Report Analysis - Notes for Amendments
Overview
- Word count: 5,438 (stated at top)
- Structure: Abstract → Introduction → Method → Results → Discussion → References → Appendices
- Overall assessment: Well-structured academic report with clear research question and hypotheses
Title Page / Front Matter
- Line 5: "Janine Curtis - B4224589" - Student number format looks fine
- Word count is noted (5,438) - check if this matches your actual word count
Abstract (Lines 18-23)
Strengths: Good structure, covers aim, method, results, conclusions
Potential amendments:
- Line 20: "single-item self-report measures" - consider if "single-item" is accurate given they use 1-5 scales (could be described as "single-item Likert scales")
- Line 22: "exercise intensity was associated with" - past tense inconsistency with "was associated" vs "were linked" later
- Consider adding sample characteristics explicitly (age range mentioned in line 20 but not N in abstract - some journals include this)
Introduction (Lines 26-40)
Strengths: Good literature review, clear research question, well-formulated hypotheses
Potential amendments:
- Line 28: "within the general adult population" - could be clearer: "in the general adult population"
- Line 29-30: Very long paragraph - consider splitting
- Line 30: "research that has examined exercise intensity and duration has produced mixed findings" - good critical analysis
- Line 31: "Theoretical frameworks" - transition feels slightly abrupt
- Line 33: "addressing this gap" - could specify what gap more explicitly
- Line 35: Research question formatting - consider making it stand out more
- Line 36: "Hypothesis - Based on previous research" - hyphen after "Hypothesis" not standard, should be "Hypothesis:" or "Hypotheses:"
- Lines 37-39: Hypotheses use bullet points - check your department's formatting guidelines for hypothesis presentation
Method (Lines 63-89)
Strengths: Clear sections, good detail on measures
Potential amendments:
- Line 64: "A total of 107 participants initially took part... with 102 included in final analysis" - should mention why 5 were excluded (incomplete responses - mentioned in line 91)
- Line 66-67: "No exclusion criteria were applied beyond age" - this should be in methods, not in participants section
- Line 67: "gender, ethnicity, and occupation were not collected" - this is fine but could acknowledge limitation more explicitly here
- Line 74: "Exercise Behaviour" - subsection heading, ensure consistent formatting
- Line 75-78: Good detail on exercise measures
- Line 76: "simplified 1–5 version of the Borg Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale" - consider noting that this is a simplification (which is fine, just be clear about it)
- Line 77: "1-5 scale corresponding to time brackets" - needs more specificity (e.g., what does each number mean?)
- Line 80: "single-item Likert-style scale" - good description
- Line 81: "Informed by established measures such as PANAS" - could reference properly
- Line 83: "Ethical approval was obtained" - should state from where (e.g., university ethics committee)
- Line 84: "Completion time was approximately 10 to 15 minutes" - good detail
- Line 85: "Survey responses were recorded electronically and exported from Qualtrics" - good
- Line 89: "British Psychological Society (2018)" - ensure you cite the correct BPS ethical guidelines version
Results (Lines 90-197)
Strengths: Clear statistical reporting, appropriate analyses
Potential amendments:
- Line 96: "Full descriptive statistics... are presented in Table 1" - Table format looks acceptable
- Table 1 formatting - ensure consistency with academic conventions (decimal places, etc.)
- Line 132-136: Correlation analysis - good detail but ensure p-values are consistently reported
- Table 2 - check formatting of "ns" (not significant)
- Line 134: "r = −.28" - note the negative r value for stress
- Table 2: The correlation values appear slightly inconsistent between text and table (e.g., intensity and distress shows - .19 in table but text mentions - .19)
- Line 162: "F(3, 98) = 4.39" - degrees of freedom should be F(3, 98) - check this is correct (N=102 minus 4 predictors = 98 df)
- Line 163: "β = −.26" for duration in distress model - this is the largest beta, worth highlighting
- Line 165: "none of the individual predictors reached statistical significance" - this is a negative finding worth discussing more
- Line 166-191: Table 3 formatting is inconsistent/poor - needs cleaning up significantly
- Column headers don't align properly
- "Pattern of Effects" column has inconsistent spacing and formatting
- Row for "Enthusiasm" is incomplete - "Signs of higher frequency/intensity, more enthusiasm" is unclear
- Line 190: Incomplete note about enthusiasm - "Signs of higher frequency/intensity, more enthusiasm" needs completing
Discussion (Lines 41-62, 198-242)
Note: There appears to be duplication - discussion appears twice (lines 41-62 and 198-242). This needs attention - likely different versions or draft content.
Issues with duplication:
- Lines 41-62 appear to be an earlier/alternative discussion
- Lines 198-242 are the fuller discussion
- Need to remove the duplicate section (lines 41-62)
Additional discussion observations:
- Line 50: "previous literature suggesting moderate-intensity" - consistent with earlier text
- Line 51: "Reed & Ones, 2006" - note this citation also appears in line 210
- Line 54: "Self-Determination Theory" - reference to Deci & Ryan (2000) - should be consistent with reference list
- Line 55: "intensity and duration may be more closely related to short-term emotional responses" - good insight
- Line 59: "single-item measures" - acknowledge limitation appropriately
Lines 201-206 (Evaluation of Hypotheses section):
- This section repeats information already covered - check if needed
Lines 207-211 (Comparison With Previous Research):
- Similar to earlier comparison section
- Line 208: "negative may affect" should be "negative affect" (typo)
Lines 212-216 (Theoretical Implications):
- Good theoretical integration
Lines 220-226 (Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions):
- Very thorough - good
- Line 225: "absence of detailed demographic data" - links back to earlier point
References (Lines 255-268)
Check the following:
- All references are formatted consistently (they appear to be in APA style)
- DOI links are included - good practice
Potential issues:
- Some missing details (issue numbers for journals where applicable)
- Check each reference matches exactly what is required by your department's referencing style
Formatting & Consistency Issues
Typos/Errors to fix:
- Line 208: "negative may affect" → "negative affect"
- Line 36: "Hypothesis - Based" → "Hypothesis:" or "Hypotheses:"
Formatting inconsistencies:
- Hyphenation: Check words like "cross-sectional", "self-report", "well-being" are consistent
- Number formatting: "1–5" vs "1-5" - be consistent with en-dashes vs hyphens
- Punctuation in numbers: "3.34 times per week" - check decimal consistency
Structural issue:
- DUPLICATE DISCUSSION: Lines 41-62 contain a condensed discussion that duplicates content from lines 198-242. The full discussion should replace the condensed version.
Recommendations
High Priority:
- Remove duplicate discussion section (lines 41-62)
- Clean up Table 3 (lines 166-191) - formatting is very messy
- Fix typo: "negative may affect" → "negative affect" (line 208)
- Complete unfinished sentence in enthusiasm row of Table 3
Medium Priority:
- Add ethics committee name to line 83
- Specify what each duration score (1-5) corresponds to in more detail
- Check word count is accurate
- Review reference formatting against required style guide
Low Priority:
- Consider splitting long paragraphs in introduction
- Ensure consistent use of en-dashes vs hyphens throughout
- Check for any remaining minor typos
Summary
This is a well-written psychology report with a clear research question, appropriate methodology, and thoughtful discussion. The main issues to address are:
- Removing the duplicate discussion section
- Cleaning up Table 3 formatting
- Fixing the "negative may affect" typo
- Completing the unfinished description in the enthusiasm results
The report demonstrates good understanding of the research area and appropriate statistical analysis.