How do psychologists plan, carry out, report and critique a piece of research scientifically?
Planning and conducting research, report writing and sections of a report, peer review, the features of science, and evaluating research for reliability, validity and ethics.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to conducting and reporting research, covering the sections of a psychological report, the use of peer review and replication, the features of science (objectivity, falsifiability, paradigms), pilot studies, and evaluating studies for reliability, validity and ethics for Component 1.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
OCR expects you to know how a study is planned, carried out and written up, how the scientific community checks it through peer review and replication, and what makes psychology a science. You also need to evaluate any study for reliability, validity and ethics, which is the backbone of evaluation marks across all three papers.
The answer
Planning and conducting research
Sections of a psychological report
Psychological reports follow a standard structure so that work can be understood and replicated:
- Abstract. A short summary of the aims, method, results and conclusions.
- Introduction. Background research and theory, narrowing to the aim and hypotheses.
- Method. Split into design, participants (and sampling), materials/apparatus, and procedure (standardised steps in enough detail to replicate).
- Results. Descriptive statistics and graphs, then the inferential test, its result and the decision about the null hypothesis.
- Discussion. What the results mean, links to previous research, limitations and improvements, and implications.
- References. Full citations of all sources, conventionally in a standard referencing format.
Peer review and replication
The features of science
Examples in context
Example 1. Why a pilot study saves a real investigation. Suppose a questionnaire on stress uses an ambiguous item that participants interpret in different ways. Run first as a pilot on a handful of people, this confusion surfaces immediately and the item can be reworded before the full sample is tested. Skipping the pilot risks collecting a large dataset built on a faulty measure, wasting the whole study; this is why OCR treats piloting as part of good planning.
Example 2. Falsifiability separating science from pseudoscience. A hypothesis such as "caffeine reduces reaction time" is falsifiable: a study could find no difference or a slower reaction time and so disprove it. A claim framed so that no possible result could ever count against it (for example, a vague claim that "energy fields improve wellbeing in ways that cannot be measured") is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. OCR rewards using falsifiability to judge whether a claim is genuinely scientific.
Try this
Q1. State one piece of information that belongs in the introduction of a report. [1 mark]
- Cue. Relevant background research and theory leading to the aim and hypotheses.
Q2. Explain why replication is important in psychology. [2 marks]
- Cue. Repeating a study with the same procedure checks reliability; consistent results show the finding is not a one-off and strengthen confidence in it.
Q3. Explain what is meant by objectivity and why it matters for psychology as a science. [3 marks]
- Cue. Objectivity means data are free from the researcher's personal bias or expectations; it matters because subjective, biased data cannot be trusted or independently verified, undermining the scientific status of the findings.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of OCR exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
OCR 20184 marksExplain what should be included in the procedure section of a psychological report and why this section matters. [4 marks]Show worked answer →
Tests knowledge of report conventions (AO1) plus reasoning (AO2).
Content: the procedure describes exactly what was done in enough standardised detail that another researcher could replicate the study. It includes the standardised instructions, the materials and apparatus, the order of events, controls used, and how data were recorded.
Why it matters: precise procedural detail allows replication, which is essential for checking the reliability of findings. Without it, other researchers cannot repeat the study to see whether the result is consistent.
Markers reward correct content (standardised steps, materials, controls, sufficient detail to replicate) and a clear link to replication and reliability.
OCR 20216 marksExplain what is meant by peer review and discuss one strength and one weakness of the peer review process in psychology. [6 marks]Show worked answer →
Tests understanding of science and a balanced evaluation (AO1 and AO3).
Peer review: before publication, a piece of research is independently assessed by other experts in the field who judge its quality, validity, originality and significance, and recommend acceptance, revision or rejection.
Strength: it acts as a quality-control filter, helping to ensure that poor methodology, unsupported conclusions or fraudulent work are caught before they enter the published literature, which protects the credibility of the science.
Weakness: it can be slow and subject to bias; reviewers may favour findings that fit established theory or come from prestigious institutions, and may be reluctant to support work that challenges their own, slowing the publication of novel ideas.
Markers reward a correct definition, a clear strength (quality control) and a clear weakness (bias or conservatism), with some development.
Related dot points
- Research methods and techniques: experiments, self-report, observation and correlation; variables and operationalisation; experimental designs; hypotheses; and the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to research methods and design, covering laboratory, field and quasi-experiments, self-report, observation and correlation, independent and dependent variables, operationalisation, experimental designs, directional and non-directional hypotheses, and the strengths and weaknesses of each technique for Component 1.
- Sampling methods, ethical considerations, reliability and validity, levels of measurement, and recording, analysing and presenting data.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to sampling and data handling, covering random, stratified, systematic, opportunity and self-selected sampling, BPS ethics, reliability and validity, levels of measurement, and how to record, analyse and present qualitative and quantitative data for Component 1.
- Descriptive statistics (central tendency, dispersion, graphs) and inferential statistics: choosing and interpreting the sign test, Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon, Spearman's rho and chi-square.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to statistics, covering mean, median, mode, range and standard deviation, choosing the correct inferential test (sign test, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, Spearman, chi-square) from level of measurement and design, significance, critical values and Type 1 and Type 2 errors for Component 1.
- Contemporary study: Maguire et al. (2000), Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the biological area and Blakemore and Cooper.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the contemporary biological study, Maguire et al. (2000) on the hippocampi of London taxi drivers. Covers the aim, the MRI quasi-experiment with VBM and pixel counting, the posterior and anterior hippocampus findings, the correlation with experience, evaluation, and links to Blakemore and Cooper and the biological area.
- Classic study: Gould (1982), A nation of morons. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the individual differences area and the misuse of intelligence testing.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the classic individual differences study, Gould (1982) A nation of morons. Covers the aim, the review of Yerkes' Army IQ tests, the cultural bias and flawed administration, the misuse of the data in immigration policy, evaluation, and links to Hancock and the individual differences area.
Sources & how we know this
- OCR Level 3 Advanced GCE in Psychology (H567) specification — OCR (2015)