Subject guide
IB Psychology Internal Assessment guide
The IB Psychology Research Proposal (IA) is graded against 4 criteria worth 24 marks total. This guide explains exactly what each criterion expects and what examiners look for at each mark level.
Assessment criteria
Examiners score each criterion independently using the mark band descriptors below.
| Criterion | Name | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Introduction | 6 |
| Research Methodology | Research Methodology | 6 |
| Data Collection | Data Collection | 6 |
| Discussion | Discussion | 6 |
| Total | 24 | |
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Introduction
Introduction
What this criterion assesses
A clearly stated and focused aim or research question, a real-life problem described with its impact on the population of interest explained, and the findings and key conclusions of two pieces of relevant research explained and linked to the investigation.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion A: Introduction (0–6): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1–2: The aim or research question is stated but not clearly expressed or is too broad. The real-life problem is stated. The findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are not clearly stated and are not made relevant to the investigation, or only one piece of research is included. - 3–4: The aim or research question is clearly stated but only partially focused. The real-life problem is described, but the impact on the population of interest is not addressed. Relevant findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are described and linked to the investigation, or only one is explained and linked to the investigation. - 5–6: The aim or research question is clearly stated and focused. The real-life problem is described and the impact on the population of interest is explained. Relevant findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are explained and linked to the investigation.
Common mistakes
Aim too broad or not focused on the population of interestReal-life problem stated but its impact on the population never explainedOnly one background study included, or two summarized without linking them to the proposalProcedural details of background studies included where only findings/conclusions are needed
Research Methodology
Research Methodology
What this criterion assesses
The choice of research method (experiment, interview, observation, or survey/questionnaire) explained and justified; the procedure — sampling technique, sample characteristics, design, setting and process — explained; and relevant ethical considerations described and explicitly linked to the investigation.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion B: Research methodology (0–6): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1–2: The research method is described with errors in understanding. The procedure is described but is unclear due to errors or omissions. Ethical considerations are described but not linked to the investigation. - 3–4: The choice of research method is described. The procedure is described but lacks detail. Relevant ethical considerations are described but some are not linked to the investigation. - 5–6: The choice of research method is explained. The procedure is explained. Relevant ethical considerations are described and explicitly linked to the investigation. Note: The method must be one of: experiment (true or quasi-), interview (structured, semi-structured or focus group), observation (naturalistic or controlled, overt or covert, participant or non-participant), or survey/questionnaire. The procedure covers all planning decisions including sampling technique, sample characteristics, design (if experimental), setting and process.
Common mistakes
Method named but the choice never justified for this aimProcedure missing sampling technique or sample characteristicsGeneric ethics checklist not linked to this study or populationVulnerable-population or sensitive-topic issues ignored where relevant
Data Collection
Data Collection
What this criterion assesses
An appropriate and effective data collection tool (e.g. questionnaire, Likert scales, observation checklist or interview schedule, with at least five items, copy in the appendix); the decisions made in creating it explained and relevant to the aim; and potential data-collection challenges (researcher bias, demand characteristics, validity…) explained and relevant to the investigation.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion C: Data collection (0–6): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1–2: An appropriate data collection tool has been created to measure behaviour, but it contains errors. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are in limited detail or have limited relevance to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are described in limited detail and/or are not relevant to the investigation. - 3–4: An appropriate data collection tool has been created to measure behaviour. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are described and relevant to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are described and relevant to the investigation. - 5–6: An appropriate and effective data collection tool to measure behaviour has been created. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are explained and relevant to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are explained and relevant to the investigation. Note: The tool should contain a minimum of five items and a copy must be provided in the appendix. Potential challenges may include participant variability, practice/order effects, researcher bias, response bias, validity of the tool, controlling variables, and demand characteristics/social desirability bias.
Common mistakes
Data collection tool missing from the appendix or under five itemsTool doesn't actually measure the behaviour in the aim (operationalization gap)Design decisions listed but not explained or justifiedChallenges discussed generically (not tied to this tool and population)
Discussion
Discussion
What this criterion assesses
Potential findings described in detail with their implications for policy and/or practice explained; a discussion of how researcher bias (personal history, values, relation to participants) may affect the investigation; and one additional research method discussed with reference to how it would increase understanding of the topic.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion D: Discussion (0–6): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1–2: Potential findings of the investigation are described but the implication(s) for policy/practice are not addressed. One or more examples of researcher bias are identified. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is described, without reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation. - 3–4: Potential findings of the investigation are described and the implication(s) for policy/practice are partially addressed. One or more relevant examples of researcher bias are described. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is discussed without reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation. - 5–6: Potential findings of the investigation are described in detail and the implication(s) for policy/practice are explained. One or more relevant examples of how researcher bias may affect the investigation are discussed. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is discussed with reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation.
Common mistakes
Potential findings described but policy/practice implications skippedResearcher bias mentioned without connecting it to this investigationAdditional method named but its added value never discussedReflection on personal influence missing entirely
Ready to get feedback on your Psychology Research Proposal (IA)?
Upload your draft and get criterion-by-criterion feedback using the exact Psychology rubric — the same way your examiner will mark it.
Get Psychology IA feedback →