IB Psychology HL Internal Assessment Example

The summary of Loftus and Palmer’s original study is concise and effectively establishes context for the current investigation.

The aim statement explains relevance well but is overly wordy. Consider splitting into two sentences for clarity.

The description of Schema Theory remains generic; clarify exactly how schema activation leads to inflated speed estimates in your setup.

Hypotheses correctly operationalize IV and DV but repeat phrasing. Standardize wording to improve readability.

The sample characteristics description ends abruptly. Expand on participant demographics (e.g., gender balance) to enhance context.

Convenience sampling is well justified by accessibility; however, discuss how this choice may limit generalisability due to selection bias.

Listing of controlled variables is clear. To deepen explanation, discuss why other potential confounds (e.g., video resolution) were not controlled.

Justifying constant question formatting is beneficial; consider addressing whether font size or wording order might also influence recall.

The rationale for using an independent-groups design is solid, but describe how participants were randomly allocated to strengthen rigour.

Materials section clearly lists all items but would benefit from justifying each material’s role in reducing demand characteristics.

Random assignment via shuffled questionnaires is mentioned; elaborate on the shuffling method to demonstrate true randomness.

The procedural narrative is thorough but could be streamlined by numbering steps or using bullet points for clarity.

The rationale correctly identifies data as ordinal and selects median and range; consider discussing potential skewness before choosing these measures.

Descriptive statistics table is neatly presented but lacks units (mph) in column headers; include units for clarity.

Previewing the graph is helpful, but specify the actual median values in the narrative to strengthen linkage between table and figure.

Appropriate use of Mann-Whitney U-test and correct p-value interpretation; consider reporting an effect size to quantify the difference.

The bar chart directly addresses the hypothesis with correct axes labels; adding error bars or sample size would enhance interpretability.

Modification is linked to limitation but would benefit from specifying matching criteria (e.g., years of driving experience).

The results discussion clearly links statistical outcomes to the hypothesis and theory; you might add comments on practical significance of a 16.5 mph difference.

The strength acknowledges reduction of demand characteristics; to deepen, discuss any residual order or expectancy effects.

Linking findings to Schema Theory is effective; strengthen by referencing specific schema constructs (e.g., event schema) in interpretation.

Limitation on individual differences is relevant; elaborate on how matching drivers/non-drivers addresses this specifically.

Noting the artificial nature of video stimuli is insightful; consider integrating physiological measures (e.g., heart rate) to simulate emotional arousal.

Standardised instructions are a clear procedural strength; discuss whether practice trials might further reduce task ambiguity.

Sample strength notes intelligence but assumes homogeneity; discuss potential impact of cultural or educational differences within the cohort.

Limitation addresses restricted generalisability; strengthen by estimating effect on external validity or suggesting metrics for diversity.

The proposal to recruit diverse participants is appropriate; consider specifying target demographics to fully justify external validity gains.

Adding sound to the video is a practical modification; you might also consider VR or immersive scenarios to further enhance realism.