The idea edit

There are a lot of psychological studies. These tend to get summarised inline in journal articles but usually include information similar to the table headings below. Reading these summaries is very useful as you can quickly visualise a study or get the idea for a theory without reading a paper (or even an abstract, which don't follow a standard format). There is also knack to writing these summaries (which is good to learn, especially as a student[1]). A comprehensive database of this type of summary would be very useful. I have a growing number of these tables in word processing documents (exported example) which I link to from other points in a document e.g.

  • Shallice & Warrington (1970) made a positive finding (green) regarding attention
    • ... which had implications for Baddeley's theory (magenta) of working memory

I've exhausted the hypertext features of my word processor and I'd much rather keep this information in Wikipedia

Questions and thoughts edit

  • Is this an appropriate use?
  • Where would I put this information?
  • This sounds like a template ... ?
  • The biggest thing I've written on Wikipedia is the list of psychological effects, so generally ... Help! (Technically competent but need a Wikipedia intensive to get up to speed as quickly as possible.)

"Evidence" table edit

Who When WTD Methods Results Of Findings (ROF) Implications Participants (Ps)
Shallice & Warrington 1970 Neuropsychology/case study Tests of STM, LTM, intelligence, spoken language comprehension 2 item auditory digit span. No general impairment of learning, comprehension and reasoning. STM (impaired)/LTM (spared) distinct. STM as working memory. KF. Brain damage from road accident.
Smith 1968 Example Example Example Example Example
Watkins[2] 2008 "reviews research showing that repetitive thought (RT) can have constructive or unconstructive consequences" Example Example Example Example

Reading Code Organization Sheet (RCOS) edit

Who When ROF SPL CPL GAP RFW POC/RPP
DiCataldo & Everett 2008
  1. Non-killers had higher delinquency rating than killers
  1. Extensive interest
  2. Definition
  1. Scientiic validity of term
  1. Scientific validity of term
  1. Differential processing
  2. Explore motivation and circumstances
  1. 67.9% of adol. non-killers had anger problems while 37.5% of adol. killers reported anger problems

References edit

  1. ^ Shon, Phillip Chong Ho (2012-03-19). How to Read Journal Articles in the Social Sciences: A Very Practical Guide for Students. SAGE. ISBN 9781446281178.
  2. ^ Watkins, Edward R. (2008). "Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought". Psychological Bulletin. 134 (2): 163-€“206. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163. ISSN 0033-2909. Retrieved 2014-10-18. {{cite journal}}: C1 control character in |pages= at position 5 (help)