IB Psychology SL Extended Essay Example

The research question is clearly framed and appropriately academic. By specifying ACEs and autoimmune diseases, the student gives the essay a defined scope, which helps the argument stay focused and makes the line of inquiry easy to follow.

The topic is introduced clearly and accessibly. This opening definition gives readers the background they need before the essay moves into ACEs and immune dysregulation, so the focus is established in a reader-friendly way.

The definition is useful, but the list is inaccurate and imprecise in places. The student should verify the ACE categories from the source and present them consistently, because a methodological variable must be defined accurately if it is being used to support later claims.

The thesis is promising, but the wording still drifts toward causation while the evidence is largely observational. The student should keep the central claim consistently qualified, using language such as “associated with” or “may contribute to” unless stronger causal evidence is available.

Consider stating more explicitly why these particular studies were selected and how they map onto the research question. A brief selection rationale would make the method look more deliberate and would strengthen the connection between source choice and argument.

What part of this pathway is directly evidenced by the studies, and what part is being inferred from theory? Distinguishing observed results from explanatory biology would make the discussion more precise and scientifically careful.

This is a strong example of source application. The student uses the study design and follow-up period to show why the evidence is relevant to the question, which demonstrates secure understanding of how research methods affect interpretation.

The explanation is helpful, but it oversimplifies a complex immunological distinction and risks making the mechanism seem more settled than the evidence supports. The student should keep the biology accurate but more cautious, especially when linking immune categories to specific autoimmune outcomes.

This interpretation goes further than the cross-sectional design can support. The student should avoid implying a proven causal pathway from trauma to immune consequences when the study can only show mediation patterns that are compatible with several explanations.

The student shows strong understanding by linking findings across studies and identifying mediation as a mechanism rather than treating the relationship as purely direct. This kind of synthesis shows that the evidence is being interpreted, not just reported.

Consider using the effect size more explicitly in the argument. The student could explain what a small effect means in practical terms and how the confidence interval shapes confidence in the conclusion, which would show deeper conceptual understanding.

The evaluation is valid but a little formulaic here. The student should explain how sample size matters for this specific study and whether reliability, validity, or power is the more important issue, rather than repeating a general statement that could apply to any large study.

This conclusion is reasonable, but it would be stronger if it weighed the studies against each other more explicitly. The student should compare which designs offer the most persuasive evidence and explain whether the overall conclusion is driven by effect sizes, consistency, or methodological quality.

This is a strong evaluative move because the student does not force the counter-evidence to fit the argument. Instead, the discussion recognises disease-specific variation, which is exactly the kind of nuance expected in a critical review.

The student uses the meta-analysis well as a higher-level piece of evidence. This is effective critical thinking because it moves beyond individual studies and helps test whether the pattern holds across the wider literature.

Consider sharpening this evaluation by distinguishing between “no association,” “inconsistent evidence,” and “methodological noise.” That distinction would make the argument more analytical and would prevent the counter-evidence from being read as simply inconclusive.

If the effect is “nuanced and conditional,” what specific conditions appear to matter most: trauma type, disease type, sex, or sample context? Pinning down that answer would make the final judgement more critical and more directly responsive to the research question.

The opening page appears unnecessary and interrupts the flow before the title page. The student should remove any non-essential opening page so the report begins directly with the formal title and required front matter.

The document is well signposted, and the contents page helps readers navigate the argument quickly. This supports a clear academic structure and makes it easier to follow the sequence from introduction through evaluation and conclusion.

Including a separate counter-evidence section is a strong structural choice. It makes the essay’s argument easier to follow and shows that the student is intentionally balancing support with challenge rather than presenting a one-sided review.

The reference list would be stronger if the entries were standardised more consistently. The student should check citation style, punctuation, and source formatting so that the bibliography looks more academically polished and easier to verify.

This citation is a presentation issue and a source-quality issue. The student should cite the original publication rather than a ResearchGate page, because using the primary source improves academic credibility and makes the evidence easier to assess.