This paper has already been started, the writer just need to continue the result and discussion section, whereas in the result section the writer needs to analyse the statistic data from Spss and will be provided in here.

Results

This section will probably be the most variable. Use subheadings to make this part more structured, e.g.:

General Results

First of all you need a section for your general results. In this should be some basic descriptive results, eg mean scores, SD’s, range, etc, plus some analysis on what you found (e.g,, age differences). A table or graph would be good, if it is appropriate. Some short interpretation would be useful, eg “as Table 1 highlights, there were a greater number of high achievers than low achievers, this difference was found to be significant…”.

Each of your different forms of reliability and validity testing should be discussed in separate sub-sections within the Results Section. For areas such as predictive validity, it is not always possible to test your predictions. For example, measuring offenders motivation to change requires a 2 year follow-up. However, you can write a detailed paragraph or two on exactly what you would predict, how you would test it, and why it has not been possible to test it for this report.

(I would certainly like to see a summary section with some descriptive results and analyses if appropriate. What did you find from your psychological test?)

Reliability Testing

Internal Reliability Testing
Report your alpha coefficient analysis. Include some interpretation of these results. What do your results imply? Report what you did, and how. If this is accurate and concise there is no reason you will not receive good marks for this section.

Validity Testing (remember, you only need to do two)

Construct Validity

Do the results of your test, fit the construct? You could also refer back to your Introduction. Your hypothesis generation should be derived from existing research in the area. This will be easy for a well established construct, e.g. self-esteem, but will be more difficult for other less well established constructs. However, as with the Introduction, it is how you use the material you have rather than the quantity. If you do have less well established constructs this will be taken into account in the marking.
AND
Content Validity

Discussion
As with the Introduction, an ability to relate your results to the material in your Introduction, including critical evaluation of the evidence and the impact of your results to the existing research will enable you to gain high marks. You should also discuss the difficulties you encountered (in the third person!), and potential for future directions.
This should include a short discussion of your results in relation to the research you report in the Introduction. It should also cover the good points and bad points of the questionnaire, for example, you may find that your test is not reliable – you should discuss why this might be. You should also include suggestions for future directions, if appropriate, e.g what modifications might be necessary, where could this test be used in the future.