2. What we are covering today
• Overview of requirements for
Assessment 010
• FAQ review for Assessment 010
3. Assessment 010 – Systematic Literature
Review
• Conduct a systematic literature review of a
psychological topic of your choice (more
guidance on this is provided in Week 3 seminar)
• Grade contributes 100% to final module
assessment
• Deadline: 14:00pm on 20th November
• Examples of systematic reviews and a “How to”
guide are available on Canvas
4. Assessment 010 Format
1. Title of Review
2. Introduction (300 – 500 words)
3. Method (300 - 500 words)
4. Results (1400 – 2000 words)
5. Discussion and Conclusion (1000 – 2000 words)
6. References
5. Title
• Concise statement of the purpose of the review.
• Doesn’t need to explicitly reference the keywords
Examples
“Risky travel? A systematic review of cycling behaviour”
“Evaluation of literature employing hair cortisol analysis to assess work-
related stress and psychiatric conditions”
“Exposure to Early Life Traumatic Event and HPA Dysregulation: A
Systematic Review”
6. Introduction (300 – 500 words)
• Introduce the topic area being reviewed
• Describe overall focus and objectives of the
review
• This section can include references to literature
that are separate from the systematic review
itself (e.g. references to classic papers on
subject, or previous literature reviews)
• Aim to keep this section short and concise
(see published systematic reviews on Canvas
for examples)
7. Examples
“The aim of our study is to review in a descriptive way the articles that
have been addressing either directly or indirectly the association
between ADHD and BPS, in terms of clinical, neuropsychological and
structural convergences”
Xenaki & Pehlivanidis (2015)
“The positive impact of Personal Growth Initiative on the levels of
well-being experienced by people, as well as its role in positive
development, exposes the relevance of comprehending this construct
in depth. For this reason, a systematic literature review was
performed, with the aim of analysing studies that investigate the
relationship of PGI with other psychological variables, as well as the
instruments used to evaluate PGI.”
De Freitas et al., (2016)
8. Method (300 – 500 words)
• A clear method section is essential
(otherwise it is not a systematic review!)
• Describe in detail the process through
which your review was conducted
9. Method (2)
• Clearly specify the criteria a study needs to meet to be included in
your review
• State which databases you searched and when (i.e., “A literature
search of PubMed database was conducted to identify relevant
studies published until the ?nd week of November 2023”.
• Clearly state your search terms (e.g. The following key words were
employed: “ADHD”, “borderline”, “personality”)
• State the total number of studies returned in the search
• Explain your inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the final number of
studies included in your review
• Include a PRISMA flowchart (template is available on Canvas)
• Look at the Method sections of the systematic reviews posted
on Canvas
10. Clinical, neuropsychological and structural convergences and divergences
between Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Borderline Personality
Disorder: A systematic review. Xenaki & Phlivanidis, 2015, Personality and
Individual Differences.
“Our objective was to identify all studies fulfilling the following criteria:
1) The articles should specifically or non-specifically address the association
between ADHD and BPD.
2) The association of the two disorders should relate to structural,
neuropsychological, or clinical parameters.
3) The literature data included should reflect collectively a more coherent
understanding of the ADHD–BPD relationship through the interrelation of the
clinical, neuropsychological and structural dimensions of the two disorders.”
11. We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed database to identify
relevant studies published until the 4th week of Feb 2015. The following key
words were employed: “ADHD”, “borderline”, “personality”. In addition we
conducted manual searches of the reference sections of the obtained articles. A
total of 192 studies were initially identified; however some of these articles did
not meet the inclusion criteria upon detailed examination and were excluded.
On initial review we excluded 108 articles, on the basis of no relation to the
ADHD or BPD subject matter. Then we assessed for eligibility 84 articles, of
which 39 were excluded with reason. This was the case for studies exploring a
general association between ADHD and PDs, studies searching mainly the role of
antecedents' traumatic influences in the development of BPD, articles estimating
the prevalence of general psychopathology of either ADHD or BPD, studies
uniquely exploring structural, clinical or neuropsychological parameters without
being disease-specific, studies focusing on the relation to substance abuse and
case-reports referring to treatment.
Additional exclusions were made of studies reporting data exclusively either for
ADHD or for BPD.
12. Lida-Alkisti Xenaki, Artemios Pehlivanidis
Clinical, neuropsychological and structural convergences and divergences between Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder: A systematic review
Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 86, 2015, 438–449
13. This is a PRISMA flowchart
to summarise the process
of completing a systematic
review (blank flowchart is
available on Canvas)
14.
15. Results (1400 – 2000 words)
• Present the outputs identified by your systematic
review (i.e. the results of the search)
• There must be a minimum of ten outputs
presented
• This is a minimum not a target. It is likely your SR
will identify more than 10 outputs
• You must include a summary table of the outputs
• The summary table should list all of the final outputs
selected by the systematic review
19. Results (2)
• In addition to the summary table you must critically
appraise and synthesize the key findings
• This section should only focus on outputs that were
identified in your search
• Don’t include discussion of outputs that are separate
from the systematic review
20. Results (3)
• May be useful to organise the appraisal
around sub-headings based on identified
themes
For example
• Do the studies use similar or different
methodologies?
• Do studies support or argue against
different theories or models?
21. Discussion and Conclusion (1000
– 2000 words)
• In this section you summarize and discuss
the results of the systematic review in the
context of previous theories, evidence, and
practice.
22. Discussion and Conclusion (2)
Imagine someone asking you:
“Tell me what the current state of knowledge
is about <insert your topic here>”
- What is currently known about your topic?
- What don’t we know?
- Is there a consensus on some issues?
- Are there areas of controversy or disagreement
23. Discussion and Conclusion (3)
• There is no specific structure recommended for
this section
• Much will depend on the type of literature you are
reviewing and the total number of search results
discussed
• Try and ensure you provide a summation of the
overall literature
• Don’t just describe each individual search result
• Look at examples on Canvas to see how they
present and discuss the search results
24. Conclusion
• Finish the review summarising the main points made
• Useful to state what you consider future
directions/priorities for ongoing research
References
• Include all references cited in assessment (systematic
search results + any extra references included in
Introduction section)
• All references should be in APA format
26. Q: How do I choose a topic?
• Look at recently published research articles
on areas you are interested in
• Base it on a topic covered in your
other MSc modules
• Base it on a topic related to
your undergraduate thesis
• Base it on a topic related to a
dissertation project
27. Examples of previous SRs
• “A systematic review of mixed methods research on
human factors and ergonomics in health care.”
• “Risky travel? A systematic review of cycling
behaviour”
• “Evaluation of literature employing hair cortisol
analysis to assess work-related stress and
psychiatric conditions”
• “Exposure to Early Life Traumatic Event and HPA
dysregulation: A systematic review”
28. Q: How do I define inclusion/exclusion criteria? (1)
• The topic and search criteria must be
realistic
• Avoid the topic being too broad or too
specific
• For example, the topic “Memory in
Children: A systematic review” is too broad
• “Memory” + “Children” search term
produces over 34,000 results. Too many!
29. Q: How do I define inclusion/exclusion criteria? (2)
• However, the topic “Phonological memory
deficits and emotion regulation in
preschool ADHD children: A systematic
review” may be too specific
• The keywords “memory” + “children” +
“ADHD” + “preschool” + “emotion” +
“regulation” + “phonological” produces only
one result. Too few!
30. Problem: Too many search results
• Include a greater range of keywords
• Consider focusing on a specific methodology or
outcome measure
• Apply a time limit (i.e., articles published within the
last ten years)
Problem: Too few search results
• Broaden the range of search terms
• Don’t apply filter or publication time limits unless you
need to
• Define your topic more broadly
31. Q: How many final search results
should I have?
• You must report a minimum of at least
ten outputs in the Results section
• This is not a target to aim for. Majority of
SRs will identify more than 10 outputs.
• Anything more than 30-40 final results and
you will be struggling to provide adequate
coverage in 5000 words. Be more
selective in defining the topic.
32. Mandatory requirements for
Assessment 010
• Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion
sections (note there is no Abstract section)
• Clear Method section
• Clear description of procedure for conducting
systematic search (include a PRISMA flowchart -
see examples in lecture slides)
• Minimum of ten final outputs reported
• Review includes primary literature sources only
• Summary table of outputs in Results section
33. General Points (1)
• The purpose of this assessment is to teach you how to
conduct a systematic literature review – don’t worry if
you’ve never done anything like this before!
• Reviewing published literature in your research area will
also be an essential aspect of preparing for your MSc
dissertation project
• You are not expected to carry out an exhaustive review –
5000 words is not long enough to do this for most topics
• You can select the inclusion criteria for papers in any way
you wish as long as it is justified in the method section of
the review
34. General Points (2)
• Give yourself enough time to do the assessment
properly
• Aim to establish your topic and inclusion/exclusion criteria
by Week 5 and have completed your systematic search
and identified the results no later than Week 8
• Your grade is based on how well you perform a systematic
review, not on how good an essay or non-systematic
review your submission is
• You can't 'fake' a systematic review. Your marker will
check for consistency between your method and the
reported results
35. Class Activities (begin now and
complete before week 5)
• Read pages 756 to 768 of Siddaway et al “How
to” guide (available on Canvas)
• Look at the Method and Results sections of
the systematic review examples on Canvas
• Begin to define the keywords, inclusion and
exclusion criteria for your chosen systematic
review topic
• If necessary complete further scoping reviews
to determine if your chosen topic is too broad or
too narrow
