The final project is worked out in groups of 3-4 students. Each group picks an existing dataset, conducts a network re-analysis of the data, and writes a brief report of their research. If you feel that your research cannot be conducted without collecting your own data, you can do so, however, you are strongly encouraged to work with an existing dataset.

The usual length of brief reports in psychological journals is between 3000-5000 words without references, plus a 200-word abstract. Please structure your report accordingly. Strictly adhering to IMRaD is not the only option (for example, Sacha Epskamp writes his articles in slightly a different structure), though please note that the report should include a theoretical part, a procedural part, and a section that summarizes and discusses the results. 

Do not write introductions that date back to Freud. If you test hypotheses, translate these hypotheses into statistical predictions. What networks do your hypotheses imply? (e.g. "We hypothesize the average edge-weight in group 1 to be significantly higher than in group 2." or "We expect that the mutualistic network model of intelligence explains the covariance between the subtests of Woodcock-Johnson IV better than the hierarchical factor model of intelligence."). If your research is exploratory, do not conduct statistical tests (de Groot, 1956), but state explicitly what your research aims to explore. Always motivate your choices. 

The final project is, unsurprisingly, graded on a 10-point scale. The grading scheme is divided into the following rubrics: ¨

Scientific writing & reasoning; 3 points

• is the goal of the report well-reasoned? 
• is the analysis backed up by sufficient theory?
• is the report well structured and is the referencing done properly? 

Procedure and the quality of analysis; 3,5 points

• does the analysis match the goals stated in the introduction and is it well-motivated? 
• are the hypotheses properly translated into statistical predictions/is the exploration described in clear and explicit terms?
• is the code correctly written and is it legible and well-annotated? 

Results and their implications; 3,5 points

• are the results reported in an understandable way (including figures and tables) and linked to the theory? 
• do you reflect on what can be drawn from your results and what cannot (please mind stability testing!)

Bb11777a67d13cc222b9ce0dbd6450df