Article Analysis Question (AAQ)

The Article Analysis Question (AAQ) gives you a summary of a psychological study and asks you to analyze it from six different angles. You'll have 25 minutes total (including a 10-minute reading period) to complete your analysis.

This question tests your ability to think like a real psychologist reviewing research - identifying methods, understanding measurements, interpreting data, recognizing ethical standards, evaluating how broadly findings apply, and connecting results to original predictions.

Step-by-Step Guide to Each Part

Part A: Research Method (1 point)

What it asks: "Identify the research method used in the study."

How to find it:

• Look for controlled conditions and variable manipulation → experiment
• Measuring relationships without manipulation → correlational study
• In-depth study of one person/group → case study
• Watching behavior in natural settings → naturalistic observation
• Self-reported data collection → survey/questionnaire

Example: "Researchers randomly assigned participants to either vitamin or placebo groups and measured memory performance." → This is an experiment (random assignment + manipulation of conditions)

Strong answer: "The research method used in this study is an experiment."

Weak answer: "The researchers did a scientific study." (too vague)

Part B: Operational Definition (1 point)

What it asks: "State the operational definition of [variable]."

How to find it:

• Look for exactly HOW researchers measured their variables
• Find descriptions of tests, scales, or specific measurements
• Focus on the concrete, measurable aspects

Example: "Executive functioning was measured by how quickly and accurately participants identified whether images were the same or different."

Strong answer: "The operational definition of executive functioning is the speed and accuracy with which participants identified whether pairs of images were the same or different."

Weak answer: "Executive functioning is the brain's ability to plan and organize." (general definition, not how it was measured)

Part C: Statistical Interpretation (1 point)

What it asks: "Describe what the difference in means indicates for [groups]."

How to approach it:

• Compare the numbers between different groups
• Explain which group performed better/worse
• Connect these differences to the research question

Example: "The multivitamin group had a mean score of 1.1 on immediate recall, while the placebo group had a mean of 0.9."

Strong answer: "The difference in means indicates that the multivitamin group performed better on immediate recall tasks than the placebo group, suggesting multivitamins may improve memory performance."

Weak answer: "The means were 1.1 and 0.9." (just restates numbers without interpretation)

Part D: Ethical Guidelines (1 point)

What it asks: "Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers."

Key guidelines to look for:

• Informed consent (participants agreed to participate)
• Protection from harm (minimizing risks)
• Confidentiality (privacy of information)
• Debriefing (explaining the study afterward)
• Right to withdraw (ability to quit)

Example: "All participants signed consent forms after being informed about the study procedures."

Strong answer: "The researchers applied the ethical guideline of informed consent by having participants sign forms acknowledging their understanding of the study."

Weak answer: "The participants were treated well." (too vague, not a specific guideline)

Part E: Generalizability (1 point)

What it asks: "Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable."

How to analyze it:

• Who were the participants? (age, gender, background)
• How were they selected? (random vs. convenience)
• How diverse and large was the sample?
• From what population were they drawn?

Example: "The study included 120 adults aged 65-80 from a retirement community in Florida."

Strong answer: "The research findings have limited generalizability because the sample only included older adults (65-80) from one geographic location. The results cannot be generalized to younger populations or people from different cultural backgrounds."

Weak answer: "The study is generalizable." (doesn't explain why or to whom)

Part F: Supporting/Refuting Hypothesis (2 points)

What it asks: "Explain how a research finding supports or refutes the researchers' hypothesis."

This part is worth 2 points and requires careful attention to both findings and explanation:

For 2 points:

• Accurately identify specific research results (statistics, data points)
• Correctly interpret what these results mean
• Clearly explain how these results support or refute the hypothesis
• Connect the evidence directly to the psychological concept being studied

For 1 point:

• Either use study results without proper explanation
• OR explain support/refutation without citing specific results
• OR misinterpret the results while attempting to explain

For 0 points:

• Fail to address how findings relate to the hypothesis
• Completely misinterpret the results
• Make claims unrelated to the study findings

Key Strategies for Earning Both Points:

• Always cite specific numerical results from the study
• Interpret what these numbers mean about cognition or behavior
• Make a direct connection to the original hypothesis
• Be precise about what aspects of the hypothesis are supported or refuted
• Acknowledge partial support if the evidence is mixed

Example Walkthrough

Let's break down a sample AAQ response using this example:

A. Research Method: "The research method used in this study is an experiment." (We know this because participants were randomly assigned to conditions, and the researchers manipulated the independent variable - vitamin vs. placebo)

B. Operational Definition: "The operational definition of memory is the number of words correctly recalled on the word recall tests." (This specifies exactly how memory was measured - by counting correct words)

C. Statistical Interpretation: "The difference in means indicates that the multivitamin group remembered more words (7.3) than the placebo group (6.1), suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory retention in older adults." (This explains what the numerical difference means in relation to memory performance)

D. Ethical Guideline: "The researchers applied the ethical guidelines of informed consent and right to withdraw, as participants were informed about the study and told they could stop participating at any time." (Identifies specific ethical procedures mentioned in the summary)

E. Generalizability: "The findings have limited generalizability because the study only included older adults between 65-80 years old. The results cannot be generalized to younger populations, and without information about the participants' backgrounds or how they were recruited, we cannot determine if the findings apply to all older adults or just those similar to the sample." (Explains limitations based on participant characteristics)

F. Supporting/Refuting Hypothesis: "The finding that the multivitamin group remembered more words (mean=7.3) than the placebo group (mean=6.1) supports the researchers' hypothesis that multivitamins slow cognitive decline in later life. Since memory performance is a key component of cognitive function, this higher recall score suggests that multivitamins helped preserve cognitive abilities over the three-year period compared to the placebo." (Uses specific results to explain support for the hypothesis about cognitive decline)

Practical Tips for Success

During the Reading Period (10 minutes):

• First read the questions so you know what to look for
• Scan the article to get the big picture
• Read carefully, underlining or nothing:
  • Research method clues
  • How variables were measured
  • Statistical results
  • Ethical procedures
  • Participant information
  • The original hypothesis

When Writing (15 minutes):

• Start with the easiest parts (usually A & D)
• Use complete sentences
• Use psychology terms naturally
• Be specific - refer to actual numbers and details
• Keep responses focused on exactly what's asked

Common Pitfalls to Avoid:

• Don't just repeat information without analysis
• Don't make up details not in the article
• Don't provide general definitions instead of study-specific ones
• Don't forget to connect statistics to what they mean about behavior
• Don't make vague statements about generalizability
• Don't ignore the specific participant characteristics

Time Management Strategy:

• Parts A & D: 2 minutes each (identification)
• Parts B, C & E: 3 minutes each (more explanation)
• Part F: 4 minutes (most complex, worth most points)
• Final review: 1 minute