Marking Criteria for SSRP
Pass
Minor amendments (i)(ii)
Major amendments (i) (ii) (iii)
OA (outstanding amendments)
Fail
To achieve a ‘Pass’ grade, doctoral standard must be achieved for all assessed criteria (i.e. achievement of an E or S for all assessed criteria
Structure Guidelines Marking Criteria
Introduction

Setting/context

Brief literature review
A clear and concise statement of the aims of the evaluation and its relevance to the service under investigation.
A thorough but concise description of the service under evaluation (including its primary role and objectives), which places the SSRP in context.
A brief and focused review that draws upon existing and relevant servicerelated research. The review provides an excellent background to research in the area and is linked well with the aims
Extensive
Strong and convincing evidence that the work is of professional doctoral standard.
Demonstrates advanced and original scholarship of a quality to satisfy peer review.
Sufficient
Satisfactory or good evidence that the work is of professional doctoral standard.
Demonstrates some scholarship of a quality to satisfy peer review.
Insufficient
Inadequate or no evidence that the work is of professional doctoral standard.
Demonstrates little or no original scholarship of a quality to satisfy peer review.

Methodology

Design

Sample

Measures




Results
Procedure
Ethical considerations
Analysis plan
Results and interpretation
Discussion

Discussion of the findings and the implications of the study
Quality of the writing and objectives of the SSRP.
The methods are clearly described and appropriate to the aims of the study with clear justification where required. The description of the research methodology suggests the research aims can be answered fully and appropriately by the study. The rationale for analysis is described in full.
The analysis performed is accurate.
Results are presented clearly and in the appropriate format suggesting a thorough knowledge of the analytic strategy used. Interpretation of findings is well grounded in the data, balanced and considered.
Implications are clearly described with a thorough consideration of issues relevant to both the service and clinical psychology practice in general. Theoretical implications are also considered. Study strengths and limitations are fully considered leading to recommendations for future research with clear justification for the direction suggested.
The work is extremely well written, and

and presentation (clarity, coherence and organisation) develops arguments, ideas and evidence very effectively. The work is written in a logical, sophisticated and sequential manner. The writing accurately reflects the work. There is a highly effective use of graphs, tables, figures and examples.
BPS Competency Framework (2014)
2.2.1. Generalisable Metacompetencies (including Relationships) = GM
2.2.2. Psychological assessment = PA
2.2.3. Psychological formulation = PF
2.2.4. Psychological intervention = PI
2.2.5. Evaluation = E
2.2.6 Research = R
2.2.7 Personal and professional skills and values = PPSV
2.2.8 Communicating and teaching = CT
2.2.9 Organisational and systemic influence and leadership = OSIL