25 Aug Identify the statute by statute name and statute number, including any specific subdivision(s) and/or specific degree(s) and/or clause(s) when applicable.
Write a Research Proposal (2,000-2,500 words) on a topic relevant to the course on The Importance Of I/O Psychology in the Workplace. To complete the Research Proposal, do the following:
Review the attached document “Research Proposal Guidelines” as well as Topic 7 lecture section on The Results and Discussion Sections in the Research Proposal for a brief overview pertaining to “how to” complete the assignment.
Introductory section: Include hypothesis and a review of the literature.
Method section: Include subsections on Participants, Apparatus/Materials/Instruments, Procedure, and Design.
Results section: Include statistic, critical values, degrees of freedom, and alpha level.
Discussion section: Include interpretation of results, ethical concerns, limitations of study, and suggestions for future research.
Figures and Tables section: Include a minimum of two (either two figures, two tables, or a figure and a table).
Include at least 8-10 scholarly references. (I’ve listed a few that will help.)References
Ford, J. K., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ryan, A. M. (2014). The nature of work: Advances in psychological theory, methods, and practice (1st ed.). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/14259-000
Lowman, R. L. (2006). The ethical practice of psychology in organizations (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/11386-000
Zedeck, S. (2011). APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Three-Volume Set–Volume 1: Building and Developing the Organization. Volume 2: Selecting and Developing Members for the Organization. Volume 3: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization. APA Handbooks in Psychology Series. APA Reference Books Collection. American Psychological Association.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. Please see attached rubric!!!!!!!!
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Benchmark Information
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:
MS Psychology
3.3: Design an innovative research study.
4.3: Plan and manage the necessary process for the completion of a research project.
Attachments
PSY550-RS-ResearchProposalGuidelines.docx
Requirements: 2000-2500
PSY 550 – Research Methods
Topic 7 Research Proposal Guidelines
Here are the requirements for the Research Proposal:
Include a Title Page, Abstract page, and References page in APA format, 7th edition.
Introduction: This is the longest section of your paper. Begin with an introductory paragraph that states the purpose of the paper. Then, go into detail on your literature review. Begin with a general review of your topic and move to specific studies that are similar to your proposal. Show how your proposal is different from what has been done before. Build to a paragraph that includes your hypothesis (-ses).
Method: This part has four sections (each of which is a subheading):
Participants: Describe who they will be, how many, how would they be recruited, what characteristics they would have, etc.
Apparatus/ Materials and/ or Instruments: What ingredients will you need to run your study (tests, gadgets, paper/ pencils, etc.)?
Procedure: Outline the steps of your study in chronological order. Write in the conditional tense if the study is not going to be carried out.
Design: Include what type of design you’re using (e.g., correlational nonexperimental design, between-subjects, within-subjects, or mixed experimental design).
Results: This section may be combined with the Discussion section. Include a paragraph describing what statistic was used (e.g., t-test, ANOVA, correlation, chi-square), how many degrees of freedom, alpha level (choose .05), and critical value.
Discussion (20%): Include at least four paragraphs.
Describe what it would mean if you obtained significant results. Then describe what it would mean to obtain nonsignificant results.
Discuss how your study followed APA ethical guidelines, by discussing the use of an informed consent form, debriefing statement, deception, and obtaining IRB permission.
Discuss any limitations in your study (e.g., possible confounding, lack of random assignment, or random sampling).
Conclude with a discussion of future studies that could arise from your study.
Include two figures, OR two tables, OR a table and a figure (10%). A table is columns of numbers, and a figure is anything else (chart, map, graph, etc.). You can include your Informed Consent form and your Debriefing form as two figures.
Benchmark – Research Proposal – RubricIntroductory section, including hypothesis and revised review of theliterature20 pointsCriteria DescriptionIntroductory section, including hypothesis and revised review of the literature.5. Excellent20 pointsIntroductory section, including hypothesis and revised review of the literature, isclear, concise, and makes connections to current research.4. Good17.4 pointsIntroductory section, including hypothesis and revised review of the literature, ispresent, clear, and makes some connection to research.3. Satisfactory15.8 pointsIntroductory section, including hypothesis and revised review of the literature, ispresent and appropriate.2. Less than Satisfactory14.8 pointsIntroductory section, including hypothesis and revised review of the literature, isvague and inconsistent.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsMethod Section (B)30 pointsCriteria DescriptionMethod section, including subsections on participants,apparatus/materials/instrument, procedure and design. (C3.3)5. Excellent30 pointsMethod section, including subsections on participants,apparatus/materials/instrument, procedure and design, is clear, concise, andmakes connections to current research.4. Good26.1 pointsCollapse All
Method section, including subsections on participants,apparatus/materials/instrument, procedure and design, is present, clear, andmakes some connection to research.3. Satisfactory23.7 pointsMethod section, including subsections on participants,apparatus/materials/instrument, procedure and design, is present and appropriate.2. Less than Satisfactory22.2 pointsMethod section, including subsections on participants,apparatus/materials/instrument, procedure and design, is vague and inconsistent.Results section, including statistic, critical values, degrees of freedom,and alpha level30 pointsCriteria DescriptionResults section, including statistic, critical values, degrees of freedom, and alpha level.5. Excellent30 pointsResults section, including statistic, critical values, degrees of freedom, and alphalevel, is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.4. Good26.1 pointsResults section, including statistic, critical values, degrees of freedom, and alphalevel, is present, clear, and makes some connection to research.3. Satisfactory23.7 pointsResults section, including statistic, critical values, degrees of freedom, and alphalevel, is present and appropriate.2. Less than Satisfactory22.2 pointsResults section, including statistic, critical values, degrees of freedom, and alphalevel, is vague and inconsistent.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsDiscussion Section (B)30 pointsCriteria Description
Discussion section, including interpretation of results, ethical concerns, limitations ofstudy, and suggestions for future research. (C4.3)5. Excellent30 pointsDiscussion section, including interpretation of results, ethical concerns, limitationsof study, and suggestions for future research, is clear, concise, and makesconnections to current research.4. Good26.1 pointsDiscussion section, including interpretation of results, ethical concerns, limitationsof study, and suggestions for future research, is present, clear, and makes someconnection to research.3. Satisfactory23.7 pointsDiscussion section, including interpretation of results, ethical concerns, limitationsof study, and suggestions for future research, is present and appropriate.2. Less than Satisfactory22.2 pointsDiscussion section, including interpretation of results, ethical concerns, limitationsof study, and suggestions for future research, is vague and inconsistent.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsFigures and Tables Section30 pointsCriteria DescriptionFigures and tables section, include a minimum of two (either two figures, two tables, orone of each).5. Excellent30 pointsFigures and tables section, include a minimum of two is clear, concise, and makesconnections to current research.4. Good26.1 pointsFigures and tables section, include a minimum of two is present, clear, and makessome connection to research.3. Satisfactory23.7 points
Figures and tables section, include a minimum of two is present and appropriate.2. Less than Satisfactory22.2 pointsFigures and tables section, include a minimum of two is vague and inconsistent.Thesis Development and Purpose14 pointsCriteria DescriptionThesis Development and Purpose5. Excellent14 pointsThesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statementmakes the purpose of the paper clear.4. Good12.18 pointsThesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive andreflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.3. Satisfactory11.06 pointsThesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.2. Less than Satisfactory10.36 pointsThesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsPaper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.Argument Logic and Construction16 pointsCriteria DescriptionArgument Logic and Construction5. Excellent16 pointsClear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive andcompelling manner. All sources are authoritative.4. Good13.92 points
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Mostsources are authoritative.3. Satisfactory12.64 pointsArgument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presentsminimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports thepurpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.2. Less than Satisfactory11.84 pointsSufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. Thereare obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsMechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, languageuse)10 pointsCriteria DescriptionMechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)5. Excellent10 pointsWriter is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.4. Good8.7 pointsProse is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. Thewriter uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.3. Satisfactory7.9 pointsSome mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting tothe reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriatelanguage are employed.2. Less than Satisfactory7.4 pointsFrequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies inlanguage choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correctbut not varied.1. Unsatisfactory0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)10 pointsCriteria DescriptionPaper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)5. Excellent10 pointsAll format elements are correct.4. Good8.7 pointsAppropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.3. Satisfactory7.9 pointsAppropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errorsmay be present.2. Less than Satisfactory7.4 pointsAppropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack ofcontrol with formatting is apparent.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsDocumentation of Sources10 pointsCriteria DescriptionDocumentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., asappropriate to assignment and style)5. Excellent10 pointsSources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignmentand style, and format is free of error.4. Good8.7 pointsSources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format ismostly correct.3. Satisfactory7.9 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although someformatting errors may be present.2. Less than Satisfactory7.4 pointsDocumentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate toassignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.Total200points
