research review report sample

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence.

Peer review templates, expert examples and free training courses

Joanna Wilkinson

Learning how to write a constructive peer review is an essential step in helping to safeguard the quality and integrity of published literature. Read on for resources that will get you on the right track, including peer review templates, example reports and the Web of Science™ Academy: our free, online course that teaches you the core competencies of peer review through practical experience ( try it today ).

How to write a peer review

Understanding the principles, forms and functions of peer review will enable you to write solid, actionable review reports. It will form the basis for a comprehensive and well-structured review, and help you comment on the quality, rigor and significance of the research paper. It will also help you identify potential breaches of normal ethical practice.

This may sound daunting but it doesn’t need to be. There are plenty of peer review templates, resources and experts out there to help you, including:

Peer review training courses and in-person workshops

• Peer review templates ( found in our Web of Science Academy )
• Expert examples of peer review reports
• Co-reviewing (sharing the task of peer reviewing with a senior researcher)

Other peer review resources, blogs, and guidelines

We’ll go through each one of these in turn below, but first: a quick word on why learning peer review is so important.

Why learn to peer review?

Peer reviewers and editors are gatekeepers of the research literature used to document and communicate human discovery. Reviewers, therefore, need a sound understanding of their role and obligations to ensure the integrity of this process. This also helps them maintain quality research, and to help protect the public from flawed and misleading research findings.

Learning to peer review is also an important step in improving your own professional development.

You’ll become a better writer and a more successful published author in learning to review. It gives you a critical vantage point and you’ll begin to understand what editors are looking for. It will also help you keep abreast of new research and best-practice methods in your field.

We strongly encourage you to learn the core concepts of peer review by joining a course or workshop. You can attend in-person workshops to learn from and network with experienced reviewers and editors. As an example, Sense about Science offers peer review workshops every year. To learn more about what might be in store at one of these, researcher Laura Chatland shares her experience at one of the workshops in London.

There are also plenty of free, online courses available, including courses in the Web of Science Academy such as ‘Reviewing in the Sciences’, ‘Reviewing in the Humanities’ and ‘An introduction to peer review’

The Web of Science Academy also supports co-reviewing with a mentor to teach peer review through practical experience. You learn by writing reviews of preprints, published papers, or even ‘real’ unpublished manuscripts with guidance from your mentor. You can work with one of our community mentors or your own PhD supervisor or postdoc advisor, or even a senior colleague in your department.

Go to the Web of Science Academy

Peer review templates

Peer review templates are helpful to use as you work your way through a manuscript. As part of our free Web of Science Academy courses, you’ll gain exclusive access to comprehensive guidelines and a peer review report. It offers points to consider for all aspects of the manuscript, including the abstract, methods and results sections. It also teaches you how to structure your review and will get you thinking about the overall strengths and impact of the paper at hand.

• Web of Science Academy template (requires joining one of the free courses)
• PLoS’s review template
• Wiley’s peer review guide (not a template as such, but a thorough guide with questions to consider in the first and second reading of the manuscript)

Beyond following a template, it’s worth asking your editor or checking the journal’s peer review management system. That way, you’ll learn whether you need to follow a formal or specific peer review structure for that particular journal. If no such formal approach exists, try asking the editor for examples of other reviews performed for the journal. This will give you a solid understanding of what they expect from you.

Peer review examples

Understand what a constructive peer review looks like by learning from the experts.

Here’s a sample of pre and post-publication peer reviews displayed on Web of Science publication records to help guide you through your first few reviews. Some of these are transparent peer reviews , which means the entire process is open and visible — from initial review and response through to revision and final publication decision. You may wish to scroll to the bottom of these pages so you can first read the initial reviews, and make your way up the page to read the editor and author’s responses.

• Pre-publication peer review: Patterns and mechanisms in instances of endosymbiont-induced parthenogenesis
• Pre-publication peer review: Can Ciprofloxacin be Used for Precision Treatment of Gonorrhea in Public STD Clinics? Assessment of Ciprofloxacin Susceptibility and an Opportunity for Point-of-Care Testing
• Transparent peer review: Towards a standard model of musical improvisation
• Transparent peer review: Complex mosaic of sexual dichromatism and monochromatism in Pacific robins results from both gains and losses of elaborate coloration
• Post-publication peer review: Brain state monitoring for the future prediction of migraine attacks
• Web of Science Academy peer review: Students’ Perception on Training in Writing Research Article for Publication

F1000 has also put together a nice list of expert reviewer comments pertaining to the various aspects of a review report.

Co-reviewing

Co-reviewing (sharing peer review assignments with senior researchers) is one of the best ways to learn peer review. It gives researchers a hands-on, practical understanding of the process.

In an article in The Scientist , the team at Future of Research argues that co-reviewing can be a valuable learning experience for peer review, as long as it’s done properly and with transparency. The reason there’s a need to call out how co-reviewing works is because it does have its downsides. The practice can leave early-career researchers unaware of the core concepts of peer review. This can make it hard to later join an editor’s reviewer pool if they haven’t received adequate recognition for their share of the review work. (If you are asked to write a peer review on behalf of a senior colleague or researcher, get recognition for your efforts by asking your senior colleague to verify the collaborative co-review on your Web of Science researcher profiles).

The Web of Science Academy course ‘Co-reviewing with a mentor’ is uniquely practical in this sense. You will gain experience in peer review by practicing on real papers and working with a mentor to get feedback on how their peer review can be improved. Students submit their peer review report as their course assignment and after internal evaluation receive a course certificate, an Academy graduate badge on their Web of Science researcher profile and is put in front of top editors in their field through the Reviewer Locator at Clarivate.

Here are some external peer review resources found around the web:

• Peer Review Resources from Sense about Science
• Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts by Sense about Science
• How to review journal manuscripts by R. M. Rosenfeld for Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery
• Ethical guidelines for peer review from COPE
• An Instructional Guide for Peer Reviewers of Biomedical Manuscripts by Callaham, Schriger & Cooper for Annals of Emergency Medicine (requires Flash or Adobe)
• EQUATOR Network’s reporting guidelines for health researchers

And finally, we’ve written a number of blogs about handy peer review tips. Check out some of our top picks:

• How to Write a Peer Review: 12 things you need to know
• Want To Peer Review? Top 10 Tips To Get Noticed By Editors
• Review a manuscript like a pro: 6 tips from a Web of Science Academy supervisor
• How to write a structured reviewer report: 5 tips from an early-career researcher

Want to learn more? Become a master of peer review and connect with top journal editors. The Web of Science Academy – your free online hub of courses designed by expert reviewers, editors and Nobel Prize winners. Find out more today.

Related posts

Journal citation reports 2024 preview: unified rankings for more inclusive journal assessment.

Introducing the Clarivate Academic AI Platform

Reimagining research impact: Introducing Web of Science Research Intelligence

• SpringerLink shop

Writing a reviewer report

Whether you recommend accepting or rejecting the manuscript, keep in mind that one of your goals is to help the authors improve this and future manuscripts—not to make them give up in despair. Avoid overly negative wording or personal comments, point out the main strengths of the manuscript as well as its weaknesses, and suggest specific ways to fix the problems you identify. Also, avoid making overly brief and direct comments, as these can give your report an unfriendly tone. Reviewers for most journals are anonymous, so if anonymity is important to you, avoid comments that could make your identity obvious to the authors.

If the editor sent specific instructions for the reviewer report, or a form to fill out as part of the review, you should write your report in the requested format. If you received no specific instructions, the reviewer report should be divided into two parts:

• comments to be read only by the editor, and
• comments to be read by both the editor and the authors.

Comments for only the editor:

In this section, give the editor your recommendation for the manuscript and, more importantly, your reasons behind it. These usually have to do with the manuscript’s scientific soundness, novelty, quality, importance, and suitability for the journal. Editors take many factors into consideration when deciding whether a paper is right for their journal so providing evidence or reasoning for your recommendation is extremely helpful.

TIP: Recommendations are usually one of the following: accept manuscript in its current form, publish with minor changes, publish only if major improvements are made, or to reject the paper.

Comments for both the editor and authors:

In this section, write a detailed report reviewing the different parts of the manuscript. Start with the short summary of the manuscript you wrote after your first reading. Then, in a numbered list, explain each of the issues you found that need to be addressed. Divide the list into two sections: major issues and minor issues. First, write about the major issues, including problems with the study’s method or analysis. Next, write about the minor issues, which might include tables or figures that are difficult to read, parts that need more explanation, and suggestions to delete unnecessary text. If you think the English language of the manuscript is not suitable for publication, try to give specific examples so that the authors know what and how to address the problems. Be as specific as you can about the manuscript’s weaknesses and how to address them. If the manuscript has line numbers, include the page and line number(s) specific to the part of the study you are discussing. This will help both the authors and the editor, who may later need to judge if the authors have fixed the problems in their revised manuscript. For example, instead of, “ The explanation of the proposed mechanism is not clear. ” You might write,  “The explanation of the proposed mechanism should be more detailed. Consider referring to the work of Li and Smith, et al. (2008) and Stein and Burdak, et al. (2010). ”

Keep in mind that the authors – and even the editor – may not be native English speakers. Read over your comments after you finish writing them to check that you’ve used clear, simple wording, and that the reasons for your proposed changes are clear.

Back  │  Next

How to write a review report

Below you will find our 10-step guide with links and resources on how to write reviews for journals. Some elements may be applicable to other review activities (i.e., preprints, conferences, grants) and you are welcome to adapt them. At the end of the page we also provided links to external guides on the same topic.

• Check the reviewer guidelines
• Read the paper
• Check data and declarations
• Check reporting adherence
• Develop your comments
• Specify major vs minor comments
• Support your statements
• Add any confidential comments
• Respect transparency
• Finalise the report

EASE 10-step guide

1.   check the reviewer guidelines.

Check the journal’s reviewer guidelines which will outline what reviewing for this journal entails and the journal’s peer review model (e.g. closed or open review). If you have any questions or uncertainties about the journal’s review approach, communicate with the editor before you start. In particular, make sure to check whether the journal allows you to use generative AI or other automated tools to assist in preparing your review report and/or whether the journal allows you to  and co-review it with a colleague.

Several examples of reviewer guidelines can be found here:

• GIE Journal’ ‘How to review’ A light read, from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, covering the basic dos and don’ts of peer review with 13 rules offering some sound advice.
• PLOS One – Guidelines for Reviewers This comprehensive guide provides best practices for reviewers, including specifics of reviewing registered reports, lab and study protocols.

2.   Read the paper

Read the paper in full and make comments; it sometimes helps to read the paper first and comment on a second read. Focus on important study aspects the journal requests your input on, or consider the following:

• Any serious flaws to the hypothesis, methods, results or conclusions?
• Are the sample size and the statistical methods applied appropriate?
• Does the data support the conclusions?
• Does the reporting allow you to fully understand the research?
• Are there any concerns related to research integrity?

3.   Check data and declarations

Check information about the authors and the study provided with the paper e.g. competing interests, author contributions, ethical approval. Is sufficient data provided or accessible to enable a full review of the study? If applicable, is a protocol for the study available?

4.   Check reporting adherence

Check the reporting: where relevant, does the information provided allow the work to be reproduced and replicated? Do the aims and analyses match the pre-specified study protocol (if applicable)? Are any limitations discussed?

Reporting guidelines for specific study types can help assess if the paper reports the necessary information, you can find a wide range of reporting guidelines for different study types at the EQUATOR network . A couple of widely adopted reporting guidelines are CONSORT for clinical trials and PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

5.   Develop your comments

You can develop free-text comments, or use a structured format following manuscript sections – Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. Some journals will ask you to follow specific templates.

Ensure the comments are clear, concise and constructive, and remember to be kind to the authors when providing your feedback.

6.   Specify major vs minor comments

Specify whether issues raised are:

Major: items fundamental to the study that must be addressed and might need re-review

Minor: improvements or clarifications that do not affect the overall conclusions.

7.   Support your statements

Be specific so that the requests are clear for the authors; justify any recommendations or critiques with evidence and examples.

8.   Add any confidential comments

Many journals will have a section in their review form for confidential comments to the editor, that is, comments to raise with the editor but which will not be included in the review shared with the author. Consider whether you have any comments you’d like to share only with the editor, items in this section may include ethical concerns about the study or competing interests to declare as a reviewer.

9. Respect transparency

Some journals publish the reviews with accepted articles. If the journal does not publish reviews but you’d like to share your review publicly, you can request their permission to post it as a comment on the article (or the preprint, if applicable) or via a third-party platform such as Publons, Zenodo or ScienceOpen.

If the review provides an option to sign your review, consider whether you would like to sign your report; note that some journals operate peer review models that require reviewers to sign their reviews (e.g. the BMJ).

10.   Finalise the report

Re-read the report to check for clarity, and to ensure the tone is professional and respectful. If requested by the journal, provide your recommendation on publication (e.g. accept, revision, reject). Once ready, submit your review.

Additional guides on how to write review reports can be found here:

Detailed journal guides:

• Participating in the Peer Review Process

Publisher guides:

• How to conduct a review by Elsevier
• How to write a peer review by Clarivate
•  Dr Esther Freeman: How to become a peer reviewer

Examples of (structured peer review) templates can be found here:

• Peer review report template by Authorea
• Excellence in Peer Review checklist by Taylor and Francis
• Peer Review templates by CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology journal

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 11: Presenting Your Research

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning Objectives

• Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
• Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a  title page . The title is centred in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

• Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
• Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
• Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
• Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behaviour?

Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen, the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order.

In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal Psychological Science .

• “Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
• “Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
• “Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
• “Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
• “Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
• “How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?

For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally not necessary.

The  abstract  is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word  Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The  introduction  begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.

The Opening

The  opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behaviour (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that he or she enjoys smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it.

Breaking the Rules

Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humourous anecdote:

A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room. The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I tip?” (Jacoby, 1999, p. 3)

Although both humour and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the  literature review , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favourite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the  balance  of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to  ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The  closing  of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question or hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) [2] concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behaviour during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions. (p. 378)

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The  method section  is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centred on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.

In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on.

The  results section  is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Several journals now encourage the open sharing of raw data online.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A third preliminary issue is the reliability of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items. A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) [3] suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:

• Remind the reader of the research question.
• Give the answer to the research question in words.
• Present the relevant statistics.
• Qualify the answer if necessary.
• Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.

The  discussion  is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

• Summary of the research
• Theoretical implications
• Practical implications
• Limitations
• Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing theories? If not, how  can  they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?

The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations. Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they  would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them.

Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer the original research question, what will it take to do so? What  new  research questions has the study raised? This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end when you have made your final point (although you should avoid ending on a limitation).

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centred at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An  appendix  is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centred at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendices come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Key Takeaways

• An APA-style empirical research report consists of several standard sections. The main ones are the abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references.
• The introduction consists of an opening that presents the research question, a literature review that describes previous research on the topic, and a closing that restates the research question and comments on the method. The literature review constitutes an argument for why the current study is worth doing.
• The method section describes the method in enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study. At a minimum, it consists of a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsection.
• The results section describes the results in an organized fashion. Each primary result is presented in terms of statistical results but also explained in words.
• The discussion typically summarizes the study, discusses theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for further research.
• Practice: Look through an issue of a general interest professional journal (e.g.,  Psychological Science ). Read the opening of the first five articles and rate the effectiveness of each one from 1 ( very ineffective ) to 5 ( very effective ). Write a sentence or two explaining each rating.
• Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and identify where the opening, literature review, and closing of the introduction begin and end.
• Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and highlight in a different colour each of the following elements in the discussion: summary, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

Long Descriptions

Figure 11.1 long description: Table showing three ways of organizing an APA-style method section.

In the simple method, there are two subheadings: “Participants” (which might begin “The participants were…”) and “Design and procedure” (which might begin “There were three conditions…”).

In the typical method, there are three subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”).

In the complex method, there are four subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Materials” (“The stimuli were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”). [Return to Figure 11.1]

• Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.),  The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist  (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
• Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵

A type of research article which describes one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors.

The page at the beginning of an APA-style research report containing the title of the article, the authors’ names, and their institutional affiliation.

A summary of a research study.

The third page of a manuscript containing the research question, the literature review, and comments about how to answer the research question.

An introduction to the research question and explanation for why this question is interesting.

A description of relevant previous research on the topic being discusses and an argument for why the research is worth addressing.

The end of the introduction, where the research question is reiterated and the method is commented upon.

The section of a research report where the method used to conduct the study is described.

The main results of the study, including the results from statistical analyses, are presented in a research article.

Section of a research report that summarizes the study's results and interprets them by referring back to the study's theoretical background.

Part of a research report which contains supplemental material.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Literature Review Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Literature Review Template

If you’re working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a strong literature review chapter , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through an A-grade literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction . We start off by discussing the five core sections of a literature review chapter by unpacking our free literature review template . This includes:

• The literature review opening/ introduction section
• The theoretical framework (or foundation of theory)
• The empirical research
• The research gap
• The closing section

We then progress to the sample literature review (from an A-grade Master’s-level dissertation) to show how these concepts are applied in the literature review chapter. You can access the free resources mentioned in this video below.

PS – If you’re working on a dissertation, be sure to also check out our collection of dissertation and thesis examples here .

FAQ: Literature Review Example

Literature review example: frequently asked questions, is the sample literature review real.

Yes. The literature review example is an extract from a Master’s-level dissertation for an MBA program. It has not been edited in any way.

Can I replicate this literature review for my dissertation?

As we discuss in the video, every literature review will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your literature review to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a literature review here .

Where can I find more examples of literature reviews?

The best place to find more examples of literature review chapters would be within dissertation/thesis databases. These databases include dissertations, theses and research projects that have successfully passed the assessment criteria for the respective university, meaning that you have at least some sort of quality assurance. 

The Open Access Thesis Database (OATD) is a good starting point. 

How do I get the literature review template?

You can access our free literature review chapter template here .

Is the template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the template and you are free to use it as you wish. 

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

What will it take for you to guide me in my Ph.D research work?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

How to Write a Thorough Peer Review Report

As a peer reviewer, your job is to uphold the quality of published science by ensuring that academic papers are accurate and clearly articulated. Young scientists eager to publish their hard work will appreciate the quality feedback to help them improve their manuscript. Therefore, to be a good peer reviewer you need to be an expert in your field, be fair to the author and journal, meet deadlines, be honest in your opinion, and kind in your criticism.

How to Evaluate a Manuscript as a Peer Reviewer

Before you accept to peer review a manuscript, ensure that you:

• are familiar with the field and the methods used in the paper.
• have no conflicts of interest.
• have the time to review the paper within the given timelines.

Once you have accepted to peer review, the next step is to evaluate the manuscript. To evaluate the manuscript as a peer reviewer, experienced reviewers recommend you read the paper three times. Give yourself time to think about the research in between each reading.

First Reading

This is a quick overview of the paper. Is the manuscript publishable in the specified journal? Write a summary of the paper including the paper’s main research question and whether this question was answered. Furthermore, were the methods appropriate to address the question. If you feel the paper is unpublishable at this point, then there is no need to review it any further. Reject the paper and give your reasons. These may include discredited methods used in the paper, disagreement with the conclusion, or unreadable grammar.

Second Reading

Read the paper in detail and note down your comments, both positive and negative for each section. Here you will assess whether the author has addressed each section appropriately . Questions you should ask:

• Is the research novel?
• Was the necessary background and relevance clearly articulated?
• Was the research question appropriately addressed?
• Are the results (including figures) easy to understand and interpret?
• Were other considerations omitted?
• Were key papers in the field referenced?

Third Reading

Assess the flow, grammar, headings, references, and general organization of the paper. If the journal has their own copy-editors, then focus on the science since any grammar issues will be dealt with by the publisher.

How to Format a Peer Review Report

The format of the peer review report will vary depending on the journal’s requirements – any reviewing instructions can be checked on the journal’s website before you start. Number your comments for easy reference. A common peer review report has the following format:

Briefly describe the main research question and conclusion, as well as the relevance to the journal. Give its overall strengths and quality as well as any major weaknesses. Start with your positive comments.

Major Issues

These could be flawed research, previously published research, major grammar corrections, insufficient evidence for their conclusions, or ethical issues.

Minor Issues

These include minor corrections such as ambiguous meanings, errors in references, minor factual errors, and suggested modifications to tables and figures.

Recommendation

Give your recommendation with reasons.

Be the Author’s Friend

Keep in mind that not all research is perfect and often a paper may have minor flaws in the data. Your expertise in the field and methodology will make you aware of what kind of imperfections are common and acceptable.

Although the paper will have answered some questions, more questions may be exposed that can be answered in subsequent research. This is how the field of science grows and knowledge is built.

Help the author publish their work and if it is not suitable for the journal, then recommend they submit to a more appropriate journal. Keep your comments constructive and offer helpful suggestions. Avoid bias and unreasonable demands.

Being asked to peer review your first article may be daunting. Do you have any other suggestions for peer reviewers?

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Empowering Peer Reviewers: A roadmap for effective manuscript evaluation

Peer review has always been an essential part of scholarly publishing; serving as a rigorous…

• Publishing Research
• Thought Leadership

Redefining Academic Publishing: Discussing a new metric for time from first submission to acceptance

Publishing research has been a necessary component of academic research; it has long enabled scholars…

• Understanding Ethics

Ensuring Ethical Peer Review: A comparative analysis of COPE, ICMJE, and NISO guidelines

Peer review is a cornerstone of the academic and scientific publishing process which ensures the…

• Understanding Reviews

Nurturing Peer Review Excellence: The significance of early career researchers (ECRs)

Recently, I came across a tweet posted by my colleague expressing his frustration as his…

• AI in Academia
• Trending Now

AI Integration Can Future-Proof Peer Review — But only if we define and drive the right principles

In this ever-evolving landscape of scientific research, trust in the integrity, validity, and impartiality of…

Redefining Academic Publishing: Discussing a new metric for time from first…

Ensuring Ethical Peer Review: A comparative analysis of COPE, ICMJE, and NISO…

Will ChatGPT Disrupt Peer Review? Impact of AI on the Hallmark of Science Vigilance

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Table of Contents

Research Report

Definition:

Research Report is a written document that presents the results of a research project or study, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions, in a clear and objective manner.

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the findings of the research to the intended audience, which could be other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public.

Components of Research Report

Components of Research Report are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for the research report and provides a brief overview of the research question or problem being investigated. It should include a clear statement of the purpose of the study and its significance or relevance to the field of research. It may also provide background information or a literature review to help contextualize the research.

Literature Review

The literature review provides a critical analysis and synthesis of the existing research and scholarship relevant to the research question or problem. It should identify the gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the literature and show how the current study addresses these issues. The literature review also establishes the theoretical framework or conceptual model that guides the research.

Methodology

The methodology section describes the research design, methods, and procedures used to collect and analyze data. It should include information on the sample or participants, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques. The methodology should be clear and detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the study in a clear and objective manner. It should provide a detailed description of the data and statistics used to answer the research question or test the hypothesis. Tables, graphs, and figures may be included to help visualize the data and illustrate the key findings.

The discussion section interprets the results of the study and explains their significance or relevance to the research question or problem. It should also compare the current findings with those of previous studies and identify the implications for future research or practice. The discussion should be based on the results presented in the previous section and should avoid speculation or unfounded conclusions.

The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the study and restates the main argument or thesis presented in the introduction. It should also provide a brief overview of the contributions of the study to the field of research and the implications for practice or policy.

The references section lists all the sources cited in the research report, following a specific citation style, such as APA or MLA.

The appendices section includes any additional material, such as data tables, figures, or instruments used in the study, that could not be included in the main text due to space limitations.

Types of Research Report

Types of Research Report are as follows:

Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Doctoral degree, although it can also be written by researchers or scholars in other fields.

Research Paper

Research paper is a type of research report. A research paper is a document that presents the results of a research study or investigation. Research papers can be written in a variety of fields, including science, social science, humanities, and business. They typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.

Technical Report

A technical report is a detailed report that provides information about a specific technical or scientific problem or project. Technical reports are often used in engineering, science, and other technical fields to document research and development work.

Progress Report

A progress report provides an update on the progress of a research project or program over a specific period of time. Progress reports are typically used to communicate the status of a project to stakeholders, funders, or project managers.

Feasibility Report

A feasibility report assesses the feasibility of a proposed project or plan, providing an analysis of the potential risks, benefits, and costs associated with the project. Feasibility reports are often used in business, engineering, and other fields to determine the viability of a project before it is undertaken.

Field Report

A field report documents observations and findings from fieldwork, which is research conducted in the natural environment or setting. Field reports are often used in anthropology, ecology, and other social and natural sciences.

Experimental Report

An experimental report documents the results of a scientific experiment, including the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Experimental reports are often used in biology, chemistry, and other sciences to communicate the results of laboratory experiments.

Case Study Report

A case study report provides an in-depth analysis of a specific case or situation, often used in psychology, social work, and other fields to document and understand complex cases or phenomena.

Literature Review Report

A literature review report synthesizes and summarizes existing research on a specific topic, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge on the subject. Literature review reports are often used in social sciences, education, and other fields to identify gaps in the literature and guide future research.

Research Report Example

Following is a Research Report Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Academic Performance among High School Students

This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students. The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The findings indicate that there is a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students. The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers, as they highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities.

Introduction:

Social media has become an integral part of the lives of high school students. With the widespread use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, students can connect with friends, share photos and videos, and engage in discussions on a range of topics. While social media offers many benefits, concerns have been raised about its impact on academic performance. Many studies have found a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance among high school students (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012).

Given the growing importance of social media in the lives of high school students, it is important to investigate its impact on academic performance. This study aims to address this gap by examining the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students.

Methodology:

The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The questionnaire was developed based on previous studies and was designed to measure the frequency and duration of social media use, as well as academic performance.

The participants were selected using a convenience sampling technique, and the survey questionnaire was distributed in the classroom during regular school hours. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

The findings indicate that the majority of high school students use social media platforms on a daily basis, with Facebook being the most popular platform. The results also show a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students.

Discussion:

The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. The negative correlation between social media use and academic performance suggests that strategies should be put in place to help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. For example, educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the negative impact of social media on academic performance among high school students. The findings highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. Further research is needed to explore the specific mechanisms by which social media use affects academic performance and to develop effective strategies for addressing this issue.

Limitations:

One limitation of this study is the use of convenience sampling, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Future studies should use random sampling techniques to increase the representativeness of the sample. Another limitation is the use of self-reported measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Future studies could use objective measures of social media use and academic performance, such as tracking software and school records.

Implications:

The findings of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. Educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. For example, teachers could use social media platforms to share relevant educational resources and facilitate online discussions. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. They could also engage in open communication with their children to understand their social media use and its impact on their academic performance. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students. For example, schools could implement social media policies that restrict access during class time and encourage responsible use.

References:

• Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
• Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 8(1), 1-19.
• Pantic, I. (2014). Online social networking and mental health. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 652-657.
• Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958.

Note*: Above mention, Example is just a sample for the students’ guide. Do not directly copy and paste as your College or University assignment. Kindly do some research and Write your own.

Applications of Research Report

Research reports have many applications, including:

• Communicating research findings: The primary application of a research report is to communicate the results of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public. The report serves as a way to share new knowledge, insights, and discoveries with others in the field.
• Informing policy and practice : Research reports can inform policy and practice by providing evidence-based recommendations for decision-makers. For example, a research report on the effectiveness of a new drug could inform regulatory agencies in their decision-making process.
• Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research in a particular area. Other researchers may use the findings and methodology of a report to develop new research questions or to build on existing research.
• Evaluating programs and interventions : Research reports can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and interventions in achieving their intended outcomes. For example, a research report on a new educational program could provide evidence of its impact on student performance.
• Demonstrating impact : Research reports can be used to demonstrate the impact of research funding or to evaluate the success of research projects. By presenting the findings and outcomes of a study, research reports can show the value of research to funders and stakeholders.
• Enhancing professional development : Research reports can be used to enhance professional development by providing a source of information and learning for researchers and practitioners in a particular field. For example, a research report on a new teaching methodology could provide insights and ideas for educators to incorporate into their own practice.

How to write Research Report

Here are some steps you can follow to write a research report:

• Identify the research question: The first step in writing a research report is to identify your research question. This will help you focus your research and organize your findings.
• Conduct research : Once you have identified your research question, you will need to conduct research to gather relevant data and information. This can involve conducting experiments, reviewing literature, or analyzing data.
• Organize your findings: Once you have gathered all of your data, you will need to organize your findings in a way that is clear and understandable. This can involve creating tables, graphs, or charts to illustrate your results.
• Write the report: Once you have organized your findings, you can begin writing the report. Start with an introduction that provides background information and explains the purpose of your research. Next, provide a detailed description of your research methods and findings. Finally, summarize your results and draw conclusions based on your findings.
• Proofread and edit: After you have written your report, be sure to proofread and edit it carefully. Check for grammar and spelling errors, and make sure that your report is well-organized and easy to read.
• Include a reference list: Be sure to include a list of references that you used in your research. This will give credit to your sources and allow readers to further explore the topic if they choose.
• Format your report: Finally, format your report according to the guidelines provided by your instructor or organization. This may include formatting requirements for headings, margins, fonts, and spacing.

Purpose of Research Report

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the results of a research study to a specific audience, such as peers in the same field, stakeholders, or the general public. The report provides a detailed description of the research methods, findings, and conclusions.

Some common purposes of a research report include:

• Sharing knowledge: A research report allows researchers to share their findings and knowledge with others in their field. This helps to advance the field and improve the understanding of a particular topic.
• Identifying trends: A research report can identify trends and patterns in data, which can help guide future research and inform decision-making.
• Addressing problems: A research report can provide insights into problems or issues and suggest solutions or recommendations for addressing them.
• Evaluating programs or interventions : A research report can evaluate the effectiveness of programs or interventions, which can inform decision-making about whether to continue, modify, or discontinue them.
• Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies.

When to Write Research Report

A research report should be written after completing the research study. This includes collecting data, analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. Once the research is complete, the report should be written in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

In academic settings, research reports are often required as part of coursework or as part of a thesis or dissertation. In this case, the report should be written according to the guidelines provided by the instructor or institution.

In other settings, such as in industry or government, research reports may be required to inform decision-making or to comply with regulatory requirements. In these cases, the report should be written as soon as possible after the research is completed in order to inform decision-making in a timely manner.

Overall, the timing of when to write a research report depends on the purpose of the research, the expectations of the audience, and any regulatory requirements that need to be met. However, it is important to complete the report in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

Characteristics of Research Report

There are several characteristics of a research report that distinguish it from other types of writing. These characteristics include:

• Objective: A research report should be written in an objective and unbiased manner. It should present the facts and findings of the research study without any personal opinions or biases.
• Systematic: A research report should be written in a systematic manner. It should follow a clear and logical structure, and the information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand and follow.
• Detailed: A research report should be detailed and comprehensive. It should provide a thorough description of the research methods, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research report should be accurate and based on sound research methods. The findings and conclusions should be supported by data and evidence.
• Organized: A research report should be well-organized. It should include headings and subheadings to help the reader navigate the report and understand the main points.
• Clear and concise: A research report should be written in clear and concise language. The information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand, and unnecessary jargon should be avoided.
• Citations and references: A research report should include citations and references to support the findings and conclusions. This helps to give credit to other researchers and to provide readers with the opportunity to further explore the topic.

Advantages of Research Report

Research reports have several advantages, including:

• Communicating research findings: Research reports allow researchers to communicate their findings to a wider audience, including other researchers, stakeholders, and the general public. This helps to disseminate knowledge and advance the understanding of a particular topic.
• Providing evidence for decision-making : Research reports can provide evidence to inform decision-making, such as in the case of policy-making, program planning, or product development. The findings and conclusions can help guide decisions and improve outcomes.
• Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research on a particular topic. Other researchers can build on the findings and conclusions of the report, which can lead to further discoveries and advancements in the field.
• Demonstrating expertise: Research reports can demonstrate the expertise of the researchers and their ability to conduct rigorous and high-quality research. This can be important for securing funding, promotions, and other professional opportunities.
• Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies. Producing a high-quality research report can help ensure compliance with these requirements.

Limitations of Research Report

Despite their advantages, research reports also have some limitations, including:

• Time-consuming: Conducting research and writing a report can be a time-consuming process, particularly for large-scale studies. This can limit the frequency and speed of producing research reports.
• Expensive: Conducting research and producing a report can be expensive, particularly for studies that require specialized equipment, personnel, or data. This can limit the scope and feasibility of some research studies.
• Limited generalizability: Research studies often focus on a specific population or context, which can limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations or contexts.
• Potential bias : Researchers may have biases or conflicts of interest that can influence the findings and conclusions of the research study. Additionally, participants may also have biases or may not be representative of the larger population, which can limit the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Accessibility: Research reports may be written in technical or academic language, which can limit their accessibility to a wider audience. Additionally, some research may be behind paywalls or require specialized access, which can limit the ability of others to read and use the findings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,106,756 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Academic Skills: Paper Reviews

• Academic Skills
• Sample Paper Reviews
• Scholarly Research and Writing With AI Tools
• Meet the Peer Mentors
• Previous Page: Academic Skills
• Next Page: Sample Paper Reviews

Get Feedback on Your Writing

In a paper review, you can expect individualized suggestions and instruction to improve your writing skills.

Steps for getting started

• Register in myPASS (my Paper Appointment Scheduling System)
• Make an appointment
• Wait for an automated email with feedback in your own draft

Review the section on How to Register and Schedule in myPASS for more information.

Schedule a Paper Review in myPASS

What to Expect in a Paper Review

We provide constructive feedback on topics like:

• Organization and paragraphing
• Effective integration of evidence
• Cohesion and flow
• Scholarly voice and grammar

We typically focus on just a few topics or patterns to provide a helpful and manageable quantity of feedback.

Paper Reviews ARE

• Individualized feedback from a writing professional
• For students working on coursework including discussion posts, course papers, master’s capstones, and the doctoral premise and prospectus
• Focused on skill building and instruction based on patterns in a student’s draft
• Asynchronous: There is no phone call or online meeting time
• An optional, supplementary service available to Walden University students at no additional cost

Paper Reviews ARE NOT

• For proofreading or editing (try  Grammarly and these  Proofreading Strategies )
• For specific writing or APA questions; for those, you can Ask OASIS
• For students working on doctoral capstone drafts beyond the prospectus
• Connected to a university approval process

See Examples of What to Expect in Our Sample Paper Reviews

“It has been a challenge figuring out the areas I needed to improve on, and [the Specialist's] comments and responses have helped me a great deal. I'm not there yet, but this is helping me learn how to structure my writing.” – Walden Doctoral Student

How to Register and Schedule in myPASS

Documents we review, register in mypass, make a paper review appointment and attach your documents, join a waitlist, view your scheduled paper reviews, attach a document at a later date, cancel an appointment.

“The feedback was very thorough and the tips were clear enough to apply to my writing immediately.” – Walden Doctoral Student

Are you working on your doctoral proposal or final study?

Writing support for doctoral proposals and final studies can be found on the Doctoral Capstone Form and Style site.

Doctoral Capstone Form and Style

“[The Specialist] helped me to see where I could improve my writing and encouraged me in my good writing skills! I will definitely reach out in the future for writing assistance! Thank you!” – Walden Master’s Student

Our Mission

We are writing experts who work with Walden students of all abilities. Through our one-on-one paper reviews, we help students develop their academic writing skills as emerging scholars and encourage students to engage in an ongoing writing process.

What Students Are Saying About Paper Reviews

“The [Writing Support team] is one of the most important resources at Walden University and I probably would not be passing my classes without their assistance, even though I had considered myself a proficient writer before attending Walden.  Every single person who has reviewed my papers is always professional and provides excellent advice while encouraging my writing to continue.” – Walden Bachelor’s Student

“Having another set of eyes read my paper and notice things that I missed is very helpful. I am glad for her skills in reviewing my paper.” – Walden Master’s Student

“The feedback made me more aware of how I can strengthen my writing. Also, it really helped with the resources and in-text cites.” – Walden Master’s Student

“I appreciate all the help I have received from you in the last few months.  You truly have been pivotal in my journey. Thank you :)” – Walden Master’s Student

“I have never used a writing support service before. What a wonderful introduction! I will be submitting papers often, and I am looking forward to learning and improving.” – Walden Master’s Student

• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

53 performance review examples to boost growth

Jump to section

The importance of performance reviews

53 performance review examples, 3 tips for delivering a performance review to an underperformer, a performance review is an opportunity to foster growth.

Even the most well-intentioned criticism can be hard to hear. 

If you need to give feedback to a peer or employee, you might feel nervous. After all, you can probably empathize — most of us have been in their position. You want the person to know where they excel and how to improve, but you don’t want to come off as harsh or lose your authority. It’s a delicate balance.

When sharing professional feedback, you need to achieve that perfect equilibrium to motivate your team to continue doing their best work. Perfect your delivery by studying these 53 performance review examples.

A performance review -– also known as a performance appraisal — evaluates how well an employee is tracking toward goals and upholding the company vision and values . This formal assessment documents strengths and weaknesses , expectations for improvement , and other relevant employee feedback , like kudos for a standout performance. 

Performance reviews are essential because they provide managers (or employees assessing their peers) with a set time and structure for delivering in-depth, example-driven feedback. It’s also an opportunity for the reviewer to set metrics-based expectations so the reviewee knows how to improve for next time. 

Plus, performance reviews are an excellent opportunity to open lines of communication between peers or a manager and their direct reports. Both sides can clarify questions or concerns about performance, and the reviewer may use this time to motivate the reviewee. These types of workplace conversations build more trusting, engaged, and caring professional relationships. 

Unfortunately, typical performance reviews only inspire 14% of employees . In other words, reviewers need to step up their own performance if they want to make an impression during these meetings.

Effective performance reviews are level-headed and honest. They aren’t excuses to scold an employee for a mistake or poor performance . They make time to offer constructive criticism, praise what the team member is doing well, and provide suggested areas for improvement. 

To keep the conversation as productive as possible, study our list of performance evaluation examples that provide focused feedback and maintain an upbeat, inspiring tone that doesn’t undermine the seriousness of the commentary. 

Here are 53 employee evaluation examples for various scenarios. 

Communication

Good workplace communication helps teams clearly express ideas and work through problems effectively. Respectful communication also fosters healthy social relationships between peers, which are essential for a positive work culture. 

When you assess a colleague on this interpersonal skill , focus on the politeness of their interactions, the coherence of how they present information, and their ability to listen to others actively .

Use performance evaluation comments like the following when a colleague has done an exceptional job of clearly and respectfully communicating:

1. “I’ve noticed how clearly you communicate complex concepts to clients. I really admire this ability.” 

2. “You’re excellent at solving conflicts . Thank you for taking on this responsibility.” 

3. “Several of your teammates have told me how pleasant it is to work with you. Thank you for being such a respectful communicator.”

4. “I’ve been observing your standout negotiation skills and will continue to look for opportunities for you to use them.”

5. “I’d like to congratulate you on your clear and easy-to-follow presentations. Would you consider giving a workshop for your teammates?”

Improvement suggestions 

Poor communication leads to confusion and fraught interactions. Plus, muddled instructions or explanations can cause project errors, and negative delivery can harm team and stakeholder relationships . It’s important for each team member to have this skill.

Here’s how to cite communication that needs improving: 

6. “I’ve noticed that you sometimes miss part of an explanation. I have helpful materials on active listening I recommend taking a look at.” 

7. “Clients have noted that your explanations are difficult to understand. You have a strong grasp of complex concepts, but let’s work together on ways to break them down for an unfamiliar audience.”

8. “I’d appreciate it if you could communicate when there’s an issue on a project or you have a question. I’ve seen delays and errors due to a lack of updates.”

9. “Some of your emails to clients have had spelling and grammar errors. Could you make an extra effort to check your work so that we keep our company communication as polished as possible?” 

10. “Your teammates have cited rude interactions with you. We must keep communication respectful. Is something going on that’s causing you frustration or prompting these interactions?”

Innovation and creativity 

Innovative solutions and creativity allow organizations to generate new products and services, build a more resonant brand image, and connect successfully with their target audience. When giving a performance review, provide positive feedback on how the person contributes to the team or company’s growth. 

Teammates who offer fresh ideas for projects or ways to improve company processes to boost efficiency deserve a proverbial pat on the back. Here are five performance appraisal examples that show how to give it:

11. “Last quarter, you saved our team 50 hours of administrative work with your solution for streamlining databases. Thank you for this invaluable idea.”

12. “The marketing campaign you created to target younger audiences has been one of our most successful. Everyone on our team has something to learn from you.” 

13. “You’ve been integral to launching one of the most innovative apps on the market. You should be proud of yourself. You’re helping a lot of end users.” 

14. “I admire the way you creatively approach complex problems . You resolved a tricky supply chain issue that kept our deliveries on track.”

15. “You deeply understand the brand image and voice. All of your marketing copy and designs represent us well.”

Improvement suggestions

Team members in creativity- and innovation-driven roles may stagnate. Your organization might have a performance review template you can follow to zero on in how to improve in these areas. You can also use the following feedback pieces to push them in the right direction:

16. "You’re one of our most valued graphic designers. However, I’ve noticed that your recent designs have been similar. Let’s talk about ways to innovate.”

17. “Since you’re in a leadership role, I would like it if you took more initiative to offer creative solutions to problems . I have some reading to guide you.” 

18. “I’ve noticed that your copy lacks that fresh voice we admire. Have you also tracked this change, and what solutions do you have to liven up the writing?”

19. “You’ve offered some of the most innovative development ideas our company’s seen. But you’ve been quiet in brainstorming sessions lately. Let’s talk about what may be going on.”

20. “Your latest product innovation had flaws resulting from rushed work and a lack of attention to detail. Does that resonate?”

Everyone can be a leader — regardless of their rank at an organization. Team members set examples for their peers, and managers guide reports toward success. Whether you’re giving a performance review for a veteran or an entry-level employee, address their leadership skills where you can. 

When an employee exceeds expectations by mentoring others, taking charge of problems, and upholding organizational values , recognize their outstanding work with phrases like the following:

21. “Your positive attitude , willingness to take on more responsibility, and ability to explain concepts to your peers makes you an example to all.”

22. “I appreciate your advances in developing better leadership skills, like clear communication and excellent negotiation tactics. Kudos.” 

23. “I know you started here recently, but many people already look up to you. You take initiative, aren’t afraid to share ideas, and treat your peers respectfully.” 

24. “Since you’ve become a project manager, the development team consistently delivers quality outputs on time. You’re doing a great job guiding the group.” 

25. “When there was a conflict with a client last month, you stepped in to manage it. You have the makings of a great leader.”

If an employee like a project manager or team lead isn’t mentoring others as well as they could, a performance review is the perfect moment to tackle the issue. And if you have a stellar employee who isn’t showing the leadership and initiative required to earn them a promotion, they might need some encouragement to strengthen these skills. Use the following examples as a guide for wording your feedback:

26. “You’ve consistently been an excellent leader, but teammates have reported a lack of mentorship on recent projects, leading to confusion and poor results. What can we do to improve the clarity of your communication and guidance?”

27. “I’ve noticed that you’re stepping back from public speaking opportunities. You’re a strong leader already, but giving talks is an inevitable part of your role. Here’s information on a speaking course I took that could help.”

28. “Some of your teammates have said you’re difficult to approach with a problem. Let’s work to improve your communication skills to make others comfortable asking you for help.” 

29. “Your communication and mentorship skills are unmatched, but you still have to improve your time management skills. Several projects have run late, impacting client deliveries.” 

30. “You form excellent social relationships with your team, but you may be getting too close. I’m concerned you could lose your authority if you continue to act more like a peer than a mentor.” 

Collaboration and teamwork

Teams must work well together — it’s synergy that allows them to accomplish more than they’d be able to alone. Collaboration drives better organizational results and fosters a communicative, innovative work environment. Here’s how to tackle this topic in a performance appraisal.

Certain team members go above and beyond to help peers, manage conflicts, and share their knowledge. Reward them with statements like the following: 

31. “You’re an excellent resource for new team members. Thank you for being willing to share what you know.” 

32. “Your ability to adapt when obstacles arise and encourage your teammates to do the same has saved us from late deliveries several times. Congratulations, and thank you.”

33. “You didn’t have to navigate that conflict between your peers last week, but you stepped up. I think everyone in your group learned something from you that day.” 

34. “I know you’d like to be doing more on projects, but I appreciate that you’re splitting the work with newer teammates so they can learn. Exciting opportunities are coming your way soon.” 

35. “Your team traditionally had trouble working together. Thank you for identifying their strengths and guiding them as a leader to use them in harmony.” 

Employees resisting participation in a team or creating conflicts must change behaviors to help their peers thrive. Here are a few ways to suggest improvements: 

36. “I’ve noticed that you’ve been canceling team meetings and avoiding social events. Let’s talk about what’s going on.” 

37. “It’s great to challenge your peers' ideas, but I’ve repeatedly observed you push contrary thoughts when the rest of the team has reached a consensus. This can hold up projects, so I’d like to ask you to be more flexible.” 

38. “I know you’ve been very busy, but could you take more time to share your skills with others? There are new team members who could learn from you.” 

39. “You’re sometimes quick to nix others’ ideas. Try listening to their suggestions with a more open mind to be a better team player.” 

40. “You’re an involved leader, and that’s an excellent trait. But sometimes, you get too close to a project, and your guidance borders on micromanaging . I’d encourage you to try taking a step back when the team is working well together.”

Work ethic and organization

Punctuality, time management , and planning keep work flowing. In performance reviews, ensure all team members understand how their work ethics contribute to overall success.  

Show your appreciation to those employees who keep administrative tasks running smoothly. Here are some examples:

41. “Thank you for changing our customer relationship management system. Now everyone can access data more easily, and it’s improved our workflow.” 

42. “Your persistence in implementing the Agile project management framework has paid off. We’re delivering better, more timely products to clients.”

43. “You’re never late and sometimes even early. I appreciate your dedication to punctuality. It helps meetings run on time, and the day gets off to a strong start.”

44. “You always answer clients’ emails promptly. Thank you for your dedication to excellent customer service.” 

45. “As a project manager, you do a great job resolving teammate’s blockers efficiently. This allows them to perform tasks confidently and keeps projects on track.” 

Improvement suggestion

Employees who consistently arrive late or have trouble organizing tasks and following company processes negatively impact others’ ability to work well — not to mention their own. Here are constructive employee review examples for those cases: 

46. “You’re often tardy to meetings, which causes your teammates and clients to wait. This can be frustrating for stakeholders. I’d like to share some tips for time management.” 

47. “I’ve noticed you consistently turn in work late. I’m concerned you may have too much on your plate. Let’s assess your workload.”

48. “Client emails are falling through the cracks, making us look like we don’t care. Here’s a system I use to ensure I respond to every email quickly.”  

49. “I understand the new customer relationship management system is tricky, but we need everyone to get on board. Would it be helpful if I set up an additional training session to walk you through the software?”

50. “You didn’t meet your goals this quarter, so I’m modifying them for the upcoming one. Please let me know if you need tools, skills, or support to make achieving these goals possible.”

Performance review summary examples

Wrap up your review by revisiting what the employee has done well and highlighting the improvements they should make. Here are three examples you can model your performance review summary on:

51. “You’ve improved your communication and public speaking skills this quarter, making you a stronger leader. But you can still work on your task and time management skills by implementing better organizational practices.” 

52. “Your first few months at the company have been a success. You’ve learned to use our tools and processes, and your teammates enjoy working with you. Next quarter, I’d like you to take more initiative in brainstorming sessions.” 

53. “You’re a long-time valued employee, and you have a unique talent as a graphic designer. Your social media campaign last quarter was top-notch, but others have been stagnant. I know you can tap into your talents and do more innovative work.”

You’re a compassionate leader and never want to hurt anyone’s feelings. But in a performance review , you may have to deliver tricky constructive criticism . You’re giving this feedback with the best intentions, but doing so might make the other person defensive. Keep the conversation productive and focus on framing improvement as a positive with these three tips:

• Start and end on a high note: Open the conversation with what the employee has done well and circle back to this point after giving criticism. This will remind the employee of their value. 
• Use metrics: Don’t run a performance review on “gut feelings.” Quantifiable metrics and clear feedback allow you to identify areas of improvement. You must demonstrate specific examples and measurable figures to back up your claims. Otherwise, your criticism can seem unfounded. 
• Offer suggestions: An employee may not know how to interpret feedback and translate it into action items. And they might have some concluding performance review questions about how to improve. Offer help and a professional development plan so the person feels inspired, capable, and supported in making the changes you suggest.

Many fear receiving and giving sub-optimal feedback. However, in performance reviews, colleagues inevitably highlight negative aspects of a person’s work.

But if you establish a healthy balance between recognizing an employee’s strengths and offering constructive feedback for improvement (like in our performance review examples), these sessions turn into growth opportunities. Your colleagues take on new challenges, acquire better skills, and become more understanding teammates thanks to criticism.

And guess what? The next performance review will be less nerve-wracking for everyone involved.

Lead with confidence and authenticity

Develop your leadership and strategic management skills with the help of an expert Coach.

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

What is financial coaching, and why do you need it?

How to coach your team to success: 5 key tips for managers, 7 types of employee coaching (and why you can’t afford to miss out), how coaching drove $10m in additional sales, how professional coaching can be a force multiplier for the military, coaching during crisis: new betterup research shows coaching helps employees navigate change and uncertainty, what to get coaching on here’s what managers are saying, innovations in coaching: growth through connection for an evolving world of work, introducing betterup, and why everyone needs a coach in their corner, similar articles, 31 examples of problem solving performance review phrases, 17 positive feedback examples to develop a winning team, leverage love languages at work to improve your office culture, 10 performance review tips to drastically move the needle, how to give positive comments to your boss, 5 ways to recognize employees, how to praise someone professionally on their work (with examples), 25 performance review questions (and how to use them), 16 constructive feedback examples — and tips for how to use them, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

EHR-based Case Identification of Pediatric Long COVID: A Report from the RECOVER EHR Cohort

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Morgan Botdorf
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Vitaly Lorman
• ORCID record for Hiroki Morizono
• Info/History
• Supplementary material
• Preview PDF

Objective Long COVID, marked by persistent, recurring, or new symptoms post-COVID-19 infection, impacts children’s well-being yet lacks a unified clinical definition. This study evaluates the performance of an empirically derived Long COVID case identification algorithm, or computable phenotype, with manual chart review in a pediatric sample. This approach aims to facilitate large-scale research efforts to understand this condition better.

Methods The algorithm, composed of diagnostic codes empirically associated with Long COVID, was applied to a cohort of pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the RECOVER PCORnet EHR database. The algorithm classified 31,781 patients with conclusive, probable, or possible Long COVID and 307,686 patients without evidence of Long COVID. A chart review was performed on a subset of patients (n=651) to determine the overlap between the two methods. Instances of discordance were reviewed to understand the reasons for differences.

Results The sample comprised 651 pediatric patients (339 females, Mage = 10.10 years) across 16 hospital systems. Results showed moderate overlap between phenotype and chart review Long COVID identification (accuracy = 0.62, PPV = 0.49, NPV = 0.75); however, there were also numerous cases of disagreement. No notable differences were found when the analyses were stratified by age at infection or era of infection. Further examination of the discordant cases revealed that the most common cause of disagreement was the clinician reviewers’ tendency to attribute Long COVID-like symptoms to prior medical conditions. The performance of the phenotype improved when prior medical conditions were considered (accuracy = 0.71, PPV = 0.65, NPV = 0.74).

Conclusions Although there was moderate overlap between the two methods, the discrepancies between the two sources are likely attributed to the lack of consensus on a Long COVID clinical definition. It is essential to consider the strengths and limitations of each method when developing Long COVID classification algorithms.

Competing Interest Statement

Dr. Mejias reports funding from Janssen, Merck for research support, and Janssen, Merck and Sanofi-Pasteur for Advisory Board participation; Dr. Rao reports prior grant support from GSK and Biofire and is a consultant for Sequiris. Dr. Jhaveri is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Seqirus and Dynavax, and receives an editorial stipend from Elsevier. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Agreement OT2HL161847-01 as part of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) program of research.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained under Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY) protocol #21-08-508. BRANY IRB waived the need for consent and HIPAA authorization.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Abbreviations

View the discussion thread.

Supplementary Material

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Subject Area

• Addiction Medicine (324)
• Allergy and Immunology (633)
• Anesthesia (168)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2403)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (289)
• Dermatology (207)
• Emergency Medicine (381)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (852)
• Epidemiology (11801)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (705)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3771)
• Geriatric Medicine (350)
• Health Economics (637)
• Health Informatics (2410)
• Health Policy (940)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (905)
• Hematology (342)
• HIV/AIDS (787)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13348)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (769)
• Medical Education (369)
• Medical Ethics (105)
• Nephrology (402)
• Neurology (3524)
• Nursing (199)
• Nutrition (529)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (681)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (670)
• Oncology (1835)
• Ophthalmology (540)
• Orthopedics (222)
• Otolaryngology (287)
• Pain Medicine (234)
• Palliative Medicine (67)
• Pathology (447)
• Pediatrics (1039)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (426)
• Primary Care Research (424)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3195)
• Public and Global Health (6185)
• Radiology and Imaging (1293)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (751)
• Respiratory Medicine (832)
• Rheumatology (380)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (374)
• Sports Medicine (324)
• Surgery (407)
• Toxicology (50)
• Transplantation (172)
• Urology (147)

• Open access
• Published: 23 May 2024

Validation and optimal cut-off score of the World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5) as a screening tool for depression among patients with schizophrenia

• Feten Fekih-Romdhane 1 , 2 ,
• Fadila Al Mouzakzak 3 ,
• Ghinwa Abilmona 3 ,
• Oussama Dahdouh 3 , 4 &
• Souheil Hallit 5 , 6 , 7  

BMC Psychiatry volume  24 , Article number:  391 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The utility of the World Health Organization Wellbeing Index (WHO-5) as rapid screening tool for depression has not yet been researched in the context of schizophrenia. The goals of this study were twofold: (1) to test the psychometric properties of the WHO-5 in a sample of Arabic-speaking patients with schizophrenia from Lebanon, with particular emphasis on validating the WHO-5 as a screening tool for wellbeing and depression in patients with schizophrenia; and (2) to determine the optimal cut-off point to identify schizophrenia patients with depression.

Chronic, remitted patients with schizophrenia took part in this cross-sectional study between August and October 2023 ( n  = 117; mean age of 57.86 ± 10.88 years and 63.3% males). The Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) was included as index of validity. For the validation of the WHO-5 scale, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the original structure of the scale. To assess the discriminatory validity of the Arabic version of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression, we conducted a Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, taking the WHO-5 reversed score against the dichotomized CDSS score at a cut off value of 6.

The results of CFA supported the originally proposed unidimensional structure of the measure, with good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.80), concurrent validity, and cross-sex measurement invariance. The WHO-5 showed a sensitivity of 0.8 and a specificity of 0.7 in the detection of depression with a cut-off point of 9.5. The validity of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression was supported by the excellent discrimination AUC value of 0.838. Based on this WHO-5 cut-off value, 42.6% of the patients were screened as having a depression.

The study contributes to the field by showing that the WHO-5 is a concise and convenient self-report measure for quickly screening and monitoring depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. It is therefore highly recommended to apply this cut-off point for screening and follow-up assessments. The current findings will hopefully encourage clinicians and researchers working in Arab settings, who are often confronted with significant time and resource constraints, to start using the WHO-5 to aid their efforts in mitigating depression in this vulnerable population and fostering research in this under-researched area.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide [ 1 ]. It is now largely acknowledged that depression is considered to be a separate entity that is commonly encountered in schizophrenia, with an estimated pooled prevalence of 28.6% [ 2 ].

Depression in schizophrenia

The occurrence of depression in patients with schizophrenia causes substantial family, social, and economic burdens. Depression in schizophrenia negatively affects quality of life [ 3 ], and leads to increased suicide risk [ 4 ], as well as higher utilization of health services and criminal justice systems [ 5 ]. In addition, there is evidence that depression is commonly comorbid with anxiety, and that both conditions are significantly correlated with each other in patients with schizophrenia [ 6 ]. Prior research has also demonstrated that depression is a significant predictor of social functioning decline [ 7 ] and worse long-term global functional outcomes [ 8 ] in people diagnosed with schizophrenia. Despite its high prevalence and significant clinical and socioeconomic impacts, it remains under-detected and inadequately treated [ 9 ]. According to a recent meta-analysis [ 10 ], the severity of depressive symptoms remains persistent and shows no more than modest improvement in the course of illness regardless of the follow-up length for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. According to the British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines on the treatment of schizophrenia, the treatment of comorbid depressive symptoms is not receiving the warranted attention given how often they occur [ 11 ]. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines have pointed to the importance of routinely monitoring patients with schizophrenia for a possible coexisting depression [ 12 ]. This suggests that strategies for more effective monitoring, evaluation and management of depression in schizophrenia, especially in resource-limited settings, is needed. To this end, accurate measurement instruments which enable assessing depression in this specific population are essential.

Measurement instruments of depression in patients with schizophrenia

A systematic review of instruments available to evaluate depression occurring in the context of schizophrenia could identify five clinician-rated (i.e., the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—Depression subscale, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale—Depression subscale, the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia [CDSS]) and only one self-report (i.e., the Beck Depression Inventory) measures reliable [ 13 ]. Although strong evidence indicates that the CDSS outperforms other depression tools in terms of validity and reliability in patients with schizophrenia [ 13 , 14 ], it may require a considerable amount of time and interviewers’ training to be completed. For this reason, and despite recommending the use the CDSS as the most reliable and valid for the assessment of depressive symptoms of patients with schizophrenia in both daily clinical practice and in research, Lako et al. [ 13 ] called in their meta-analysis for the development of a novel valid self-report measure that can be more expedient for use in clinical practice. A more adequate and efficient alternative that could be considered for repeated assessments in which time and resources are critical factors is the self-report Five-item World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5) [ 15 ].

The psychometric potential of the WHO-5 in patients with schizophrenia

The WHO-5 is a validated global rating measure initially designed to evaluate self-reported well-being in primary health care patients [ 15 ]. This shorter version was created from a longer 28-item original version [ 16 ] which was employed in a WHO multicentre study conducted in eight European countries [ 17 ]. The WHO-5 is composed of five positively phrased items (e.g., “I woke up feeling fresh and rested”) with the aim of measuring positive well-being, and scored on a five-point scale rated from 5 (all of the time) to 0 (none of the time). After its release, the WHO-5 has been translated into over 30 languages and became a widely used instrument in research projects around the globe, with considerable evidence supporting its good psychometric properties and utility [ 18 ]. The use of the WHO-5 has considerably increased in mental health settings, as it has been growingly considered a valuable patient-reported outcome assessment in a large array of medical settings and an important research measurement instrument in clinical studies [ 19 ]. However, the number of research conducted on psychometric properties of the WHO-5 in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders remains very limited, despite the measure having been previously applied in schizophrenia research (e.g [ 20 , 21 ]). The few psychometric research conducted among this patient population showed that the WHO-5 has good validity, reliability and an invariant unidimensional structure across age, sex, and outpatient/inpatient status [ 22 , 23 ].

Beyond its usefulness in the measurement and monitoring of well-being, the WHO-5 was found to be one of the main measures which has extensively demonstrated sufficient validity to screen for and early detect depression in different clinical and non-clinical populations across several settings, cultures and countries. Indeed, the WHO-5 showed clinical utility in the screening for depressive symptoms in community adults [ 24 ], healthcare workers during the COVID-19 [ 25 ], older adults residing in nursing homes [ 26 ], as well as in various clinical populations, such as patients with diabetes [ 27 ], people diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease [ 28 ], and adolescents with major depressive disorder [ 29 ]. A systematic review of the literature by Topp et al. [ 18 ] encompassing 213 studies revealed that the WHO-5 is sensitive and specific screening instrument for depression, and has a very high applicability across research fields. Surprisingly however, the utility of the WHO-5 as rapid screening tool for depression has not yet been researched in the context of schizophrenia. There is evidence to show that cut-off scores for the WHO-5 when used as a screening tool for depression cannot be generalized to different populations and settings [ 18 ]. For this reason, there appears the need to validate and determine the best cut-off score of the WHO-5 that predicts schizophrenia patients at risk for depression. As a brief and simple-to-administer tool in busy clinical services, the WHO-5 can help clinicians prevent an additional burden of depression among patients with schizophrenia by early detecting it, especially in low-resources settings in Arab countries like Lebanon.

Rationale of the present study

Comorbid depression in schizophrenia is found to be more prevalent in middle-income compared to high-income countries [ 2 ]. This can be explained by the fact that risk factors for comorbid depression in schizophrenia, such as trauma, social adversity, and medical conditions [ 8 , 30 ], occur highly frequently in Low-Middle-Income Countries (such as the Arab Middle East and North Africa region [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]). For instance, studies found prevalence rates of depression in patients with schizophrenia of 25.6% in Saudi Arabia [ 34 ], 30% in Egypt [ 35 ], 36.3% in Qatar [ 34 ]. More particularly, Lebanon has been witnessing years of conflicts and continuing social, political and economic unrest. The 2020 Beirut blast and the COVID-19 pandemic further deteriorated the situation in Lebanon and significantly impacted people’s mental health [ 36 ]. The multilayered crisis has led to multiple negative consequences in Lebanese clinical populations, including an increase in the rates of depressive symptoms [ 37 ]. At the same time, prevention and research efforts regarding depression in schizophrenia are still poorly developed or inappropriate in this part of the world [ 38 ]. This considerable early detection and intervention gap may be mainly attributed to a very limited number of mental health professionals and a budget allowed for mental health that is “far below the range to promote mental health services” [ 39 ].

Providing evidence for the validity (sensitivity and specificity) and cultural appropriateness of an Arabic-language, user-friendly tool such as the WHO-5 in predicting depression in Arab patients with schizophrenia could aid in the planning and implementation of assessments, prevention and interventions throughout the disease course. Therefore, the goals of this study were twofold: (1) to test the psychometric properties of the WHO-5 (in terms of factor structure, internal consistency, sex invariance, and concurrent validity) in a sample of Arabic-speaking patients with schizophrenia from Lebanon, with particular emphasis on validating the WHO-5 as a screening tool for wellbeing and depression in patients with schizophrenia; and (2) to determine the optimal cut-off point to identify schizophrenia patients with depression. To achieve the second objective, the clinician-rated schizophrenia-specific outcome measure “Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia” (CDSS [ 40 ]), is included as index of validity.

Sample and procedure

This cross-sectional study has been conducted during August and October 2023 using convenience sampling. The target sample was set as inpatients of the Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross, Jal Eddib (suburbs of the capital Beirut), Lebanon, with the following inclusion criteria: (1) age of 18 years and over, (2) with a schizophrenia or a schizoaffective disorder diagnosis following the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria; (3) at chronic stage of the disease, defined as with more than 1 year of illness duration [ 41 ]; and institutionalized in the above-mentioned long-stay hospital for more than one year (The detailed description of the study population can be found elsewhere [ 32 , 42 ]); (4) experiencing either partial or total recovery, this choice has been made as personal recovery represents a longitudinal process occurring in stages [ 43 ]; and (5) able to give their free and informed consent to participate after study objectives and general instructions were thoroughly explained to them (in case of inability to consent a family member did). This target population was chosen so that potential confounding effects of some factors, such as severity of psychotic symptoms, treatment adherence and substance use, are reduced or eliminated.

Minimal sample size calculation

A sample between 15 and 100 participants was needed for the confirmatory factor analysis based on a previous study that suggested a minimum sample ranging from 3 to 20 times the number of the scale’s variables [ 44 ].

Demographic and clinical characteristics

Data were gathered during a face-to-face interview of around 30–45 min with all participants. The questionnaire consisted of a first section containing demographic and clinical information, including age, sex, education level, marital status, duration of illness, and duration of hospitalization. In addition, four measures were either self- or interviewer-administered to all participants, including the Arabic validated version of the WHO [ 45 ]. The other three measures are the following:

The Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS)

This is a clinician-administered measure containing a total of 9 items with descriptive anchor points [ 46 ]. It specifically assesses depression among patients with schizophrenia and related psychoses. Its validity is well-known in strongly correlating with other measurement instruments of depression. The CDSS has also proven to accurately distinguish between depressive symptoms and extrapyramidal side effects and negative symptoms. The Arabic validated version of the CDSS was used [ 47 ] (ω = 0.82 / α = 0.81).

The 10-item Staden Schizophrenia anxiety rating scale (S-SARS)

This is a clinician-rated measure composed of ten items, five items measure general anxiety and five other items measure specific anxiety [ 48 ]. Each item has six narrative anchor points scored on a scale from 0 to 5, and indicating anxiety severity over the past week and is accompanied by guided questions for use during the interview as to inform the ratings. The Arabic validated version of the S-SARS was used [ 49 ] (ω = 0.90 / α = 0.89).

The Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF)

This measure evaluates social functioning [ 50 ]. A number between 0 and 100 is assigned to each patient, summarizing the rater’ s view of the current degree of impairment in terms of educational, occupational, and/or psychosocial function.

Data Analysis

We performed a CFA on the total sample using the original structure of the scale. The method of estimation used was Maximum Likelihood. To check if the model was adequate, several fit indices were calculated: the normed model chi-square (χ²/df), the Steiger-Lind root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and the comparative fit index (CFI). Values ≤ 5 for χ²/df, and ≤ 0.08 for RMSEA, and 0.95 for CFI and TLI indicate good fit of the model to the data [ 51 ]. Multivariate normality was not verified (Bollen-Stine bootstrap p  = .002), therefore Bootstrap analysis was conducted. In case of high modification indices between two items, a correlation was added between the residuals of those items. Adding a correlation between those two residuals is done to improve the model fit when the assumption of uncorrelated errors is violated. It suggests that there are shared sources of variance not accounted for by the specified factors in the model. By adding this correlation, the model becomes more flexible and can better capture the underlying relationships in the data, leading to more accurate representation of the relationships between the observed variables and the latent factors being measured.

Sex invariance

To examine sex invariance of the WHO-5 scores, we conducted multi-group CFA [ 52 ] using the total sample. Measurement invariance was assessed at the configural, metric, and scalar levels [ 53 ]. Configural invariance implies that the latent scales variable(s) and the pattern of loadings of the latent variable(s) on indicators are similar across gender (i.e., the unconstrained latent model should fit the data well in both groups). Metric invariance implies that the magnitude of the loadings is similar across gender; this is tested by comparing two nested models consisting of a baseline model and an invariance model. Lastly, scalar invariance implies that both the item loadings and item intercepts are similar across gender and is examined using the same nested-model comparison strategy as with metric invariance [ 54 ]. We accepted ΔCFI ≤ 0.010 and ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015 or ΔSRMR ≤ 0.010 as evidence of invariance [ 55 ].

Further analysis

We used Cronbach’s α coefficient and McDonald’s ω and Cronbach’s α coefficients to examine reliability since these two coefficients are used when the data show a normal distribution [ 56 ], with values greater than 0.70 reflecting adequate composite reliability. Missing values were replaced by the mean of the item. The WHO-5 scores were considered normally distributed according to their skewness and kurtosis values varying between ± 1 [ 57 ]. Consequently, the Student t test was used to compare two means. Pearson test was used to correlate those scores with other scores.

Screening accuracy for depression

To assess the discriminatory validity of the Arabic version of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression, we conducted a Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis using the SPSS software v.26, taking the WHO-5 reversed score against the dichotomized CDSS score 6 [ 46 ]. “This curve plays a central role in evaluating diagnostic ability of tests to discriminate the true state of subjects, finding the optimal cut off values, and comparing two alternative diagnostic tasks when each task is performed on the same subject” [ 58 ]. The sensitivity and specificity values that show the highest area under the curve (AUC) correspond to the cut off value.

One hundred seventy-seven patients filled the survey, with a mean age of 57.86 ± 10.88 years and 63.3% males. The majority (30.4%) had a primary and a complementary level of education, whereas 88.1% were single. The mean duration of illness was 35.22 ± 37.34 years, whereas that of the duration of hospitalization was 13.25 ± 10.92 years. Other characteristics of the sample can be found in Table  1 .

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the WHO-5 scale

The unidimensional model was tested via a CFA in the total sample; results indicated that the fit of the scale was excellent: χ 2 /df = 40.49/5 = 8.10, RMSEA = 0.220 (90% CI 0.160, 0.285), SRMR = 0.082, CFI = 0.856, TLI = 0.712 (Table  2 ). We noticed a high modification index between items 3 and 4 (= 33.21); when adding a correlation between those residuals, fit indices became excellent as follows: χ 2 /df = 2.75/4 = 0.69, RMSEA = 0.001 (90% CI < 0.001, 0.105), SRMR = 0.020, CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.013. The reliability was excellent as shown via the alpha (= 0.80) and the omega (= 0.80) coefficients.

Sex invariance of the WHO-5 scale

We were able to show partial invariance across gender at the configural, metric, and scalar levels (Table  3 ). No statistically significant difference between males and females was found in terms of WHO-5 scores (M = 16.78, SD = 7.28 vs. M = 15.24, SD = 6.85, t (146) = 1.24, p  = .218).

Concurrent validity

Higher anxiety ( r  = − .50; p  < .001) and depression ( r  = − .66; p  < .001) were significantly associated with lower WHO-5 scores, whereas higher levels of functioning ( r  = .55; p  < .001) were significantly associated with greater WHO-5 scores.

ROC analysis of the WHO-5 tested against the CDSS

The ROC curve illustrating depression prediction using the WHO-5 scale is depicted in Fig.  1 . It exhibited a substantial area under the curve of 0.838 [95% CI 0.773; 0.903]. Notably, one significant cut-off point was discerned at 9.5, which yielded a sensitivity of 81.1% and a specificity of 70.3%. In selecting this cut-off, higher sensitivity was favoured over specificity. The reason for this choice is that the objective of the WHO-5 as a screening tool in this context is to correctly capture most depressed patients with schizophrenia. As such, a sufficiently high sensitivity is likely to be of significance in screening for depression in this population. Using a WHO-5 cut-off score of 9.5, 42.6% of the patients were screened as having a depression.

ROC curve for the prediction of WHO-5 scores against CDSS

The WHO-5 is one of the main measures which has extensively demonstrated sufficient validity to screen for and early detect depression in different clinical and non-clinical populations across several settings, cultures and countries around the globe. Our study offers two new insights. First, it examines psychometric properties of the WHO-5 for the first time in schizophrenia patients from a non-Western developing country and an Arab culture. Second, this is the first research to investigate the potential of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression in this clinical population. Our findings demonstrated that the WHO-5 measure in its Arabic version meets the required validity and reliability criteria. In addition, the WHO-5 showed a sensitivity of 0.81 and a specificity of 0.70 in the detection of depression with a cut-off point of 9.5. The validity of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression was supported by the excellent discrimination AUC value of 0.838.

Psychometric properties of the WHO-5 in patients with schizophrenia

First, the goodness of fit for the one-factor model of the Arabic WHO-5 was examined using CFA. The results of these analyses were in agreement with evidence of unidimensionality of the WHO-5 obtained by several validation studies carried-out in various clinical populations, including patients with epilepsy [ 59 ], diabetes [ 27 ], patients in primary care [ 60 ], as well as those in specialised community mental health settings [ 61 ]. A recently published validation study among Danish patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 22 ] provided support to the originally proposed unidimensional structure of the measure and good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80 in our Arabic-speaking Lebanese sample versus 0.826 in the Danish sample). Consistently, previous studies performed among individuals in mental health settings indicated good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.83 [ 62 ] to 0.92 [ 63 ]. Second, and consistent with the same study, measurement invariance of the WHO-5 was established between male and female patients, implying that no differential item functioning exists for sex [ 22 ]. Third, the concurrent validity findings revealed that WHO-5 scores were positively correlated with levels of functioning, and inversely correlated with anxiety and depression symptoms’ severity, thereby confirming the findings of earlier research studies [ 64 , 65 , 66 ]. Altogether, our psychometric findings were in line with the limited existing literature. A study performed among a sample of Spanish outpatients drawn from specialised community mental health centres (among them, 11.5% were diagnosed with schizophrenia) found that the WHO-5 was feasible to administer, yielded a good fit in a one-factor solution, and showed an excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.923) [ 61 ]. Another study involving 84 Chinese individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders found that the Hong Kong Cantonese Version of the WHO-5 exhibited a single-factor structure and satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.86) [ 23 ]. Acceptable psychometric parameters of the Farsi WHO-5 were also found among Iranian psychiatric outpatients, with a one-factor structure identified, a Cronbach’s α value of 0.91 and negative correlations with depression measures [ 67 ].

Performance of the WHO-5 as a screening test for depression in patients with schizophrenia

A score of 6 on the CDSS, which is adopted as a valid cut-off indicating levels of depression at which treatment is needed (major depression) [ 46 ], corresponded to a WHO-5 score of 9.5. The area under the curve (AUC) values were greater than 0.80, indicating that the WHO-5 is successful as a screening tool to discriminate between patients who are at high risk and low risk for depression [ 68 ]. At this cut-off point, the sensitivity and specificity values were 0.81 and 0.70, respectively. Achieving sufficiently high sensitivity for a screening tool such as the WHO-5, so as to be able to correctly identify as many depressed patients as possible as screening positive, is a crucial target and a main challenge of depression detection. However, reaching high specificity, which refers to identifying as few “false positives” as possible (i.e., non-depressed patients who screen positive on the WHO-5) has less importance. This is because the rates of false positives can easily be controlled by a two-step approach screening, with an initial step consisting of an administration of the self-report WHO-5, followed by a structured diagnostic interview administered by trained clinicians. As this is the first study to investigate the optimal cut-off point of the WHO-5 to screen depression among patients with schizophrenia, comparison with previous findings in the same population is not possible. However, similar results were observed in other populations, such as adolescents, in whom cut-off point of nine was recommended, and yielded sensitivity and specificity values of 0.74-0.79 and 0.71-0.89, respectively [ 69 , 70 ].Using a WHO-5 cut-off score of 9.5, 42.6% of the patients were screened as having a depression. This finding is consistent with that of a meta-analysis of 53 observational studies which highlighted high prevalence estimates of comorbid depression in schizophrenia ranging from 4.6 to 65.1%, with rates being greater in Middle-income than High-income countries (30.2% versus 27.1%, respectively) [ 2 ]. Depression is present in all phases of schizophrenia [ 71 ], and may have heavy detrimental effects on the course and prognosis of the disease (including more severe psychotic symptoms, longer disease duration [ 2 ], and high suicidality risk [ 4 ]). However, depression can also be effectively prevented and managed when timely detected [ 72 ]. This underscores the high relevance of using the WHO-5 as a brief, reliable, and valid scale, which is suitable for use in routine clinical practice for rapid screening of depression in people with schizophrenia.

Study limitations

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is among the very few to examine the psychometric properties of the WHO-5 in patients with schizophrenia, and the first to suggest a cut-off value of this tool in this population. Another important strength of this study is that a trained interviewer conducted structured interviews using the CDSS, which is considered a gold standard [ 73 ], to determine each patient’s depression level after administration of the self-report WHO-5. In addition, by involving an under-researched population from the Middle-East and the Arab world, our study makes a valuable contribution to the literature. The study has also limitations that need to be recognized. Patients were gathered from a single centre and country by the convenience sampling method; therefore, our findings lack generalisability. To address this limitation, further research should be performed in patients recruited by random sampling and from different countries/settings. Besides, the study sample was composed of a majority of males (63.3%). Future research needs to use a sex-proportionate sample to confirm our findings. In addition, only chronic inpatients residing a long-stay mental hospital were involved, and cannot be representative of the overall schizophrenia population. Future studies need to include outpatients, and those in the early stages of the disease. Another limitation lies to the adoption of a cross-sectional design. As follow-up data was not collected in this study, the test-retest reliability was not assessed. Researchers need to consider collecting data at multiple time points to remedy this limitation.

Current perspectives and future implications

The present findings provided additional evidence of good psychometric qualities of the WHO-5 in patients with schizophrenia, including good structural validity (unidimensionality), adequate internal consistency, and appropriate concurrent validity. Analyses also demonstrated that measurement equivalence across sexes was achieved, indicating that the WHO-5 measures the same underlying construct in male and female patients with schizophrenia, and that inferences of sex differences in WHO-5 scores are accurate. Overall, findings support the suitability and usefulness of the Arabic version of the WHO-5 in patients with schizophrenia for both clinical and research practices. In addition, the performance of the Arabic-language WHO-5 as a screening tool for depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia was tested and supported. It is therefore highly recommended to apply this cut-off point for screening and follow-up assessments. The current findings will hopefully encourage clinicians and researchers working in Arab settings, who are often confronted with significant time and resource constraints, to start using the WHO-5 to aid their efforts in mitigating depression in this vulnerable population and fostering research in this under-researched area. In particular, the WHO-5 can be an appropriate screening and monitoring tool for schizophrenia patients with an elevated vulnerability to depression, therefore enhancing the quality of care provided to this population. Indeed, detecting and monitoring patients’ depression can inform treatment decisions, and subsequently have major positive impact on their clinical outcomes [ 74 ]. The brevity of the WHO-5, its ease of use, and validity with the clinician-administered CDSS imply that the scale could be a valuable measure for recognizing comorbid depression in patients with schizophrenia using a cut-point of 9.5.

As for future research perspectives, future studies with larger and more representative samples of patients with schizophrenia in different stages of the disease and originating from different Arab countries are still warranted to confirm our conclusions about the good psychometric qualities of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression, and enable its widespread use among Arabic-speaking schizophrenia patients in different parts of the world. Such research might help advance knowledge regarding the prevalence, epidemiology, and cause of depression in patients with schizophrenia, and gain cross-cultural insights into factors that influence the expression of depressive symptoms, their diagnosis and treatment among Arabic-speaking schizophrenia patients.

The study contributes to the field by offering a brief self-report scale for depression screening and monitoring, the Arabic WHO-5, which is easily accessible, quick-to-administer, simple to understand and practical for use in routine clinical and research practices. As expected, findings suggest that the WHO-5 is an applicable and accurate tool for screening of depression among patients with schizophrenia. Analyses showed that a cut-off score of 9.5 on the WHO-5 can be considered to identify schizophrenia patients with depression. is the study’s results are expected to raise awareness about the necessity to consider depression as a key predictor of outcome and an important therapeutic target in patients with schizophrenia in Arab settings. Henceforth, clinicians and researchers working and dealing with Arabic-speaking schizophrenia patients in different clinical settings worldwide could feel more secure making informed decisions based on this tool.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are not publicly available. The dataset supporting the conclusions is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Collaborators GMD. Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9(2):137–50.

Article   Google Scholar  

Li W, Yang Y, An F-R, Zhang L, Ungvari GS, Jackson T, Yuan Z, Xiang Y-T. Prevalence of comorbid depression in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Affect Disord. 2020;273:524–31.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gardsjord ES, Romm KL, Røssberg JI, Friis S, Barder HE, Evensen J, Haahr U, ten Velden Hegelstad W, Joa I, Johannessen JO. Depression and functioning are important to subjective quality of life after a first episode psychosis. Compr Psychiatry. 2018;86:107–14.

Cassidy RM, Yang F, Kapczinski F, Passos IC. Risk factors for suicidality in patients with Schizophrenia: a systematic review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression of 96 studies. Schizophr Bull. 2018;44(4):787–97.

Conley RR, Ascher-Svanum H, Zhu B, Faries DE, Kinon BJ. The burden of depressive symptoms in the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2007;90(1–3):186–97.

Li W, Zhao N, Yan X, Zou S, Wang H, Li Y, Xu X, Du X, Zhang L, Zhang Q. The prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms and their associations with quality of life among clinically stable older patients with psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. Translational Psychiatry. 2021;11(1):75.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Häfner H, Löffler W, Maurer K, Hambrecht M, Heiden Wad. Depression, negative symptoms, social stagnation and social decline in the early course of schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1999;100(2):105–18.

Upthegrove R, Marwaha S, Birchwood M. Depression and schizophrenia: cause, consequence, or trans-diagnostic issue? Schizophr Bull. 2017;43(2):240–4.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lako IM, Taxis K, Bruggeman R, Knegtering H, Burger H, Wiersma D, Slooff CJ. The course of depressive symptoms and prescribing patterns of antidepressants in schizophrenia in a one-year follow-up study. Eur Psychiatry. 2012;27(4):240–4.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

de Winter L, Vermeulen JM, Couwenbergh C, van Weeghel J, Hasson-Ohayon I, Mulder CL, Boonstra N, Veling W, de Haan L. Short-and long-term changes in symptom dimensions among patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and different durations of illness: a meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res 2023.

Barnes TR, Psychopharmacology, SCGotBAf. Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J Psychopharmacol. 2011;25(5):567–620.

Health NCCM. Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: treatment and management. 2014.

Lako IM, Bruggeman R, Knegtering H, Wiersma D, Schoevers RA, Slooff CJ, Taxis K. A systematic review of instruments to measure depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. J Affect Disord. 2012;140(1):38–47.

Scholes B, Martin C. Measuring depression in schizophrenia with questionnaires. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2013;20(1):17–22.

Staehr JK. The use of well-being measures in primary health care-the DepCare project. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe: well-being measures in Primary Health Care-the DepCare Project Geneva. World Health Organization; 1998.

Warr P, Banks M, Ullah P. The experience of unemployment among black and white urban teenagers. Br J Psychol. 1985;76(1):75–87.

Johansen K. World Health Organization multicentre continuous subcutaneous infusion pump feasibility and acceptability study experience. In.: WHO; 1989.

Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 well-being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167–76.

Lara-Cabrera ML, Bjørkly S, De las Cuevas C, Pedersen SA, Mundal IP. Psychometric properties of the five‐item World Health Organization Well‐being Index used in mental health services: protocol for a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(9):2426–33.

Baandrup L, Fagerlund B, Glenthoj B. Neurocognitive performance, subjective well-being, and psychosocial functioning after benzodiazepine withdrawal in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: a randomized clinical trial of add-on melatonin versus placebo. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017;267(2):163–71.

Schöttle D, Janetzky W, Luedecke D, Beck E, Correll CU, Wiedemann K. The use of long-acting Aripiprazole in a multi-center, prospective, uncontrolled, open-label, cohort study in Germany: a report on global assessment of functioning and the WHO wellbeing index. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20:1–11.

Nielsen CM, Lauridsen HH, Østergaard SD, Kølbæk P. Structural validity of the 5-item World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5) in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. J Psychiatr Res. 2024;170:387–93.

Kong C-L, Lee C-C, Ip Y-C, Chow L-P, Leung C-H, Lam Y-C. Validation of the Hong Kong Cantonese version of World Health Organization five well-being index for people with severe mental illness. Eas as Psyc. 2016;26(1):18–21.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Low K-Y, Pheh K-S, Tan C-S. Validation of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression among young adults in Malaysia. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(10):7841–4.

Seb-Akahomen OJ, Okogbenin EO, Obagaye OM, Erohubie PO, Aweh BE. The 5-Item WHO well-being index as a Screening Tool for Depression in a Population of doctors and nurses in Nigeria during the COVID-19 pandemic. Open J Depress. 2021;10(2):43–53.

Allgaier AK, Kramer D, Saravo B, Mergl R, Fejtkova S, Hegerl U. Beside the geriatric Depression Scale: the WHO-Five well‐being Index as a valid screening tool for depression in nursing homes. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;28(11):1197–204.

Cichoń E, Kiejna A, Kokoszka A, Gondek T, Rajba B, Lloyd CE, Sartorius N. Validation of the Polish version of WHO-5 as a screening instrument for depression in adults with diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;159:107970.

Schneider CB, Pilhatsch M, Rifati M, Jost WH, Wodarz F, Ebersbach G, Djundja D, Fuchs G, Gies A, Odin P. Utility of the WHO-five well‐being index as a screening tool for depression in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2010;25(6):777–83.

Blom EH, Bech P, Högberg G, Larsson JO, Serlachius E. Screening for depressed mood in an adolescent psychiatric context by brief self-assessment scales – testing psychometric validity of WHO-5 and BDI-6 indices by latent trait analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):149.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Golubović B, Gajić Z, Ivetić O, Milatović J, Vuleković P, Đilvesi Đ, Golubović S, Vrban F, Subašić A, Rasulić L. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH DEPRESSION IN PATIENTS WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA. Acta Clin Croat. 2020;59(4):605–14.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fekih-Romdhane F, Cheour M, Hallit S. Aggressive and violent behaviors in people with severe mental illness in arab countries. Handbook of anger, aggression, and violence. edn.: Springer; 2022. pp. 1–16.

Rahme C, El Kadri N, Haddad C, Fekih-Romdhane F, Obeid S, Hallit S. Exploring the association between lifetime traumatic experiences and positive psychotic symptoms in a group of long-stay patients with schizophrenia: the mediating effect of depression, anxiety, and distress. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23(1):29.

Ibrahim NK. Epidemiology of Mental Health Problems in the Middle East. In: Handbook of Healthcare in the Arab World edn. Edited by Laher I. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021: 133–149.

Al-Ruwais N, AlHarbi Y, Abalkhail B, Ibrahim Y, Abounaem W, Heweidy S, Ahmaed R, Zaki NF, Zaki J. Screening for Depression among Schizophrenia patients: a cross-sectional study. Screening 2020, 23(1).

El-Bahy M, Mohamed WM. Prevalence of depression in schizophrenic patients evaluated by the Calgary Depression Scale in Shebin El-Kom, Menoufiya. Middle East Curr Psychiatry. 2013;20(4):191–6.

Hashim HT, Uakkas S, Reda A, Ramadhan MA, Al Mostafa MY. Beirut Explosion effects on COVID-19 Situation in Lebanon. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2022;16(5):1703–4.

Kassab A, Hachem CE, Raad G, Cordahi C, Richa S. Effects of a multilayered crisis on psychiatric hospitalizations in a university hospital in Lebanon; a retrospective study. Psychiatry Res. 2022;318:114940.

Fekih-Romdhane F, Abassi B, Ghrissi F, Loch AA, Cherif W, Damak R, Ellini S, Hallit S, Cheour M. Suicide risk among individuals at Ultra-high Risk (UHR) of psychosis in a developing north African country: a 12-month naturalistic prospective cohort study from the TRIP project. Psychiatry Res. 2023;327:115409.

Okasha A, Karam E, Okasha T. Mental health services in the arab world. World Psychiatry. 2012;11(1):52–4.

Addington D, Addington J, Maticka-Tyndale E, Joyce J. Reliability and validity of a depression rating scale for schizophrenics. Schizophr Res. 1992;6(3):201–8.

Hwang W, Weller W, Ireys H, Anderson G. Out-of-pocket medical spending for care of chronic conditions. Health Aff. 2001;20(6):267–78.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Beainy C, Haddad C, Fekih-Romdhane F, Hallit S, Haddad G. Decreased insight, but not self-stigma or belief about medicine, is associated with greater severity of delusions in a sample of long-stay patients with schizophrenia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23(1):222.

Davidson L, Roe D. Recovery from versus recovery in serious mental illness: one strategy for lessening confusion plaguing recovery. J Mental Health. 2007;16(4):459–70.

Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. Int J Test. 2005;5(2):159–68.

Fekih-Romdhane F, Cherif W, Alhuwailah A, Fawaz M, Shuwiekh HAM, Helmy M, Hassan IHM, Naser AY, Zarrouq B, Chebly M et al. Cross-country validation of the arabic version of the WHO-5 well-being index in non-clinical young adults from six Arab countries. 2023. Available from: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2988215/v1/5799c643-381c-4ce6-8a3e-ca1c5faeb1fa.pdf?c=1686241144

Addington D, Addington J, Schissel B. Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS). American Psychiatric Association Task Force for the Handbook of Psychiatric Measures American Psychiatric Association Washington DC (2000) 2000:504–507.

Hani Y, Ghuloum S, Mahfoud Z, Opler M, Khan A, Yehya A, Abdulhakam A, Hammoudeh S, Al-Mujalli A, Elsherbiny R. Validation of the arabic version of Calgary depression scale for schizophrenia. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0162304.

Van Staden W, Dlagnekova A, Naidu K. Validity and reliability of the Staden schizophrenia anxiety rating scale. Diagnostics. 2022;12(4):831.

Fekih-Romdhane F, Al Mouzakzak F, Abilmona G, Dahdouh O, Hallit S. Arabic translation and validation of the Clinician Administered Staden Schizophrenia Anxiety Rating Scale (S-SARS), 12 February 2024, PREPRINT. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3950459/v1.

Jones SH, Thornicroft G, Coffey M, Dunn G. A brief mental health outcome scale: reliability and validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Br J Psychiatry. 1995;166(5):654–9.

Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 1999;6(1):1–55.

Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 2007;14(3):464–504.

Vadenberg R, Lance C. A review and synthesis of the measurement in variance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3:4–70.

Fekih-Romdhane F, Malaeb D, Fawaz M, Chammas N, Soufia M, Obeid S, Hallit S. Psychometric properties of an arabic translation of the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA-2) questionnaire in a non-clinical sample of Arabic-speaking adults. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23(1):577.

Swami V, Todd J, Azzi V, Malaeb D, El Dine AS, Obeid S, Hallit S. Psychometric properties of an arabic translation of the functionality appreciation scale (FAS) in Lebanese adults. Body Image. 2022;42:361–9.

Trizano-Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best Alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol. 2016;7:769.

Hair JF Jr, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Gudergan SP. Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. saGe; 2017.

Hajian-Tilaki K. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation. Casp J Intern Med. 2013;4(2):627–35.

Google Scholar  

Chongwo E, Ssewanyana D, Nasambu C, Mwangala PN, Mwangi PM, Nyongesa MK, Newton CR, Abubakar A. Validation of a Swahili version of the World Health Organization 5-item well-being index among adults living with HIV and Epilepsy in rural coastal Kenya. Global Health Res Policy. 2018;3:1–7.

Eser E, Çevik C, Baydur H, Güneş S, Esgin TA, Öztekin ÇS, Eker E, Gümüşsoy U, Eser GB, Özyurt B. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the WHO-5, in adults and older adults for its use in primary care settings. Prim Health care Res Dev. 2019;20:e100.

Lara-Cabrera ML, Mundal IP, De Las Cuevas C. Patient-reported well-being: psychometric properties of the world health organization well-being index in specialised community mental health settings. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113268.

Bonnín C, Yatham L, Michalak E, Martínez-Arán A, Dhanoa T, Torres I, Santos-Pascual C, Valls E, Carvalho A, Sánchez-Moreno J. Psychometric properties of the well-being index (WHO-5) Spanish version in a sample of euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2018;228:153–9.

Krieger T, Zimmermann J, Huffziger S, Ubl B, Diener C, Kuehner C, Holtforth MG. Measuring depression with a well-being index: further evidence for the validity of the WHO Well-Being Index (WHO-5) as a measure of the severity of depression. J Affect Disord. 2014;156:240–4.

Strauss GP, Sandt AR, Catalano LT, Allen DN. Negative symptoms and depression predict lower psychological well-being in individuals with schizophrenia. Compr Psychiatry. 2012;53(8):1137–44.

Hochstrasser L, Borgwardt S, Lambert M, Schimmelmann BG, Lang UE, Stieglitz R-D, Huber CG. The association of psychopathology with concurrent level of functioning and subjective well-being in persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2018;268(5):455–9.

Vaingankar JA, Abdin E, Chong SA, Sambasivam R, Seow E, Jeyagurunathan A, Picco L, Stewart-Brown S, Subramaniam M. Psychometric properties of the short Warwick Edinburgh mental well-being scale (SWEMWBS) in service users with schizophrenia, depression and anxiety spectrum disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):153.

Dadfar M, Momeni Safarabad N, Asgharnejad Farid AA, Nemati Shirzy M, Ghazie pour Abarghouie F. Reliability, validity, and factorial structure of the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in Iranian psychiatric outpatients. Trends. 2018;40:79–84.

de Hond AA, Steyerberg EW, van Calster B. Interpreting area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Lancet Digit Health. 2022;4(12):e853–5.

Allgaier AK, Pietsch K, Frühe B, Prast E, Sigl-Glöckner J, Schulte-Körne G. Depression in pediatric care: is the WHO-Five well-being Index a valid screening instrument for children and adolescents? Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2012;34(3):234–41.

Ghazisaeedi M, Mahmoodi H, Arpaci I, Mehrdar S, Barzegari S. Validity, reliability, and optimal cut-off scores of the WHO-5, PHQ-9, and PHQ-2 to screen depression among University students in Iran. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2022;20(3):1824–33.

Naguy A. Depression in schizophrenia–A good or bad omen? Asia-Pacific Psychiatry. 2018;10(2):e12312.

Gregory A, Mallikarjun P, Upthegrove R. Treatment of depression in schizophrenia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2017;211(4):198–204.

Kontaxakis V, Havaki-Kontaxaki B, Stamouli S, Margariti M, Collias C, Christodoulou G. Comparison of four scales measuring depression in schizophrenic inpatients. Eur Psychiatry. 2000;15(4):274–7.

Upthegrove R. Depression in schizophrenia and early psychosis: implications for assessment and treatment. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2009;15(5):372–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all patients who participated in this study.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia

Feten Fekih-Romdhane

The Tunisian Center of Early Intervention in Psychosis, Department of psychiatry “Ibn Omrane”, Razi hospital, Manouba, 2010, Tunisia

Faculty of Science, Lebanese University, Fanar, Lebanon

Fadila Al Mouzakzak, Ghinwa Abilmona & Oussama Dahdouh

Research Department, Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross, P.O. Box 60096, Jal Eddib, Lebanon

Oussama Dahdouh

School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, P.O. Box 446, Jounieh, Lebanon

Souheil Hallit

Department of Psychology, College of Humanities, Effat University, 21478 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Applied Science Research Center, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FFR and SH involved in the study design. FFR wrote the manuscript; FAM and GA were responsible for the data collection. SH involved in data analysis and interpretation. OD revised the paper for intellectual content. All authors approved its final version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Feten Fekih-Romdhane or Souheil Hallit .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Ethics and Research Committee of the Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross approved this study protocol. A written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fekih-Romdhane, F., Al Mouzakzak, F., Abilmona, G. et al. Validation and optimal cut-off score of the World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5) as a screening tool for depression among patients with schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry 24 , 391 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05814-z

Download citation

Received : 03 March 2024

Accepted : 05 May 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05814-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Schizophrenia
• Psychometric properties

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]