What Counts As A Psychology Literature Review
A literature review brings together peer-reviewed studies, theories, and measures on a well-defined topic. It maps how ideas connect, where results agree or clash, and where clear gaps remain. The outcome is not a list; it’s an argument built from sources.
The approach you choose depends on scope and timelines. A short narrative review fits a course paper or a narrow concept. A scoping review fits broad topics and helps chart what exists. A systematic review uses a preset protocol, full search strings, and transparent screening. A meta-analysis adds a quantitative summary when studies report compatible effect sizes.
| Review Type | When To Use | Typical Output |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative | Clear question, limited time, mixed methods | Themes, models, gaps |
| Scoping | Broad question or emerging area | Map of concepts, study designs |
| Systematic | Focused question with enough studies | Registered method, flow counts, bias notes |
| Meta-analysis | Comparable measures across studies | Pooled effects with heterogeneity stats |
Steps For A Psychology Literature Review
1) Define A Precise Question
State one main idea. Name your population, core construct, and context. Example: “Do brief mindfulness interventions reduce test anxiety in undergraduates?” Add a short note on why this question matters for theory or practice.
2) Set Clear Inclusion And Exclusion Rules
Decide up front: years, languages, study designs, participant age ranges, settings, and outcomes. Keep a one-page protocol so each decision can be traced later.
3) Choose Databases And Sources
Start with discipline coverage in APA PsycInfo. Add one multi-disciplinary index such as Scopus or Web of Science and, when relevant, PubMed for health-adjacent topics. Gray sources (theses, preprints) can reduce publication bias; log them separately so counts stay clear.
4) Build Search Strings With Controlled Terms
APA PsycInfo uses the APA Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms. Combine controlled terms with free-text keywords. Use AND to connect concepts, OR for synonyms, and quotation marks for exact phrases. Truncate where sensible (e.g., therap*). Test strings against two or three must-include “seed” papers; if a seed paper fails to appear, refine fields or terms.
5) Log Every Search
Record database, platform, date, full string, filters, and hits. Save alerts for new papers. A tidy log speeds write-up and helps others repeat your process.
6) De-duplicate And Screen Titles And Abstracts
Export results to a reference manager. Remove duplicates. Screen in two passes: quick title/abstract checks, then full-text checks. Note reasons for exclusion in short phrases such as “wrong population” or “no validated measure.” A flow diagram keeps the counts clean from records found to studies included.
7) Extract The Right Details
Create a sheet with study ID, design, sample, measures, analytic choices, main effects, and caveats. For interventions, add dosage, delivery, and follow-up. Pilot the sheet on three papers and tweak before full extraction.
8) Appraise Study Quality
Pick a checklist suited to the design set. Typical items include sampling clarity, measure validity, preregistration, and missing-data handling. Rate independently if you work in pairs, then reconcile. Keep the ratings separate from findings so your synthesis can show both signal and strength.
9) Synthesize Findings
Group studies by shared features: construct definitions, populations, tasks, or outcomes. Within each group, state the pattern of effects and standout exceptions. Tie patterns back to theory lines or mechanisms rather than study-by-study summaries. Use short, plain claims the reader can cite.
10) Write With Transparent Methods
Report where you searched, the exact strings (in an appendix), dates, criteria, and counts from your screening log. If you preregistered, link the record. Keep claims tethered to the included studies and label speculation as such.
Doing A Psychology Literature Review: Tools And Templates
Pick tools that cut busywork and make your trail easy to follow. A citation manager handles imports, duplicate removal, and in-text citations. A spreadsheet or research app stores extraction fields. An open project space can host your protocol and materials so readers can verify steps.
For structured reporting, the PRISMA 2020 checklist spells out what to include from title through funding. Use it as a pre-submission audit so nothing gets missed. When formatting the manuscript itself, match headings, tables, and references to the APA sample papers to save edit rounds.
Build A Reusable Search Plan
Draft one master string per concept, then plug into each database with local field tags. Keep a list of “include no matter what” items to sanity-check retrieval. Document small tweaks (field changes, added synonym) each time you run a search so your trail is complete.
Create A Synthesis Matrix
As you read, place each result into a grid by theme, claim, or mechanism. Keep quotes for key operational definitions and note exact page numbers for precise paraphrasing. Color-code columns for fast scanning during drafting.
| Theme Or Claim | Key Evidence (1–2 Sentences) | Source IDs |
|---|---|---|
| Mindfulness reduces test anxiety | Multiple RCTs report small short-term drops in self-reported anxiety after brief sessions | S1, S4, S9 |
| Dose matters | Longer programs show stronger and more durable effects than single sessions | S3, S5 |
| Measurement choice shifts results | Physiological markers shift less than questionnaires; effects fade at 4–8 weeks | S2, S7 |
Writing The Review In APA Style
Use a clear outline: introduction, method for search and screening, grouped results, and a short closing section that explains what the field now knows and what would move it forward. Keep headings readable and consistent. Active voice helps keep long passages tight.
Format text, headings, tables, and references to match APA 7th. If you need a quick model, use the APA sample papers. Numbers, hyphenation, italics, and capitalization all follow that same guide.
Title And Abstract
State the main construct and population in the title. The abstract should name the question, the source bases searched, the span of years, the count of included studies, and one or two crisp takeaways. Keep it factual; save color for the discussion.
Method Transparency
Include dates searched, databases, platforms (e.g., APA PsycInfo via EBSCO or ProQuest), full criteria, and a short line on screening workflow. Add a flow diagram if you used one. Readers should be able to repeat your steps and land near the same set of records.
Results With Structure
Lead with themes, not study-by-study lists. Use subheadings for major clusters. State strength, direction, and consistency of effects. Flag where definitions diverge or where measures map poorly to the construct. Keep quotes short and page-cited.
Limits And Next Steps
State the main boundaries: sample bias, method quirks, publication years, and search language. Propose the next clear test or dataset that would settle a key knot rather than broad calls for more studies.
Quality, Transparency, And Ethics
Strong reviews show their homework. That means a shareable protocol, reproducible searches, and access to coding sheets or at least the fields you used. Recording a plan before screening starts reduces hindsight tweaks to criteria and helps readers trust the path you took.
When you cite, quote sparingly and paraphrase with care to avoid patchwriting. Credit all data, code, and figures you reused. If your topic covers sensitive groups or clinical harms, weigh how you word claims so readers don’t over-generalize beyond the sampled contexts.
For reporting, lean on structured checklists. The PRISMA 2020 checklist works well for reviews with formal search and screening. For concept-driven pieces, keep a clear trail and match your sections to the field’s style guide.
Common Mistakes To Skip
- Starting without a single, testable question.
- Relying on one database or a single keyword list.
- Skipping a search log, making the method impossible to retrace.
- Summarizing papers one by one without integrating signals.
- Ignoring study quality or measurement validity.
- Letting style drift from APA rules for headings, tables, and references.
- Claiming certainty from a thin or biased set of studies.
Editing And Final Checks
Clarity Pass
Read the introduction aloud. Trim throat-clearing phrases and tighten any hedges that don’t serve your claim. Replace nominalizations with verbs to keep sentences lean. If a sentence has two prepositional chains, split it.
Method Pass
Match your text to the search log and flow counts. Check that all criteria named in the method appear in the appendix or table. If you changed a rule mid-stream, say so and explain why.
Reference Pass
Run a duplicate scan in your manager and fix missing DOIs. Ensure every in-text citation has a matching reference and vice versa. Watch for mismatched years and initials.
Design Pass
Tables should be readable on mobile screens and capped at three columns when possible. Legends must state what the reader needs to interpret the cells without hunting through the text. Use short row labels and keep numerical precision consistent.
Mini-Plan: From Question To Draft
Sample Question
“Do brief mindfulness sessions reduce test anxiety in undergraduates?”
Protocol Snapshot
Years: 2014–2025. Languages: English. Designs: RCTs, quasi-experiments. Measures: validated test-anxiety scales and at least one performance indicator. Population: enrolled undergraduates.
Seed Papers And Terms
Seed list includes two known RCTs from well-cited journals. Core terms: “mindfulness,” “test anxiety,” “exam stress,” “undergraduate,” plus the controlled term for anxiety in APA PsycInfo. Add synonyms for delivery (“brief,” “single-session,” “micro-intervention”).
Search Log Excerpt
APA PsycInfo (EBSCO), 2025-08-20: (DE “Test Anxiety” OR “exam stress”) AND (mindful* OR “acceptance training”) AND (undergrad* OR student*) → 416 hits; Filters: peer-reviewed; 2014–2025.
Screening Notes
Title/abstract pass removes clinical samples and high-school studies. Full-text pass drops papers without validated scales. Twelve studies remain.
Synthesis Idea
Cluster by dosage (single session vs multi-week). Expect small, short-term effects; stronger with multi-week exposure. Note that physiological outcomes lag behind self-report.
Write-Up Plan
Four sections: introduction with theory link (attention regulation and decentering), method with flow counts, results by dosage cluster, and a short closing section with one or two concrete tests for the next semester’s project.
Need a quick style check while drafting? Compare your headings, tables, and reference list to the APA sample papers, and keep your search language aligned with the APA Thesaurus so retrieval stays precise across platforms.