Back To Psychology

IA Playbook

Psychology IA Criteria Guide

Frame your aim, design, and analysis so the investigation reads like one controlled study.

Use this guide to align your aim, theory, sampling, statistics, and evaluation with the IB psychology investigation criteria.

Criteria Breakdown

Did You Know? The easiest score jumps usually come from explicitly naming what the criterion rewards and supporting it with direct evidence.

Criterion I: Introduction (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The clarity and completeness of the investigation's aim, theoretical basis, and hypothesis formulation.

Top-Band Move

The aim of the investigation is stated and its relevance is explained. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is described and the link to the student’s investigation is explained. The Independent and Dependent Variables are stated and operationalized in the null or research hypothesis.

Common Penalty

The aim of the investigation is stated but its relevance is not identified. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is identified but the description is incomplete or contains errors. Null or research hypothesis is stated, but does not correctly identify the Independent or Dependent Variables.

Criterion II: Exploration (4 marks)

Examiner Focus

The explanation and justification of research design, sampling, participants, variables, and materials.

Top-Band Move

The research design is explained. The sampling technique is explained. The choice of participants is explained. Controlled variables are explained. The choice of materials is explained.

Common Penalty

The research design is described. The sampling technique is described. Characteristics of the participants are described. Controlled variables are described. The materials used are described.

Criterion III: Analysis (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The appropriateness and accuracy of statistical analysis, graphing, and interpretation of findings.

Top-Band Move

Descriptive and inferential statistics are appropriately and accurately applied. The graph is correctly presented and addresses the hypothesis. The statistical findings are interpreted with regard to the data and linked to the hypothesis.

Common Penalty

Only descriptive or inferential statistics are applied. A correct graphing technique is chosen but the graph does not address the hypothesis. There is no clear statement of findings.

Criterion IV: Evaluation (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The discussion of findings, strengths/limitations, and proposed modifications.

Top-Band Move

The findings of the student’s investigation are discussed with reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample and procedure are stated and explained and relevant to the investigation. Modifications are explicitly linked to the limitations of the student’s investigation and fully justified.

Common Penalty

The findings of the student's investigation are described without reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample or procedure are stated but are not directly relevant to the hypothesis. One or more modifications are stated.

Markbands

Criteria point markbands to benchmark where your current draft sits and what a stronger band demands.

Criterion I: Introduction (6 marks)

Points 0

Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The aim of the investigation is stated but its relevance is not identified. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is identified but the description is incomplete or contains errors. Null or research hypothesis is stated, but does not correctly identify the Independent or Dependent Variables.

Points 3-4

The aim of the investigation is stated and its relevance is identified but not explained. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is described but the link to the student’s investigation is not explained. The Independent and Dependent Variables are correctly stated in the null or research hypothesis, but not operationalized.

Points 5-6

The aim of the investigation is stated and its relevance is explained. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is described and the link to the student’s investigation is explained. The Independent and Dependent Variables are stated and operationalized in the null or research hypothesis.

Criterion II: Exploration (4 marks)

Points 0

Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The research design is described. The sampling technique is described. Characteristics of the participants are described. Controlled variables are described. The materials used are described.

Points 3-4

The research design is explained. The sampling technique is explained. The choice of participants is explained. Controlled variables are explained. The choice of materials is explained.

Criterion III: Analysis (6 marks)

Points 0

Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

Only descriptive or inferential statistics are applied. A correct graphing technique is chosen but the graph does not address the hypothesis. There is no clear statement of findings.

Points 3-4

Appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics are applied but there are errors. The graph addresses the hypothesis but contains errors. The statistical findings are stated but either not interpreted with regard to the data or not linked to the hypothesis.

Points 5-6

Descriptive and inferential statistics are appropriately and accurately applied. The graph is correctly presented and addresses the hypothesis. The statistical findings are interpreted with regard to the data and linked to the hypothesis.

Criterion IV: Evaluation (6 marks)

Points 0

Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The findings of the student's investigation are described without reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample or procedure are stated but are not directly relevant to the hypothesis. One or more modifications are stated.

Points 3-4

The findings of the student’s investigation are described with reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample or procedure are stated and described and relevant to the investigation. Modifications are described but not explicitly linked to the limitations of the student’s investigation.

Points 5-6

The findings of the student’s investigation are discussed with reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample and procedure are stated and explained and relevant to the investigation. Modifications are explicitly linked to the limitations of the student’s investigation and fully justified.

Build Sequence

Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.

Step 1

State the aim and hypothesis

Make the theoretical basis, variables, and operationalized hypothesis explicit before moving into the method.

Step 2

Explain the design choices

Justify the sampling, participants, controls, and materials instead of listing them without context.

Step 3

Match the analysis to the data

Choose statistics and graphs that actually answer the hypothesis and make the findings easy to follow.

Step 4

Evaluate with precision

Link each limitation and proposed modification directly to the hypothesis and observed findings.

Submission Checklist

  • The aim and theoretical basis are explicit.
  • Independent and dependent variables are operationalized.
  • Statistics and graphs are appropriate to the hypothesis.
  • Modifications clearly match the limitations you identified.

Quick Wins

  • Write the null hypothesis before drafting the method.
  • Label variables in plain language and operationalize them.
  • Check that every graph answers the hypothesis directly.

Did You Know?

Turn Psychology Data Into Cleaner Marks

Marksy grades your report against IB criteria, flags missing operational definitions, and helps you tighten the link between statistics and conclusions. Marksy is built to grade faster with criterion-level precision, so you can improve before final submission.

1. Upload your IA draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get criterion-by-criterion feedback fast.
3. Revise and resubmit with focused improvements.
Marksy grading results view

Instant Grading Results

See where your score is now, not just where it could be.

Marksy criteria-wise feedback highlights

Criterion-Level Feedback

Marksy explains feedback by rubric criterion, so revision is targeted.

Marksy actionable todo feedback list

Action List To Improve

Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.

Marksy AI detection and highlight review

Confidence And Integrity Signals

Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.

Grade My Psychology IASee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaMarkbandsBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My Psychology IA