The purpose of the Comprehensive Examination is to demonstrate students’ abilities to engage in the depth, breadth, and creativity of thought necessary for social scientists in psychology and social intervention.
Goals:
To have students demonstrate their ability to:
Grasp and apply the theoretical and empirical knowledge base within psychology and social intervention,
Integrate the empirical literature in a specified substantive area, and
Evaluate, critique, and improve the methodologies represented in published research.
Process, Procedures, & Format:
The comprehensive examination consists of two parts: an empirical research critique and a specialty area paper. The processes, procedures and format for each are outlined below.
Empirical Research Critique
The purpose of the Empirical Research Critique is for the PSI program to certify that Ph.D. candidates have developed the ability to critically evaluate specific aspects of the conceptualization and methodology of selected articles, including the association between conceptualization and methods, and to make recommendations for redesign and improvement.
At the beginning of the students’ third program year, the PSI Program Director and Comprehensive Exam Committee will make 3 articles available to the third year students. The chair of the comps committee will also meet with the students to orient them to the process and answer any questions.
Students have the fall term to review these articles, alongside other methodological materials they have been exposed to thus far in their training. During this fall semester preparation period, students are encouraged to confer with one another and to ask questions of the faculty.
The PSI faculty selects the set of articles from key scientific domains of psychology and social intervention literature to represent important methodological and research questions.
The domains are as follows:
1. Complex Multivariate Analyses in Non-Causal Settings (e.g., Longitudinal Change Processes)
2. Measurement of Constructs
3. Evaluations of Social Intervention
In all three domains, we expect students to demonstrate competence in understanding and critiquing the research methodology of studies concerning phenomena at both the individual and the contextual level of analysis. Students are expected to address issues such as the lens of longitudinal change, cross-ecological-level dynamics and interactions, and methodological issues inherent to the evaluation of social intervention. To prepare for the exam students are expected to:
(a) draw on principles and techniques learned in core PSI courses including Understanding and Measuring Social Contexts of Development, Development and Prevention Science, Research Design and Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, Theories of Change in Applied Psychology and all quantitative methods courses taken to date;
(b) draw on experience gained on research teams;
(c) engage in one or more journal article peer review with their mentor during their first 2 ½ years
At the beginning of the second semester of the students’ 3rd year, the exam will be administered as a closed book, monitored exam over a 3.5-hour time slot.
(a) This time slot will be chosen by the students taking the exam, in consultation with the comprehensive exam committee to determine availability. Students should email the committee with suggested dates and times for the exam at least 2 months in advance.
(b) Before the exam commences, one article will be selected at random for the exam.
(c) Students are NOT permitted to confer with ANYONE or refer to notes/materials other than the instructions and a blank copy of the randomly selected article during the actual exam. Doing so is a breach of the honor code and will result in a non-passing grade.
The PSI Faculty Comprehensive Exam Committee will take primary responsibility for grading the methodology exam and making recommendations to the full faculty.
(a) Final grading decisions will be determined at a regularly scheduled meeting of the PSI faculty.
(b) The grading scheme of the exam is: Pass, Revise and Resubmit, or Retake.
i. If a Pass is received, no additional work is required of the student, except for meeting with the comps committee to discuss the article and lessons learned (see next bullet).
ii. If a Revise and Resubmit is received, the students will be provided with a Revise and Resubmit letter detailing the areas that require revision. Students will have at least two weeks to revise and resubmit the exam. The revision will take place on the students’ own time. Students are not permitted to confer with anyone regarding the revise and resubmit, but can consult other materials/notes.
iii. If a Retake is received (either initially or after a Revise and Resubmit), the student will be asked to redo the empirical research critique the following year with the next year’s cohort. Students in this position will still be able to prepare and defend their dissertation proposal, but they may be ineligible for certain dissertation grants that require proof of candidacy.
The Empirical Research Critique process culminates in a meeting between all students and the faculty committee to review the exam. At this meeting, the student will have the opportunity to ask questions and clarify any content covered and to get more nuanced feedback about their performance.
Specialty Area Paper
The objective of Specialty Area Paper is to produce a critical and integrative review of the theoretical and empirical knowledge base regarding research question(s) that are relevant to psychology and social intervention. For all written products, the expectation is that you establish with your primary mentor a schedule of multiple drafts, feedback, and revisions that allows for multiple iterations and incorporates the process and timeline for soliciting and integrating second reader(s) review(s).
Final Product and General Guidelines
1. There are many types of the questions that such a critical, integrative review could potentially address. Many Specialty Area Papers involve the integration of multiple theories/areas of scholarship to better explain, measure or intervene in the topic area that a student chooses to focus on. Alternatively, the Paper may seek to apply existing theory to an area of scholarship that has not previously considered it; or argue against using a particular theory in addressing the social issue/body of scholarship in question.
2. The final, approved Specialty Area Paper should approach publishable quality (e.g., as a chapter for a book, or an article in a topically relevant journal such as Human Development, American Journal of Community Psychology, or Social Policy Reports of the Society for Research in Child Development). For some students, it may serve as the first step toward their dissertation or one of the three articles that they weave together for their dissertation. However, that is not a requirement.
3. The resulting manuscript should range from 20 to 35 double-spaced typewritten pages, excluding tables and references. If the Paper is intended for a journal with a page limitation that is much briefer, students may be required to supplement the Paper they intend to submit with appendices that include additional information.
4. The process to produce this manuscript has both a Proposal Phase and a Paper Phase, much like the second-year paper and dissertation process. You should plan for multiple iterations of both the Proposal and Paper, in consultation with your primary mentor and second reader (see below for more on second reader processes), prior to each official deadline. The final decision about passing the Specialty Area Paper will come from the primary mentor with input from the second reader.
5. The following are examples of previous student’s published work that has stemmed from the Specialty Area Paper.
The relationship between maternal education and children's academic outcomes: A theoretical framework (Journal of Marriage and Family)
Parent involvement, emotional support, and behavior problems: An ecological approach (The Elementary School Journal)
The maternal ecology of breastfeeding: A life-course developmental perspective (Human Development)
Early violence exposure and self-regulatory development: A bioecological systems perspective (Human Development)
Proposal Phase Procedures
1. During the spring and summer of AY2, work with your primary mentor to come up with theoretical question(s) with intervention, ecological, or cultural relevance to your area of interest.
2. With the help of your primary mentor, you will identify a second reader who can add substantively to the Paper. Depending upon your advisor and your topic area, your second reader may be more or less involved in the proposal development stage. You should work with your primary mentor to determine when and how your second reader should be involved in proposal development. At the very least, your second reader should be identified by the time you submit your final proposal; and must indicate that they have accepted the role of second reader for your proposal to be approved via their signature on the specialty area paper proposal form.
3. Develop a written Proposal with your primary mentor that clearly states the research question(s) and outlines the content and structure of the planned literature review and analysis. Guidelines for Specialty Proposal.
The Proposal must provide an initial list of references for empirical articles and conceptual papers that will be included in the document so that the faculty is able to judge the feasibility of the proposed project. Students should organize the references under topical subheadings (each major body of literature you will cover) so that the faculty is better positioned to evaluate and provide feedback on the references.
The Proposal should not exceed 3-5 double-spaced typewritten pages, excluding references.
The Proposal should clearly indicate the theories/literatures to be covered, provide a brief review of this scholarship and describe the initial conceptualization of what will be integrated and how, and what this adds to extant knowledge. The proposal should include clearly-defined limits to the scope of this integration, as needed.
The Proposal should not include assumptions about what you will find or argue in your ultimate Paper. In other words, you should know enough at the Proposal point to know that your questions will expand current knowledge, but you are not yet expected to know the full outcome or implications of your integration.
4. Work with your mentor to come to an agreement on a timeline and review procedure for completion of the Proposal and the Paper. This timeline should specify the level and timing of involvement of your second reader throughout both the Proposal and Paper development phases. It is your responsibility to develop this timeline in consultation with your mentor before beginning work on the Paper. It is also your responsibility to adjust this timeline and involvement in consultation with your mentor as needed based upon how work on this paper unfolds.
5. Submit the Proposal along with the Specialty Area Proposal Approval Form (Proposal section), signed by both your primary mentor and second reader, via email to the PSI Program Director (cc the program administrator) by the end of the first week of classes of AY3.
Paper Phase Procedures
1. Using the timeline developed during the Proposal phase, continue to research and write the Paper during the fall, winter, and beginning of spring of AY3. Note that you will likely be researching and writing as you continue to refine your proposal.
2. The Paper is due the Monday after Spring Break of AY3 to your primary mentor and secondary reader, following the timeline and procedures you have developed with your mentor. In most cases, this means that you have already received extensive feedback from your mentor on the different sections of the paper, its structure, and arguments. It is important that, at this stage, you submit a polished paper, so that the revisions required will be doable in the timeframe provided for you in the next stage.
3. Feedback on the Paper is given in the two-four week period following submission of the Paper, followed by an in-person meeting with both reviewers. It is your responsibility to solicit this feedback and schedule this meeting. During this meeting, you should expect to receive a series of suggestions on how to revise your paper.
4. The revised Paper is due to your primary mentor and second reader by June 15 following AY3. Based on the quality of the draft, this may also be your final product.
5. Should the product need further revisions, the student will have until the first day of classes AY4 to complete suggested revisions in consultation with their mentor and second reader and submit a final approved product to the program. Submit the final, approved manuscript to the Program Director and Program Administrator, with the Specialty Area Approval Form (Paper section) signed by your primary mentor, second reader, and Program Director, first day of classes AY4. Should the final product, following this deadline, still be unacceptable the student will not be “in good standing” as they enter their fourth year.
6. After approval of the paper, the student should discuss with their primary mentor whether they want to solicit additional feedback on the Paper from a third faculty member. The goal of this additional reviewer would be to return a journal-style review of the paper so that the student can incorporate additional changes that may facilitate the publication process. This is a recommended, but not required, last step in the process.