The IB Psychology IA criteria changed substantially for first assessment in 2027. The current IA is a 2,200-word research proposal marked out of 24, not an experimental report containing collected data and analysed results.
This guide explains the four current criteria, how marking and moderation work, and what distinguishes description from the explanation required in higher mark bands.
Check which Psychology IA criteria apply to you
The revised Psychology course has its first assessment in May 2027. Students completing the previous course in 2026 use the experimental-report model, while students assessed from 2027 use the research-proposal model.
| Assessment session | IA task | Marks and criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Final assessment in 2026 | Conduct and report a simple experiment | 22 marks: Introduction, Exploration, Analysis and Evaluation |
| First assessment in 2027 | Design a research proposal without conducting it | 24 marks: Introduction, Research methodology, Data collection and Discussion |
Always check your official assessment session rather than assuming the newest online guide applies to you. The official IB Psychology subject page identifies the available courses, while the official 2027 subject brief confirms that the new IA contributes 30% at SL and 20% at HL. RevisionDojo’s first-assessment-2027 IA guide focuses specifically on the proposal.
Psychology IA mark scheme at a glance
SL and HL students complete the same proposal using four criteria worth 6 marks each.
| Criterion | Main focus | Maximum |
|---|---|---|
| A: Introduction | Aim, real-life problem, population and research | 6 |
| B: Research methodology | Method, procedure and ethics | 6 |
| C: Data collection | Collection tool, design decisions and challenges | 6 |
| D: Discussion | Potential findings, applications, bias and another method | 6 |
| Total | 24 |
The proposal may use an experiment, interview, observation, or survey or questionnaire. You design the investigation but do not conduct it, so you must not invent participants, results, statistics or conclusions.
How the IB Psychology IA is marked
Your teacher applies the published criteria, after which the IB externally moderates a sample from your school. Moderation checks whether the school has interpreted the common standard accurately and can lead to marks being adjusted.
Each criterion uses best-fit judgment across bands of 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6. It is not a checklist awarding one point for each term included. Naming opportunity sampling, for example, is weaker than explaining why it fits the accessible population and what limitation it creates. A mark of 0 applies only when the work does not reach the lowest descriptor.
Criterion A: Introduction, 6 marks
Criterion A assesses whether the proposal has a focused aim, addresses a genuine problem affecting a defined population, and uses two relevant pieces of psychological research.
In the lower band, the aim is unclear or broad, the problem is underdeveloped, or supporting research is incomplete. Middle-band work has a clear aim and relevant research but makes only partial links. Top-band work presents a sharply focused question, convincingly explains the problem’s impact, and explicitly connects accurate findings and conclusions from both sources to the proposed investigation.
“How does social media affect mental health?” is too broad. “To what extent is daily use of image-based social media associated with self-reported body dissatisfaction among female students aged 16-18 at international schools?” identifies the behaviour, outcome and population. The strongest introductions follow a clear chain: real-life problem, affected population, existing evidence, focused investigation.
Criterion B: Research methodology, 6 marks
Criterion B considers whether the selected method fits the question, whether the procedure is coherent, and whether ethical protections address the investigation’s actual risks.
Lower-band responses contain methodological errors, unclear procedures or generic ethics. Middle-band responses describe a workable method and procedure but omit important justification. Top-band responses explain the method, provide a replicable sequence and connect each ethical safeguard to the topic, population or data.
“A questionnaire will be used” merely identifies the method. A stronger explanation states that an anonymous questionnaire suits a sensitive topic because it gathers comparable self-report ratings from a relatively large sample while reducing pressure to disclose identifiable experiences.
A sound procedure should cover:
- sampling and recruitment
- relevant participant characteristics
- setting, instructions and sequence
- experimental design, where applicable
- recording of responses or behaviour
- consent, withdrawal, confidentiality and welfare
Ethics must be specific. If questions could cause discomfort, explain how participants can skip them, withdraw their data and access support information. Saying only that “ethical guidelines will be followed” provides little assessable reasoning.
Criterion C: Data collection, 6 marks
Criterion C evaluates the tool used to measure behaviour, such as a questionnaire, interview schedule, observation checklist, rating scale or experimental task. It must contain at least five items, with a copy placed in the appendix, although the main proposal must still explain its design.
Lower-band tools contain errors or receive limited justification. Middle-band work provides an appropriate tool and describes relevant decisions or challenges. Top-band work explains why the tool is effective for the aim and how likely collection problems could influence the resulting data.
A tool must operationalise what the question claims to investigate. Asking only how many hours students spend online measures exposure, not body dissatisfaction. You may need measures for both constructs, with clear wording and defensible response categories.
Explain choices involving open or closed questions, scales, item order, non-leading wording and observational categories. Also explain proposal-specific risks such as social desirability, demand characteristics, participant variability, order effects, researcher interpretation or weak construct validity. Naming a bias without showing how it could distort these data is insufficient.
Criterion D: Discussion, 6 marks
Because the study is not conducted, Criterion D is forward-looking. It considers plausible findings, implications for policy or practice, researcher bias and one additional research method.
Lower-band work describes possible findings but gives little meaningful application or evaluation. Middle-band work develops these elements but does not fully explain their significance. Top-band discussion presents detailed, conditional findings, derives justified practical implications, examines how researcher bias could affect the investigation, and explains how another method would deepen understanding.
Write that the study might find an association, not that it proves one. If greater image-based social-media use might correspond with higher body dissatisfaction, schools could review digital-literacy or pastoral-support practices. A correlational questionnaire would not establish causation, so recommendations must remain proportionate to the design.
Researcher bias could influence question wording, participant interactions or interpretation. An interviewer who expects social media to be harmful might unintentionally ask leading follow-up questions. An additional semi-structured interview could reveal experiences hidden by fixed responses, although it would produce less standardised data and require more interpretation.
Description compared with explanation
Higher marks usually depend on reasoning rather than additional terminology.
| Descriptive statement | Explanatory statement |
|---|---|
| “Opportunity sampling will be used.” | “Opportunity sampling permits recruitment from the accessible school population, but may overrepresent students willing to discuss the topic.” |
| “Responses will be anonymous.” | “Anonymity reduces embarrassment and may encourage honest reporting about sensitive body-image concerns.” |
| “Interviews could also be used.” | “Semi-structured interviews could reveal why similar online content affects participants differently.” |
During editing, underline each methodological choice and ask: Why does this suit this investigation?
Common mistakes and final checks
The most serious mistake is using the old rubric. Hypotheses, analysed results and inferential statistics belong to the experimental report assessed through 2026, not automatically to the 2027 proposal. RevisionDojo’s curriculum transition guide compares the routes.
Other frequent problems include treating descriptors as a checklist, designing a tool that does not measure the stated constructs, inventing findings and mentioning bias without explaining its effect. Draft the tool early so weaknesses in the question or method become visible before the proposal is complete.
Before submission:
- Review one criterion at a time.
- Check alignment between the question, population, method and tool.
- Link both research sources directly to the proposal.
- Connect ethical safeguards to specific risks.
- Cover potential findings, applications, bias and another method.
- Confirm that the appendix tool contains at least five items.
- Remain below the 2,200-word maximum and follow your teacher’s counting instructions.
RevisionDojo’s Psychology coursework guides and IA milestone checklist can structure this review. Jojo AI may help locate missing explanations, but submitted reasoning must remain your own and comply with school and IB academic-integrity rules.
Conclusion
For first assessment in 2027, the IB Psychology IA criteria reward a focused introduction, justified methodology, an effective data collection tool and a thoughtful discussion. Across all four criteria, the central skill is explaining why each decision fits the aim, population and real-life problem.
Confirm your cohort before choosing a rubric, then evaluate each criterion independently. RevisionDojo’s IB Psychology resources, current IA guide, Jojo AI and coursework feedback tools can support careful checking without replacing your own analysis.
Sources and referenced URLs
- Official IB Psychology subject page
- Official IB Psychology subject brief, first assessment 2027
- Psychology guide, first assessment 2027
- IB guidance on artificial intelligence in assessment
- RevisionDojo IB Psychology IA guide
- RevisionDojo Psychology curriculum transition guide
- RevisionDojo Psychology coursework guides
- RevisionDojo Psychology IA milestone checklist
- RevisionDojo IB Psychology resources