does guilt have an effect on empathy

Topic

Advanced

Effective/Developing

Less Effective/Introductory

Poor

Title Page

Title includes variables and some articulation of relations (e.g., “difference between…”; “effects of x on y”). RH shortened but complete within character limit. All relevant parts of the title page are included. APA style is completely correct. (5)

All relevant parts of the title page are included. Title/RH is appropriate but may not be very concise. (4-3)

Title/RH does not effectively convey all the variables in the study. Some needed elements may be missing.(2-1)

Title/RH is not appropriate for a scientific paper. Title page does not follow APA style. (0)

Abstract

Abstract includes research question, variables, major results, and implications/limitations of those results stated clearly and concisely within the word limit. (10)

Abstract includes all essential information but is misleading due to a lack of concise sentence structure, or there may be some information missing (one paper section). (9-7)

Abstract is missing essential information from two paper sections or is significantly over the word limit. (7-5)

Abstract has some incorrect information or does not accurately portray the experiment. Three or more important elements are missing (4-0)

Introduction: Topic and content

Paper (i.e., first paragraph or two) begins in a broad manner and clearly explains the problem to be investi-gated. Appropriate topic in level and in content. The topic is novel and interesting. (15)

Paper starts somewhat broadly, and provides some theoretical or real-world context for the main concept in the study. An explanation of the key concept or question is provided, but it could be clearer. The topic is appropriate for the class. (14-13)

More clarity in the opening may be needed or the paper may begin with a definition of the topic but provide very little context for the idea (e.g., may begin immediately with review of previous research). The topic, while generally appropriate for the class, may be simplistic. (12-10)

Paper focuses immediately on the method, or no context for the topic is provided. The topic is not appropriate or is overly simplistic for the class level. (9-0)

Introduction: Literature review

Studies are described in enough detail so that their relation to other studies and to the relevant theoretical and methodological issues can be understood by the reader. It is clear whether each general statement is a hypothesis, a result of a specific study, or a general conclusion. The review is in the author’s own words, and the focus is on the research, rather than the researchers. Limitations of prior research and contrasting views/positions are presented. (30-27)

Studies are generally described in enough detail so that their relation to other studies and to the relevant theoretical and methodological issues can be understood by the reader (although some sections could be more specific). It is usually clear whether each general statement is a hypothesis, a result of a specific study, or a general conclusion (though some statements may need clarification). The review may include unnecessary quotations or poor paraphrases of the original articles. (26-23)

Some of the reviewed literature seems to be inappropriate or not well-linked to the topic. Literature may not reviewed in enough detail for the reader to be sure of its relation to other studies or to the relevant theoretical or methodological issues or it may be one-sided, omitting contrasting viewpoints. The review may discuss key concepts from the literature without paraphrasing adequately (i.e., over-reliance on quotations). (22-19)

Too few citations are included for the reader to be confident that that literature has been adequately reviewed. Much of the reviewed literature may be inappropriate or not reviewed in enough detail for the reader to be sure of its relation to other studies or to the relevant theoretical or methodological issues. Definition or discussion of key concepts may be improperly paraphrased. (18-0)

Topic

Advanced

Effective/Developing

Less Effective/Introductory

Poor

Introduction: Literature Advancement

A brief summary of the literature is provided, and there is a specific, clear description of what is missing from this literature or what researchers do not yet know. It is clear how this review will be turned into a proposal for research. (30-27)

A brief summary of the literature is provided, but the description of what is missing from this literature or what researchers do not yet know could be stated more clearly. There is a vague call for specific future research. (26-23)

A brief summary of the literature is not provided. The description of what is missing from this literature or what researchers do not yet know is unclear. There is little justification why the proposed study will be important to this literature, or the author makes a vague call for more research without any specificity. (22-19)

A brief summary of the literature is not provided. The description of what is missing from this literature or what researchers do not yet know is absent or very unclear. There is no discussion of why the proposed study will be important to this literature, or no study is proposed at this point. (18-0)

Introduction: Hypotheses

Hypotheses are all clearly stated, and directional predictions are made based on the previous literature. They are testable. It is clear what the experimental groups will be and what will be measured. (10)

Main hypotheses are stated clearly and directional predictions are made, but it is somewhat unclear what the experimental groups will be or what will be measured. It may be unclear how the hypothesis links to the literature. (9-7)

Variables in the main hypothesis must be stated, but no directional prediction about the relation between the variables is specifically stated. It is unclear what the experimental groups will be and what will be measured. A hypothesis with no justification may be included. (7-5)

Direction of hypothesis does not follow from the literature presented (4-0)

Method: Participants

Participant information includes number and all necessary characteristics. Exclusions based on behavior (e.g., fussiness, failure to complete) are noted, as are any recruitment criteria or special arrangements (e.g., compensation). (5)

A relevant characteristic of the participants may be missing from the description. Must include recruitment criteria or special arrangements. (4)

Does not include information about participants and/or does not include either recruitment criteria or exclusion information.(3)

Sample is not complete given the hypotheses. Participants are poorly described; replication would not be possible.(2-0).

Method: Materials and Procedures

Materials are described with enough detail that a reader could replicate the study. Materials are cited. Procedures are described, in order, with enough detail that a reader could replicate the study; instructions and protocol are included. Condition assignments are clear; randomization and counterbalancing are explained as necessary (20-18)

Materials description is adequate but could use more detail. The measures are cited, as needed. Procedure is description is primarily complete but some minor details may be missing, or some procedural aspects could be explained more clearly. (17-16)

Materials description is lacking in details but the measures are cited, as needed. Procedure description is not in order or difficult to follow, or a few major details are absent. (15-14)

Materials are not fully described or cited. Procedure description is unclear, or many major details are absent. Procedure description is unclear, or many major details are absent. (13-0)

Topic

Advanced

Effective/Developing

Less Effective/Introductory

Poor

Method/Results Section: Data Reduction

Measurement of the dependent variable (i.e., scoring, quantifica-tion) is clear, and any procedures for data treatment are explained (e.g., reverse scoring is discussed if necessary; procedures for data cleaning or handling outliers are presented). If necessary, a coding scheme is clear and appropriate and interrater reliability is computed. (5)

Measurement of the dependent variable (i.e., scoring, quantification) is clear and/or the coding scheme is appropriate. Data cleaning and outliers may not be discussed, or the discussion is not clear. Interrater reliability may not have been addressed.(4)

Measurement if the dependent variable is appropriate but not explained clearly and/or the coding scheme is somewhat vague or does not cover all response possibilities (e.g., “maybe” in a Y/N task).(3)

The scoring/quantification of the dependent variable and/or the coding scheme is not appropriate for the design of the study. It may be difficult to understand, even from the Results, how the data were scored/reduced.(2-0)

Results: Statistics

Descriptive and inferential analysis is appropriate for addressing each hypothesis. Tables and figures are correct, organized and relevant. Each finding is stated in “plain English” and supported with statistics in APA format. (20-18)

Descriptive and inferential analysis is appropriate. Analysis, tables or figures may be confusing or have minor errors. Results section includes correctly used inferential statistics, but they may be incomplete (e.g., lacking appropriate post hoc tests) or the findings are unclear. Results may not be linked to hypotheses.(17-16)

Statistics are appropriate but may be missing some relevant information (e.g., means but no SD). Figures or tables are redundant with text or omitted when necessary. Results section includes inferential statistics, but they may be incorrect or incomplete. Results do not seem linked with the hypothesis of the study.(16-15)

Statistics are inappropriate (e.g., means computed on categorical data) or computed inaccurately. Figures or tables are omitted when necessary. Overall the inferential statistics do not address the hypotheses of the study. Results are reported incorrectly, the wrong test is used, or some critical information is missing.(14-0)

Discussion: Interpretation

Discussion includes a restatement of the findings. Patterns in the data and relations among the variables are explained and conclusions do not go beyond the data. The explanation/ interpretation is well connected to the hypotheses and to the broader psychological problem as represented in the introduction. Any discrepancies between the expected results and the actual data are explained. The take-home message is clearly summarized at the end. (20-18)

Discussion includes a restatement of the findings, but the analysis of their meaning may be weak or not well connected to the hypothesis. There may be lack of consideration for the broader psychological problem. Only some results are explained (esp. only positive), or the links to previous literature simply restate the introduction. (17-16)

The restatement of the results is not clear or is misleading. Only some results are explained (esp. only positive), and the links to previous literature simply restate the introduction. The author may inappropriately generalize beyond the data. (16-15)

Discussion incorrectly states the results or is a rehash of the introduction without clearly presenting the current study. The take-home message of the study is not clear. (14-0)

Topic

Advanced

Effective/Developing

Less Effective/Introductory

Poor

Discussion: Evaluation

Author has considered to what extent the results are conclusive and can be generalized. Potential confounds or methodological limits are discussed as appropriate, and future research is suggested. (20-18)

Potential confounds or methodological limits are discussed as appropriate, and future research is suggested. Author has not considered to what extent the results are conclusive and can be generalized. (17-16)

Potential confounds or methodological limits are listed but not clearly discussed, and future research is not suggested. Author has not considered to what extent the results are conclusive and can be generalized.(16-15)

Potential confounds and methodological limits may be listed but may be inaccurate, incomplete, or very unclear.(14-0)

References

Reference page includes all and only cited articles. The articles are appropriately scholarly and appropriate to the topic. Sufficient recent sources make the review current, and classic studies are included if applicable and available. Original articles/chapters were clearly read by the student. (10)

Reference list may leave out some cited article or include one that was not cited. The articles are appropriately scholarly but may be somewhat tangential and were likely read by the student. Sources include a good mix of recent and classic, as necessary.(9-7)

Some references may not be appropriate for the assignment. Key references are clearly cited from other sources and not likely read by the student. Sources do not include a good mix of recent and classic, if necessary.(7-5)

Reference list is more like a bibliography of related sources. References may not be scholarly sources or otherwise not appropriate for the assignment (e.g., too many secondary sources), or they may not be current. (4-0)

Scientific Writing Style

There is a clear organization to the paper, and transitions are smooth and effective. Tone is appropriately formal. Topic sentences are appropriate for paragraphs, and key ideas are explained/described as needed. Punctuation and grammar are almost completely correct, including proper tenses and voice. Sentences are concise and word choice is precise, with nonbiased language. Proper paraphrases are usually used, but quotation marks are used appropriately if necessary. (30-27)

Organization is effective although improvements could be made. Transitions are generally there, but are occasionally not smooth, and paragraphs may stray from the central idea. Tone is appropriately formal. Punctuation and grammar are almost completely correct. Sentences are generally concise and word choice is usually precise. Paraphrases are usually used, and quotation marks are used appropriately if necessary.(26-23)

Organization is less adequate, making the paper difficult to follow. Transitions are sometimes there, and those that are there could be improved. Tone is occasionally colloquial. Punctuation and grammar are usually correct, but there are consistent mistakes. Sentences are not always concise and word choice is sometimes vague. The author includes many quotes or improper “paraphrases” that may constitute unintentional plagiarism.(22-19)

Organization is confusing. Transitions are missing or are very weak. Tone is consistently too informal. Punctuation and grammar mistakes throughout the paper. Sentences are not concise and word choice is vague. The author strings together quotations without enough original input.(18-0)

Topic

Advanced

Effective/Developing

Less Effective/Introductory

Poor

APA Style

Information is included in the appropriately titled sections. Title page, in-text citations, paper format, and Reference page are in APA style with no mistakes. All headers, tables and figures, margins, captions, etc., are in APA style.(20-18)

For the most part, information is included in the appropriately titled sections. Style is generally correct and must include correct spacing, fonts, and margins. Page breaks must be in appropriate places, and sections must be in order. May have minor mistakes in punctuation of references, in-text citations, statistical copy, or headers.(17-16)

For the most part, information is included in the appropriately titled sections. Consistent APA style errors in referencing, spacing, or statistical copy.(15-14)

Four or more consistent style errors, or many inconsistent style errors. Information is consistently included in the wrong sections (e.g., materials described in procedure; discussion included in results). (13-0)