Clastify logo
Clastify logo
Subjects
Features
Review
HOT
Tutoring
AI Grader Cover

Get Instant AI Feedback on Your
IB Psychology IA

The most detailed and accurate AI coursework grader. Trained by real IB Examiners.

Select IB Coursework

IB Coursework Details

Upload Your IA File

Your file stays private and secure. It won't be shared or published anywhere. Uploading it to Clastify will not trigger plagiarism checkers

Drop or Select file

Drop files here or click to browse through your machine

The file must be in English. If you're doing IB in another language please translate it using ChatGPT.

How it Works

The Psychology IA is assessed using four criteria, each worth 6 marks, totaling 24 marks.

Criterion A: Introduction (6 marks)
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The introduction is well-developed, clear and appropriate.The aim or research question is clearly stated and focused. The real-life problem is described and the impact on the population of interest is explained. Relevant findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are explained and linked to the investigation.
3–4The introduction is adequate but with some ambiguities or omissions.The aim or research question is clearly stated but only partially focused. The real-life problem is described, but the impact on the population of interest is not addressed. Relevant findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are described and linked to the investigation or only one is explained and linked to the investigation.
1–2The introduction is limited and lacks sufficient detail.The aim or research question is stated but not clearly expressed or is too broad. The real-life problem is stated. The findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are not clearly stated and are not made relevant to the investigation, or only one piece of research is included.
0The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The research methodology is well-developed, clear and appropriate.The choice of research method is explained. The procedure is explained. Relevant ethical considerations are described and explicitly linked to the investigation.
3–4The research methodology is adequate but with some ambiguities or omissions.The choice of research method is described. The procedure is described but lacks detail. Relevant ethical considerations are described but some are not linked to the investigation.
1–2The research methodology is limited and lacks sufficient detail.The research method is described with errors in understanding. The procedure is described but is unclear due to errors or omissions. Ethical considerations are described but not linked to the investigation.
0The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The data collection is clear, precise and accurate.An appropriate and effective data collection tool to measure behaviour has been created. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are explained and relevant to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are explained and relevant to the investigation.
3–4The data collection is adequate with some inconsistencies.An appropriate data collection tool has been created to measure behaviour. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are described and relevant to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are described and relevant to the investigation.
1–2The data collection is limited, showing omissions or inaccuracies.An appropriate data collection tool has been created to measure behaviour, but it contains errors. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are in limited detail or have limited relevance to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are described in limited detail and/or are not relevant to the investigation.
0The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The discussion is fully justified and consistent.Potential findings of the investigation are described in detail and the implication(s) for policy/practice are explained. One or more relevant examples of how researcher bias may affect the investigation are discussed. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is discussed with reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation.
3–4The discussion is described but only partially consistent.Potential findings of the investigation are described and the implication(s) for policy/practice are partially addressed. One or more relevant examples of researcher bias are described. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is discussed without reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation.
1–2The discussion is stated but lacks sufficient support.Potential findings of the investigation are described but the implication(s) for policy/practice are not addressed. One or more examples of researcher bias are identified. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is described, without reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation.
0The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Avoid Common Mistakes in Psychology IAs

Not discussing potential challenges in data collection in sufficient detail, leaving gaps in the understanding of the research process.

Creating a data collection tool that is either inappropriate or poorly designed, which can compromise the validity of the findings.

Neglecting to adequately describe the real-life problem and its impact on the population of interest, which diminishes the relevance of the research.

Not adequately discussing how researcher bias may affect the investigation, which can lead to questions about the objectivity of the research.

Overlooking ethical considerations or failing to explicitly link them to the investigation, which can undermine the integrity of the research.

Real Grade 7 Psychology Exemplars

Examiner Marking

How does framing a cheating dilemma in terms of potential gains (gaining marks) or potential losses (losing marks) affect students’ behavioural choices, perceived risk, moral judgments, and emotional reactions in a decision-making task?

IA
Psychology
SL
7
Examiner Marking

To what extent does screen time on phone apps for children affect the working memory capacity of preschool children (ages 3-5) immediately after using the app?

IA
Psychology
HL
7

Explore AI Grader for other subjects

IA

Math AA

Math AI

English A (Lang & Lit) HL Essay

EE

English A (Lang & Lit)

English A (Lit)

English B

TOK

TOK Exhibitions

TOK Essays

Free AI Grader
New

Get your feedback in minutes

AI-generated insights on structure, clarity, and IB criteria

Useful for quick iterations before the final submission

Important:

AI feedback is fast and helpful, but not a replacement for a human review. For an in-depth, more accurate evaluation by an IB Examiner, choose Examiner Review. Go to IB Examiner Review.

Unlock Your Free Review

Sign up for free to get instant AI feedback on your IA, EE, or TOK.

How it Works

The Psychology IA is assessed using four criteria, each worth 6 marks, totaling 24 marks.

Criterion A: Introduction (6 marks)
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The introduction is well-developed, clear and appropriate.The aim or research question is clearly stated and focused. The real-life problem is described and the impact on the population of interest is explained. Relevant findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are explained and linked to the investigation.
3–4The introduction is adequate but with some ambiguities or omissions.The aim or research question is clearly stated but only partially focused. The real-life problem is described, but the impact on the population of interest is not addressed. Relevant findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are described and linked to the investigation or only one is explained and linked to the investigation.
1–2The introduction is limited and lacks sufficient detail.The aim or research question is stated but not clearly expressed or is too broad. The real-life problem is stated. The findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are not clearly stated and are not made relevant to the investigation, or only one piece of research is included.
0The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The research methodology is well-developed, clear and appropriate.The choice of research method is explained. The procedure is explained. Relevant ethical considerations are described and explicitly linked to the investigation.
3–4The research methodology is adequate but with some ambiguities or omissions.The choice of research method is described. The procedure is described but lacks detail. Relevant ethical considerations are described but some are not linked to the investigation.
1–2The research methodology is limited and lacks sufficient detail.The research method is described with errors in understanding. The procedure is described but is unclear due to errors or omissions. Ethical considerations are described but not linked to the investigation.
0The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The data collection is clear, precise and accurate.An appropriate and effective data collection tool to measure behaviour has been created. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are explained and relevant to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are explained and relevant to the investigation.
3–4The data collection is adequate with some inconsistencies.An appropriate data collection tool has been created to measure behaviour. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are described and relevant to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are described and relevant to the investigation.
1–2The data collection is limited, showing omissions or inaccuracies.An appropriate data collection tool has been created to measure behaviour, but it contains errors. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are in limited detail or have limited relevance to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are described in limited detail and/or are not relevant to the investigation.
0The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The discussion is fully justified and consistent.Potential findings of the investigation are described in detail and the implication(s) for policy/practice are explained. One or more relevant examples of how researcher bias may affect the investigation are discussed. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is discussed with reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation.
3–4The discussion is described but only partially consistent.Potential findings of the investigation are described and the implication(s) for policy/practice are partially addressed. One or more relevant examples of researcher bias are described. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is discussed without reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation.
1–2The discussion is stated but lacks sufficient support.Potential findings of the investigation are described but the implication(s) for policy/practice are not addressed. One or more examples of researcher bias are identified. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is described, without reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation.
0The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Avoid Common Mistakes in Psychology IAs

Not discussing potential challenges in data collection in sufficient detail, leaving gaps in the understanding of the research process.

Creating a data collection tool that is either inappropriate or poorly designed, which can compromise the validity of the findings.

Neglecting to adequately describe the real-life problem and its impact on the population of interest, which diminishes the relevance of the research.

Not adequately discussing how researcher bias may affect the investigation, which can lead to questions about the objectivity of the research.

Overlooking ethical considerations or failing to explicitly link them to the investigation, which can undermine the integrity of the research.

Real Grade 7 Psychology Exemplars

Examiner Marking

How does framing a cheating dilemma in terms of potential gains (gaining marks) or potential losses (losing marks) affect students’ behavioural choices, perceived risk, moral judgments, and emotional reactions in a decision-making task?

IA
Psychology
SL
7
Examiner Marking

To what extent does screen time on phone apps for children affect the working memory capacity of preschool children (ages 3-5) immediately after using the app?

IA
Psychology
HL
7

Explore AI Grader for other subjects

IA

Math AA

Math AI

English A (Lang & Lit) HL Essay

EE

English A (Lang & Lit)

English A (Lit)

English B

TOK

TOK Exhibitions

TOK Essays

Frequently Asked Questions

The Coursework Grader gives you instant feedback on your IB coursework (IA, EE, or TOK). It is designed as a detailed grader trained with input from real IB examiners.

Choose your coursework type and details (subject, level, and session where relevant), upload your PDF, then submit for grading. Once processing starts, you will see a progress screen while your Coursework Grader report is generated.

Yes. Your file stays private and secure on Clastify. It is not shared or published, and uploading it will not trigger plagiarism checkers.

The Coursework Grader assesses your coursework against official IB criteria for the selected subject and category (IA, EE, or TOK). You receive criterion-by-criterion feedback, a predicted mark, and concrete suggestions for improvement.

The model is trained on examiner-marked IB exemplars and aligned with current assessment criteria. It is a strong draft-stage tool, but a human examiner review remains the best option for a final-grade prediction.

Clear theory/study link, ethical protocol, controlled variables, and analysis that connects results back to psychological concepts.

Limits (sampling, operationalisation, demand characteristics), validity/reliability impact, and realistic modifications.

Heavily—consent, debriefing, withdrawal, and harm avoidance gaps can sharply limit Exploration predictions.