Assignment 2 FAQ 2024
(1) I have never seen or written a psychological lab report before and I am unsure what is
APA 7th formatting for the Discussion section of a lab report. What should I do?
As this is a third-year psychology subject, there are some expectations that students are
familiar with psychological writing and lab reports. Nonetheless, there are ways you can
catch up. There are additional resources available on the subject LMS in Modules, under the
Student Support tab.

(2) What does the F values and p values mean? Effect sizes were not reported in the results,
do I need to discuss this?
An F statistic is a value you get when you run an ANOVA test to find out if the means
between two populations are significantly different. A large F value means that the variation
among groups is greater than you would expect by chance. The F value in the ANOVA test
also determines the p value; the p value is the probability of getting a result at least as
extreme as the one that was actually observed, given that the null hypothesis is true. A p
value of less than .05 in this study means you can reject the null hypothesis and support the
hypothesis.
Effect sizes are not reported in the results, and you do not need to discuss this.

(3) APA format states we should have running head with the title of the paper. Do we need to
do this for the assignment when the lab slide says no title is needed, just “Discussion” is
sufficient?
No. Just the heading - Discussion (in APA format) is sufficient.

(4) Since I did not write the Introduction section, how do I know what references to use? / In
the background and research rationale for this assignment (in Assignment Information), there
are no references in it. How do I refer to references in the Discussion section? / Can I bring in
new literature in the Discussion section?
Yes, you can bring in any appropriate and relevant literature because you are doing your own
literature research. If you were writing a full lab report, you would have used those references
in the Introduction, so they are not necessarily “new” literature for the Discussion section.
There are no citations in the background and research rationale given so you can build up
your own reference list.
The key readings are a great starting point, and you might find a lot of what you need in there
and from them, you can also expand your reading (for instance look at their reference list).
(5) How many references are we expected to include?
You should use as many as needed to support your argument/ claim/ point/ inference/
suggestion. There really is no rule about the number of references (some people refer to the
10 references per 1000 word guide but do note that there is no specific justification for this
guide).
Tips you can consider are: (1) you do not need a long list of references to support each
claim/statement - sometimes 1 or 2 are sufficient if that study(s) is clearly supporting your
point; (2) you may not need to introduce a new reference for each claim/statement -
sometimes the same study can support different points that you are making so you can use
ABC et al. subsequently; (3) writing concisely and clearly - having references for every
sentence is probably unnecessarily; if you find that happening, you should re-examine what
you are writing.

(5) I am confused about research aim and hypotheses.
Research aim and hypotheses are different. Research aim is about the research question/issue
and hypotheses are the specific predictions you make to help examine and answer that
research question/issue. Lab Class 4 slides will give you this information.

(6) How do I restate the aim and hypotheses in my own words and not copy word for word?
Restating them in your words means you should not just cut and paste it entirely into your
writing because it will stand out as not flowing well with your paragraph. Write them into
your own paragraph in a way that makes sense and promotes readability; it is not expected
that you try to replace the words or phrases or so with a similar meaning word/phrase (i.e.,
thesaurus). Your tutors know that you will be using mostly the same key words and there will
be repetition of words/phrases, so the focus is on you writing it smoothly into your own
paragraph.

(7) The hypotheses are long; can I not restate them since I will be discussing them later?
It is conventional to restate the hypotheses in the first paragraph of the Discussion and briefly
state if they were supported. Furthermore, it reminds the readers what are the hypotheses so
they can follow your discussion later easily.

(8) What does overall ability distribution mean in hypothesis 1?
The overall ability distribution just means the entire data distribution of the sample’s
responses on dot enumeration on the dot arrays (i.e., all the children in this sample). To
illustrate this, if we have a sample of children, and we plot all their individual responses on a
graph, we will get an overall distribution of their ability on this test.
(9) Do we have to refer to the term that has already been abbreviated? For example, for
reaction time, can I just use RT in the discussion? Or do I need to restate “reaction time (RT)
again?
If they are common abbreviations, you do not need to state the term and abbreviation again in
the Discussion section. Common abbreviations are well accepted, e.g., RT (reaction time) or
VSWM (visuospatial working memory) etc.
But if there are uncommon abbreviations (e.g., ones that you made up) then you should do so
or else your tutor will not know. E.g., if you made up PSNS for precise small number system
or CN for core number. However, it is strongly recommended not to overuse abbreviations
because it affects readability.
A rule of thumb is: if you look at your writing and see abbreviations very often as you scan
through – it is probably too much; if you are abbreviating to reduce word count, it is probably
worthwhile to try and write more concisely and clearly.
(10) Do we need to define terms/concepts again in the Discussion. E.g., define subitizing
ability, core number abilities, domain-specific etc?
No, you do not need to define terms/concepts used again in the Discussion because this is
generally done in the Introduction/Methods. However, if you use a term that you are
introducing into the Discussion and it is not likely that it will be mentioned before, you
should define it. E.g., if you are introducing a new concept into the Discussion (i.e., not
mentioned in any of the materials or resources provided).
(11) Should I use the collective “we” or singular “I”; passive (i.e., the authors found) or
active voice (i.e., we/I found)?
APA recommends using the active voice so you can use either “we” or “I”. It is also fine to
use “it is hypothesized” for example.
(12) The profiles are identified using latent class analysis analysing RT data for set sizes 1 –
9 (not just small sets) on dot arrays but the hypothesis states subitizing profiles. Why does
this mean?
Yes, the RT data for 1-9 set sizes are used in LCA because we don’t know what is the
subitizing performance for each child (i.e., some may subitize to 2, some to 3, some to 4 and
so on. And we know that LCA will pick up on parameters such as subitizing RT (and
subitizing range) when identifying the latent subgroups of similar DE performance.
And when you look at the results (i.e., the profiles), you can see different subitizing ability
patterns there.
(13) How do I describe/characterize the response patterns of the profiles?
Refer to Lab Class 4 and in particular, refer to the discussion activity on the profiles– you can
the useful information in there that directly answers this question. Consider what is needed to
fully describe the response patterns of the profiles (and compared to the other profiles).
(14) When describing/characterizing the profiles, can I refer readers to the graphs in the
Results section? Or, when describing/characterizing the profiles, am I just repeating
information in the Results section?
No, you should not ask reader to refer to the graphs, you should use your words to
communicate those findings to your readers.
No, in the Results section you are just reporting the statistical results. In the Discussion
section, you are communicating and interpreting those findings to the readers.
(15) If the focus is on subitizing (i.e., subitizing profiles), can I just ignore the counting
range?
You should still describe/characterize the response patterns of the profiles which includes the
counting range. The counting range may also provide information, even if it is not the focus.
(16) Do children in the slow profile have developmental dyscalculia?
Do the findings in this study provide evidence to directly support this inference/claim? OR
Do the findings in this study suggest that this is a possibility (past research suggest this is
possible too) and for future research, what kind of data do you need in order to examine this
possibility? – Please note that I am not suggesting that both are reasonable interpretations of
the findings; one of them is more reasonable than the other.
(17) Referring to marking criteria 2, what does “conceptual understanding of the study and its
results” mean?
For example, telling the reader the results show some children display x whereas some
children display y and that suggests abc - is good but that’s on one level of understanding. If
you have a clear understanding of the motivating arguments/ study rationale, you may go on
to discuss what this pattern of findings suggest conceptually.
A poor example - e.g., if you are examining the hypothesis that an apple a day keeps the
doctor away and your results show that eating apples is associated with lower instances of GP
visits. That is discussing your findings on one level. Conceptually, you may want draw
deeper on the results and discuss the vitamins inherent in apples that may be benefiting a
stronger immune system and therefore less GP visits.
(18) When I am writing and structuring the discussion, I find that the way I structure the
discussion covers criteria 2 and 3 of the marking criteria at the same time. Is this acceptable
or should I write the discussion according to criteria 2 and then criteria 3?
Yes, this is acceptable. While criteria 2 is primarily focused on describing, characterizing and
interpreting the profiles and criteria 3 is primarily focused on interpreting and discussing all
findings, you may structure your discussion in the way that it combines both criteria 2 and 3
as long as it is clear. There are different ways you can structure your discussion, e.g., discuss
each hypothesis in turn.
(19) How many limitations do I need to include?
If it is well-written (i.e., stated clearly what is the limitation and justified why it is a limitation
in this study), you do not need many. E.g., it is more useful to appropriate and adequately
address 2 key limitations than to just list 5 limitations. If you discuss more than 3, it is
probably unnecessary for this study (and bearing in mind the amount of word count you want
to allocate to this).