Short answer questions are completed as part of the process of continuous assessment on the Programme. The purpose is to link the academic with the clinical and professional practice, to assess breadth of knowledge, develop skills in critically reviewing papers and to encourage a process of reading round an area of interest whilst on placement. The topic and focus of the papers will mirror the trainees' placement experience. The rationale for the papers chosen is for their usefulness or clinical relevance and/or theoretical interest or excellence.
You will be required to write short answers to 8 questions selected from 12 directed readings. It is essential that you follow the instructions precisely and only answer the correct number of questions from each section of the directed readings.
Each answer should be no more than 500 words AND these must fit onto no more than 2 pages of A4 (double spaced). The word count must be included for each answer, alongside the title. Please ensure that each answer begins on a separate page.
For each paper you should complete either:
Summarise the main issues and critically review the strengths and weaknesses of the paper (CR), or
Summarise the main issues and comment on the paper's implications for your future clinical practice (ICP) with reference to your own thoughts about your work with future clients.
For each set of eight SAQ answers four must address option 1 and four must address option 2. Answers that adequately summarise the paper but do not address implications for clinical practice or provide a critical appraisal of the paper will be failed. It is essential that both aspects of each question are addressed.
You must complete equal numbers of papers from both sections, and in terms of ICP and CR, you can mix and match these.
Each answer should begin on a separate sheet. In addition to candidate code each answer must including the following heading (not included in the word count):
SAQ set and question number
Title and authors of the paper
Specification of option (CR or ICP)
A separate summary sheet should also be completed identifying which papers you have answered and the options chosen (form available on Blackboard).
Each answer should result from each trainee's own individual work. Collaborative answers will be treated as plagiarism and will automatically result in failure. Please be aware of the potential risks of plagiarism if you show your work to others.
An academic support session will be dedicated to the SAQs and additional academic support is available, if you have any further queries about SAQs, please contact your Academic Tutor.
Writing tips for your SAQs
The requirements for the SAQs are detailed above. However, while these requirements are clearly stated, there are some common errors that trainees make in their presentation. When these errors are made, they result in conditional marks or failures of the individual SAQ. This document lists those errors, so that you can avoid making them.
The following is intended to supplement the above assessment guidelines, rather than replacing them in any way. You should make sure that what you submit meets the core criteria in the assessment guidelines, as well as avoiding the common errors that are reflected in the suggestions below.
How not to get it wrong
The following reflect things that are sometimes or commonly done poorly by trainees. We advise that you learn from others' experience, and make sure that you do the following:
Attend to the guidelines
When you label an SAQ as an ICP or a CR, make sure that is what you actually do (some trainees have labelled it one way and then done the other type of SAQ). We will mark it as labelled.
You must complete equal numbers of papers from all sections, and in terms of ICP and CR, you can mix and match these.
Where key results are stated, these need to be presented in a context that enables the reader to understand them
Don't make typographical errors (spelling, format, punctuation) or grammatical errors. Use your spell checker, grammar checker, etc.
Include the personal viewpoint where it is asked for ('What have I learned based on my knowledge or experience', rather than 'What could be learned by the average clinician')
Include and balance both good and weak points of the paper concerned (most papers can be critiqued and praised)
In general, around two thirds of the submission should summarise the paper and one third relate to the ICP or CR
Make your own critique (don't just list bits from the 'Limitations' section that the authors already provided)
Make sure that you note any substantive limitations of the paper
Don't critique the paper on the basis of something that is actually dealt with in the paper (e.g. 'There was no control group' when there was one)
Don't copy material wholesale or with minor modifications from the paper that you are critiquing (it will look like plagiarism when you submit it)
No reference list is required
Page updated
Report abuse