1.4 - Writing a practical report
Learn how each section of a psychological report lets readers understand, repeat, analyse and evaluate a study, using a clearly labelled fictional example.
Report purpose and abstract
A practical report communicates the question, method, evidence and conclusions so other people can scrutinise the research. Clear reporting supports replication and allows readers to judge whether a conclusion follows from the design and results. It is more than a diary of what the researcher did.
The abstract is a brief standalone summary of the whole investigation. It normally includes the aim, essential method and sample, main findings and conclusion. It appears first but is usually written last because it must summarise what actually happened. It should report the result, not promise “results will be discussed”. Follow the particular institution's word guidance rather than assuming one length is universal.
Throughout this lesson, the example is a fictional report-writing simulation, not evidence that you conducted a practical. Twenty adult volunteers each read one short passage in silence and a different matched passage with quiet instrumental music. Passage-condition allocation and order were counterbalanced. After each reading, they answered ten recall questions. The mean scores were 7.4 in silence and 6.1 with music. No inferential result is supplied.
A suitable abstract identifies the aim as comparing recall under the two sound conditions, the repeated-measures design and volunteer sample, the higher observed mean in silence, and the limited conclusion that this sample performed better in silence on these tasks. It must not invent statistical significance, claim that music harms all learning, or imply a practical was really conducted by the reader.
Introduction and hypotheses
The introduction explains why the research question matters and how it follows from existing psychological knowledge. Start with the relevant topic, explain selected theory or previous research, identify the issue being tested, then state the aim and operational hypotheses. A list of researchers without showing the connection does not supply a rationale.
For the fictional sound-and-recall study, the introduction could explain that competing auditory input might distract attention during reading. It would use relevant, accurately cited evidence to justify investigating the sound conditions. A directional prediction is appropriate only if its direction is justified beforehand; it must not be chosen after viewing the results.
An operational alternative hypothesis specifies a predicted difference in the number of correct recall answers out of ten after reading with music versus silence. A directional version predicts the higher score in silence. The null hypothesis states no difference in recall performance between these conditions in the population, with any observed difference attributed to chance variation. State a hypothesis suited to the actual research design; a correlation report needs a relationship hypothesis rather than invented experimental conditions.
Method for replication
The method describes what was done sufficiently clearly for a reader to understand and repeat the investigation. Report the actual procedure rather than a plan that differs from what happened.
| Subsection | What to report | Sound-and-recall example |
|---|---|---|
| Design | Technique/design, operational variables and relevant controls | Repeated measures; silence versus specified music; correct recall answers out of ten; counterbalancing |
| Sample | Number and relevant characteristics, recruitment, inclusion criteria and allocation | Twenty adult volunteers; actual age range and recruitment route would be stated, not guessed |
| Materials/apparatus | Stimuli, measurement tools and important specifications | Matched passages, recall questions/scoring key, music recording and controlled volume, timer |
| Procedure | Chronological steps, timing, instructions, allocation, scoring and ethical arrangements | Briefing/consent, allocated order, timed reading, recall task, second condition, debrief |
The design subsection explains the logic; the procedure gives the sequence. Merely writing “repeated measures” does not tell a reader which passage a participant read first. Recruitment and condition allocation are distinct: volunteering for the study does not describe how people were allocated to orders.
Describe relevant apparatus rather than listing “laptop, paper, pen”. A laptop matters if it delivers the same sound and timing to each participant; specify what was presented. Give copies of long instructions, stimuli and blank forms in the appendices, while explaining their role in the main method. Describe consent, confidentiality and withdrawal arrangements accurately; do not publish completed identifiable consent forms.
For repeatability, the sound study would also need exact reading/recall durations, passage content and matching basis, music and volume, order-allocation method and scoring rules. The summary above deliberately omits those details, so it cannot alone serve as a complete replicable method. Appropriate ICT can deliver standardised material, store coded data and record an auditable scoring procedure, but software settings and version should be documented when they affect the task.
Results and discussion
The results section presents what the data show, while the discussion interprets what those findings mean. Keep the observed outcome separate from its possible explanation.
In results, identify the measured variable, summarise suitable descriptive statistics with units or scale, and present labelled tables or graphs. Include relevant dispersion when available; do not manufacture it. If an inferential test is used, state the test, appropriate design/data justification, obtained statistic, significance level, needed decision support and conclusion about the null hypothesis. Detailed calculations can be placed in appendices. A spreadsheet can help calculate summaries, but check coding, formulas, missing values and output against the original data.
For the simulation, the supplied results support: “The mean recall score was 7.4 out of 10 in silence and 6.1 out of 10 with music, a difference of 1.3 correct answers.” They do not support a significance claim because no inferential analysis is given. A significant result, where demonstrated by a suitable test, permits rejection of the null at the stated threshold; it does not mean the independent variable has a 95% probability of causing the result. A nonsignificant result means do not reject the null, not proof of no effect.
The discussion relates findings to the aim, hypotheses and relevant earlier research. It considers explanations, evaluates specific strengths and limitations, proposes justified improvements or follow-up research, and reaches a supported conclusion. Here, matched passages and counterbalancing reduce material and order explanations. Volunteer adults and brief recall tasks limit generalisation to all students' everyday learning. Discuss the limits rather than claiming universal superiority of silence.
References and appendices
References identify the sources cited in the report so readers can locate and check the evidence. Use a consistent Harvard author-date system, connect in-text citations to full entries, and distinguish the source actually consulted from an original paper known only through another author. The next lesson develops this skill.
Appendices supply supporting material too detailed for the main narrative: blank consent/debrief forms, standardised instructions, stimuli, anonymised raw data, scoring keys and statistical workings. Label each appendix and refer to it from the relevant section. An appendix is not a place to hide essential reasoning: the main results still need the outcome and the main method still needs its replicable sequence.
A raw-data table should use participant codes rather than names. Keep identifiable recruitment and consent records secure outside a publicly shared report. A report can be transparent about methods without exposing identities. Together, clear references, appropriate appendices and an accurate main account let the psychological community check findings, compare evidence and make better-informed decisions.