique. How much you need to read depends on the topic, the quality of the literature you have reviewed and the points you are trying to highlight. But as a general rule keep reading until you are happy with the logical structure of your argument, the quality of the material that supports this argument and you are clear in your own mind as to what constitutes core literature and what constitutes literature peripheral to the topic.

Introduction

The optimal structure of your introduction will depend a bit on the topic. But, often it is a good idea to start your critical review by establishing the relevance of the criterion variable (e.g., what is the phenomenon you are trying to predict and why should the reader be interested in its prediction?). Then you might introduce your predictor variables (e.g., the dimensions of the FFM ... what are they and why have you chosen them?). Then you might finish your introduction by outlining your key evidence-based conclusions having read through the research literature.

Some students mistakenly approach writing a critical review as though they were Agatha Christie's Poirot - having summarised the evidence they only reveal their conclusions at the end of the critical review. While this kind of approach is fine for a suspense novel it is a very weak strategy for developing a critical review. By springing your conclusions on the reader at the end of the review there is no obligation to defend your position when reviewing the literature (as the reader has no idea what your position is). When it comes to developing a critical argument a better strategy is to ALWAYS keep the reader one step ahead of you! Your introduction should leave the reader in no doubt about what material is going to be covered and what the argument will be. Importantly, don't write your introduction as though it were simply a Table of Contents (e.g., "In this critical review I will define key terms, I will review the relevant literature and I will then draw some conclusions"). The reader already knows what the generic structure of a critical review looks like. Instead, outline the argument you intend to prosecute (i.e., what are the evidence based conclusions you have reached?). If there are important methodological issues that you believe separate the quality research from the rubbish research ... then don't be afraid to raise these issues in your introduction. That way you can use them to weight your review (and conclusions) towards the quality research. Rolling up the quality research with rubbish research and giving it all the same weight ... that will almost certainly doom you to the conclusion that "findings are inconsistent". With your reader informed, you are now obliged to defend a position when you come to reviewing the literature.

While the introduction tends to deal with general issues that frame the critical review, don't make the points so general that they become meaningless. For example, avoid opening your critical review with a vague statement like "personality is an important area". This statement is so vague that it is meaningless - it just wastes the reader's valuable time and wasting the readers time is not costless. Also, make sure you substantiate ALL claims you make in the introduction. So if you think it is worth making the general claim that "personality is an area of psychology that has grown rapidly in recent years" then substantiate this claim by reporting the relevant statistics (e.g., compare the number of publications in personality psychology this year with the number of publications from 10 years ago). Making vague unsubstantiated claims is not the way to start a critical review of the literature! It is far too journalistic in style. You are not writing an article for the Daily Telegraph. With academic writing you have to be accountable for every claim you make. Even though the introduction deals with general points, you still need to bring the same rigor to it that you would to other parts of the critical review. You need to demonstrate a ruthless commitment to evidence based argument from the very outset. As a general rule, if you don't think a point is worth substantiating, then it probably isn't worth making the point in the first place.

Critical Thinking

Know what it is you want to say. Make an argument. Before writing, you need to decide what your conclusions are, and then structure your review so that it constantly supports the conclusions and acknowledges, undermines or refutes opposing views. But remember ... asserting an evidence-based argument is not the same thing as expressing your 'opinion'. The reader has no interest in your opinion ... the reader is only interested in evidence based arguments.

Be critical! At this level of study, you are expected to be able to critically review and evaluate the psychological literature and use this to form a coherent and compelling argument. Make your material subservient to your ongoing argument, and don't just present material in its own right, in the hope that the reader will draw the correct inferences for you.

DO NOT simply summarise the claims of others. A recent meta-analysis of research publications in biomedical journals found that in about 84% of cases the researchers mis-represented their own findings (https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173). I doubt the situation is much better in psychology. So when reviewing the core literature, don't simply summarise from the papers abstract. You need to read the paper and find out what was actually done and what was actually found ... only then are you in a position to engage critically with the literature. How is the criterion variable being operationalised? How are the predictor variables being operationalised? What are the typical effect sizes that are being reported (i.e., are the statistically significant associations under discussion of a trivial magnitude or of some real world importance)? Keep in mind though, your job is not to detail every single study ... your job is to integrate the literature and bring out the important points. So for instance if we take "what was actually done". The reader is not interested in hearing about how each and every study operationalised the FFM. However, if some studies have operationalised the FFM in a psychometrically unsound way, then that would be an important point to make in your critique of the literature. It should also inform what literature you focus your conclusions on (i.e., you would be foolish to focus your conclusions on findings from studies that have operationalised constructs in psychometrically unsound ways). Similarly, in terms of "what was actually found" ... the reader is not interested in being bombarded with an endless series of effect sizes (e.g., correlation coefficients). You need to be integrating finding for the reader in order to make a case. What are the range of effect sizes in this area? or What is the typical effect size ... is it small, moderate or large? One way to address this question would be to report meta-analytic effect sizes, if they are available (i.e., meta analyses allow you to summarise findings from a vast number of studies in a very succinct and precise manner). The authors of meta-analyses will sometimes also highlight for you the kinds of methodological issues that separate the good studies from the bad studies. So if there is a recent meta-analysis relevant to your review question, then it is probably a good place to start your readings.

Conclusion

This section should summarise the argument that has been developed and it should leave the reader in no doubt as to what conclusions have been drawn and how they have been supported.

General Layout/Presentation

The absolute maximum length for this assignment is 2000 words. The word limit excludes the title page and the reference list (but not the in-text references). Marks will be lost if a student goes one word over this limit. While the word limit is strict it is also very generous remember, wasting the reader's valuable time is not costless. If you look at articles published in the top psychology journals you will notice how quickly the authors are able to get to their point, and that words do not get wasted. You need to make informed decisions based on your learning in the subject and your independent study as to what to include (what is core businesses) and what to leave out (what is peripheral or irrelevant). This means engaging in critical thinking and exercising judgement both of which are important skills to develop and are part of achieving the desired graduate learning outcome in "Information and Research Literacies". Furthermore, with the advent of word processes and the ease with which word counts can be carried out, many journals these days will not even consider for review, a manuscript that is a single word over their stated word limit. You need to be able to write to these professional standards.

Try and use sentence structure and paragraph structure to reinforce the logical structure of your argument (for instance, don't try and cram too many ideas into the one sentence ... it just leaves the reader breathless and it obscures the structure of your argument. It is not the reader's job to unpack your sentences for you.

Use Times New Roman, 12pt, double-spaced.

Include your name, student ID, and the question number you are attempting on each page (as a header or footer).

Submit as a Word document rather than a pdf. It is more difficult for me to give detailed feedback to students when the critical review is submitted as a pdf.

An abstract is not required for this critical review.

Referencing

Use APA 7thEdition.

DO use peer-reviewed journal articles, and recent books.

DO NOT cite from the internet (but electronic/online versions of peer-reviewed journal papers are OK). Wikipedia is not an appropriate academic source.

AVOID direct quotations, whenever possible. Rather, paraphrase the main point and integrate this into your argument. The overuse of quotationswill give the reader the impression that you are incapable of formulating an argument in your own words.

AVOID citing textbooks unless you really have to. Textbooks are a secondary source - you should be tracking down and reading the original articles/books that they refer to (and citing these instead!).

As you know, failing to acknowledge other people's ideas with a reference is plagiarism. This is a very serious academic offence, and can result (at worst) in you being expelled from the university. Don't do it!

Finally

Once you believe you have finished, put the critical review down for a few days and then come back to it. It is amazing what you will discover about your own work when re-examining it with a fresh pair of eyes.