IB Psychology HL Internal Assessment Example

The student explains why replication matters, which strengthens relevance. Linking the study to reliability and to a new sample shows understanding of why this investigation is worth doing.

The aim is focused and clearly stated. This works well because the investigation is narrow enough to test directly, and it immediately signals the key psychological concept being examined.

The theory is described accurately and in enough detail to support the investigation. The student has included the key idea of linked categories, which makes the later hypothesis logically grounded.

The research hypothesis is directional and clearly identifies the comparison being made. This is effective because it gives the analysis a precise prediction to test.

The independent variable is stated clearly and operationalised through the two conditions. This makes the manipulation measurable and directly usable in the procedure and analysis.

The dependent variable is operationalised in a concrete way, which is a major strength. Measuring recall as the number of words remembered allows the results to be quantified and compared objectively.

The research design is clearly identified and then explained in context. Stating the controlled setting and linking it to standardised instructions shows why the design suits the investigation.

The sampling method is described clearly and accurately. The explanation of accessibility makes the choice methodologically transparent.

This is a strong explanation of why the independent-measures design was chosen. The student shows understanding of order effects rather than simply naming them.

This is a relevant participant control because it connects directly to the aim of reducing demand characteristics. The student is showing awareness of how prior psychological knowledge could bias recall.

The explanation of random allocation is appropriate and shows awareness of participant variables. This strengthens the exploration because the student is linking procedure to validity, not just describing what happened.

This claim is not fully supported by the appendices, which show different word sets rather than the same words rearranged. That weakens control of the IV because differences in word familiarity or difficulty could confound the results.

The interference task is well chosen and clearly linked to the aim of reducing rehearsal. This improves the methodological logic of the procedure.

The student could explain why 90 seconds was chosen and why that time is appropriate for both lists. Justifying this would make the control of presentation time more convincing.

The student could strengthen control by ensuring the categorised and uncategorised conditions use exactly the same words in different orders. That would isolate organisation as the only meaningful difference and improve internal validity.

This procedure shows good attention to ethical practice. Including voluntariness, anonymity, and withdrawal rights makes the method appropriate for human participants.

Using standardised instructions is a sensible control because it reduces procedural variation between groups. The student is correctly connecting the material choice to reliability.

It would be stronger to state whether spelling errors, duplicates, or close approximations were counted consistently. Clarifying the scoring rule would improve replicability and reliability.

This is a good justification for the level of measurement. Identifying the ratio scale helps explain why the chosen statistics are appropriate.

The descriptive finding is clearly stated and numerically interpreted. This is useful because it turns the mean difference into a meaningful comparison.

The student correctly interprets the smaller standard deviation as more consistent performance. This shows the data are being read beyond the mean alone.

The graph is appropriately matched to the hypothesis because it compares the two conditions directly. This is a clear way to communicate the main descriptive finding visually.

This is a clear and direct interpretation of the pattern in the data. The student links the descriptive statistics back to the aim rather than leaving them as isolated numbers.

This conclusion depends on the earlier calculation being correct. Because the U-test working is not fully transparent, the student should ensure the inferential statistics are internally consistent before making a firm significance claim.

The inferential result is not securely supported because the report does not show the ranking process that leads to $U=23$. The student should check the calculation carefully and show the rank sums clearly so the significance decision can be verified.

The student could add the rank totals or a brief worked example to demonstrate how the Mann–Whitney $U$ was obtained. Showing the calculation steps would make the analysis much easier to audit.

The discussion is effectively tied to the Hierarchical Network Model. This helps explain why the categorised list produced better recall rather than simply restating the result.

The student could strengthen this point by explaining whether the small sample mainly affects reliability, statistical power, or both. That distinction would make the evaluation more precise.

This strength is relevant and well explained. The student is clearly linking the design feature to a concrete advantage for the investigation.

This is a relevant limitation because it connects directly to the hypothesis and outcome measure. The explanation shows good awareness of why group differences may not be caused by the IV alone.

The suggested modification is clearly linked to the limitation and is methodologically sensible. This is exactly the kind of justified improvement that strengthens evaluation.

The limitation is relevant and explained in terms of external validity. This shows the student understands why a narrow sample limits the reach of the conclusions.

The modification is specific and directly addresses the stated limitation. This is strong evaluation because it shows cause-and-effect reasoning between flaw and fix.

The conclusion is concise and logically structured, but it relies on the same inferential result that should be double-checked earlier in the report. A stronger conclusion would briefly acknowledge the calculation basis before making the final claim.

This is a well-chosen limitation, but it would be stronger if the student explained the mechanism more precisely. Different counting methods could vary in cognitive load, so the task may not have interfered equally for all participants.

This is an excellent methodological claim because it identifies the key control needed for a fair test. If accurate, it directly supports the interpretation that organisation was the main factor influencing recall.