Document Dii, FMS GSC, 16.1.14
Newcastle University
DOCTORATE IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Empirical Paper, Literature Review and Performance at Viva Grid
2012-2015
Student:
……………………………..…..……………
Title of Dissertation: …..………………………………………………………………………….....................................................................................
External Examiner: ………………………………….…………………… Internal Examiner: …………………………………………………
Guidelines for examiners:
1. As the items in each column refer to the same attributes (but at different levels), please ensure that each attribute is indicated at distinction, pass, or fail grade. Each
attribute should be rated on its merits and then the award decided upon (rather than deciding on the award and completing the grid to match). This ensures sensitivity
and so then provides a clear indication of relative strengths and weaknesses, allows transparency of decision making leading to final award, and helps communicate the
range within the pass category from low pass - clear pass – high pass.
2. When making an award, please consider:
a. That a piece of assessed work can fail in at least 4 ways:
i. There are multiple deficiencies that add up to a fail.
ii. Although there are multiple indicators in the pass bands, there are one or more indicators that represent “fatal flaws” – these should be clearly
indicated in the feedback.
iii. The dissertation is so poorly written and presented or the account at viva lacks sufficient coherence as to be impossible to reach any judgment
iv. Some combination of the above.
b. If most (but not necessarily all) are in the pass band (or higher), then we would award a pass for that piece of assessed work.
c. Unless there is a “fatal flaw”, the presence of one or more items in the fail band and others in the pass band would be indicative of a low/borderline pass.
d. The presence of one or more in the distinction band and most others in the pass band would be indicative of a high pass.
e. The presence of a spread across all three bands unless there is a “fatal flaw” would be indicative of a pass with the assessed work showing highly variable
quality.
f. If there are sufficient in the distinction band and in particular, the criteria in bold should normally be met, we would award a distinction (unless there were also
some in the fail band – see previous points).
1
Document Dii, FMS GSC, 16.1.14
Element
Literature Review






Distinction





Succinct and convincing rationale/background
Review question is clearly and succinctly stated
A high degree of fit between the type/format of
review matches the question and available literature
The methodology used is highly appropriate for the
question and available literature
Methodology used is described in appropriate detail
The literature identified is well
summarized/reported in a highly appropriate format
and level of detail
Demonstrates a high degree of critical engagement
with the literature
Demonstrates a high level of appropriate synthesis
Thoughtful discussion of the review’s strengths and
limitations
Thoughtful consideration of the implications for
theory, research and/or practice
Then tone and balance are highly appropriate to the
review question and type
Empirical paper



















Pass





Clear rationale/background
Review question is adequately stated
Some degree of fit between the type/format of
review matches the question and available literature
The methodology used is generally appropriate for
the question and available literature
Methodology used is described adequately
The literature identified is summarized/reported in a
generally appropriate format and level of detail
Demonstrates some degree of critical engagement
with the literature
Demonstrates some level of appropriate synthesis
Some discussion of the review’s strengths and
limitations
Some consideration of the implications for theory,
research and/or practice
The tone and balance are generally appropriate to
the review question and type













Succinct, focussed and convincing rationale/background
Research question is clearly and succinctly stated
Aims/objectives/hypotheses are clearly and succinctly stated
The suitability of the methodology to answer the question is
well articulated
Methodology used is described clearly and in appropriate detail
Succinct and sufficient acknowledgement/discussion of any
clinical/ethical issues
Analytical approach described clearly and in appropriate detail
The results are reported in a highly appropriate format and
level of detail
Demonstrates a high degree of technical accuracy in reporting
results
Demonstrates a high level of discussion of results in terns of
hypotheses, alternative explanations, and methodological
artefacts
Thoughtful discussion of the study’s strengths and limitations
Thoughtful consideration of the implications for theory,
research and/or practice
The tone is highly appropriate and balances caution and
ambition when discussing the implications
Clear rationale/background
Research question is adequately stated
Aims/objectives/hypotheses are adequately stated
Some articulation of the suitability of the methodology to
answer the question
Methodology used is described adequately
Some acknowledgement/discussion of any clinical/ethical issues
Analytical approach described adequately
The results are reported in a generally appropriate format and
level of detail
Demonstrates adequate technical accuracy in reporting results
Demonstrates some level of discussion of results in terms of
hypotheses, alternative explanations, and methodological
artefacts
Some discussion of the study’s strengths and limitations
Some consideration of the implications for theory, research
and/or practice
The tone is generally appropriate when discussing the
implications
Performance at Viva

Demonstrates high awareness of relevant issues at
conceptual, methodological and clinical levels



Discusses them with confidence and enthusiasm
Articulate defence of project and the key issues
Demonstrates clear ownership of the trade-offs and
decisions made in the design, execution and analysis of
the project
Receptive to examiner feedback and contributes to
discussion
Engages easily with panel
Makes frequent and appropriate links between literature
review and empirical paper
Makes frequent and appropriate links between
dissertation and one or more broader literatures





Able to consider and discuss some additional
implications (conceptual, methodological or clinical) that
have not been raised in the written document

Shows awareness of relevant issues at conceptual,
methodological and clinical levels
Able to discuss them








Some appropriate defence of project and the key issues
Demonstrates some ownership of the trade-offs and
decisions made in the design, execution and analysis of
the project
Accepts examiner feedback
Some engagement with examiners
Makes some appropriate links between literature review
and empirical paper
Makes some appropriate links between dissertation and
one or more broader literatures
Able to consider and discuss some implications
(conceptual, methodological or clinical) that have been
raised in the written document
2
Document Dii, FMS GSC, 16.1.14
Element
Literature Review







Fail




Empirical paper
Rationale/background unclear
Review question is absent or unclear
Poor fit between the type/format of review and the
question and available literature
The methodology used is inappropriate for the
question and available literature
Methodology used is absent or poorly described
The literature identified is not summarized/reported
in an appropriate format and level of detail
Critical engagement with the literature is either
absent or inappropriate
Synthesis is not demonstrated
Discussion of the review’s strengths and limitations
is either absent or unbalanced
Consideration of the implications for theory,
research and/or practice are either absent or
unwarranted
Then tone and balance are inappropriate to the
review question and type













Rationale/background unclear
Research question is absent or unclear
Aims/objectives/hypotheses absent, unclear or unwarranted
The suitably of the methodology to answer the question is
absent or poorly articulated
Methodology used is absent or unclear
Absent or poor acknowledgement/discussion of any
clinical/ethical issues
Description of analytical approach described is absent or
unclear
The results are not reported in an appropriate format and
level of detail
Fails to demonstrate a high degree of technical accuracy in
reporting results
Discussion of results in terms of hypotheses, alternative
explanations, and methodological artefacts is absent, unclear
or unwarranted
Discussion of the study’s strengths and limitations is absent,
unclear or inaccurate
Consideration of the implications for theory, research and/or
practice is absent, unclear or unwarranted
The tone is inappropriate and shows a lack of caution when
considering the implications
Literature Review (please circle)
Fail
Pass
Distinction
Empirical Paper (please circle)
Fail
Pass
Distinction
Performance at Viva (please circle)
Fail
Pass
Distinction
Overall Award (please circle) *
Fail
Pass
Distinction
Performance at Viva

Does not show awareness of relevant issues at conceptual,
methodological and clinical levels


Unable to discuss them in an appropriate way
Does not demonstrate ownership of the trade-offs and
decisions made in the design, execution and analysis of the
project
Unable to defend project in an appropriate way
Does not respond to examiner feedback or responds
inappropriately
No engagement or inappropriate engagement with
examiners




Does not make links or makes inappropriate links between
literature review and empirical paper

Does not make links or makes inappropriate links between
links between dissertation and one or more broader
literatures

Unable to consider and discuss some implications
(conceptual, methodological or clinical) that have been
raised in the written document
* for the award of Distinction overall to be given a distinction for both the Empirical Paper and Performance at Viva is required
MF - January 2014
P:\\Dclinpsy\Programme Administration\Examinations\2011-2014\Part 2 Viva Examinations\Documentation for Examiners\Viva Feedback Grid.docx
3