PS300 Unit 3 Research Article Analysis Example

Reviewed by Romilly Dunmore, MEd Research Methods I Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Thompson and colleagues' observation of 1,102 Seattle pedestrians at 20 intersections is analyzed part by part in this PS300 Unit 3 research article analysis. The question, the random time windows, the regression models adjusted for age, gender and clustering, and the results, 29.8 percent distracted and texters taking 1.87 seconds longer and 3.9 times as likely to cross unsafely, are laid out before strengths and limits are weighed. The analysis credits the sample and design, notes unmeasured differences and observer judgment, and adds Hyman and colleagues' unicycling clown. Purdue Global PS 300, Research Methods I, assigns this analysis in the BS in Psychology course.

CoursePS300 Research Methods I
UnitUnit 3
Paper typeResearch article analysis
LengthAbout 550 words, 4 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Psychology
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PS300 Unit 3

1

Reading a Crosswalk Study Section by Section: A PS300 Unit 3 Research Article Analysis

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS300: Research Methods I

Unit 3 Research Article Analysis

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer's project is composite; the article analyzed is real and described from its published report.

What this part is doingReporting the key numbers and the main limitation in the lead shows the analysis both understands and evaluates the study.
2

Finding the Article

I searched the university library's databases for observational studies of pedestrians and mobile phones, limited to peer-reviewed journals, and chose Thompson et al. (2013) in Injury Prevention because its design matches the observation planned for my own project.

Question and Hypotheses

The authors asked how social and technological distractions, such as texting, talking on a phone, listening to music or talking with a companion, relate to cautionary behaviors and crossing times among pedestrians. The implied hypothesis was that distracted pedestrians would cross more slowly and less safely.

Method

Observers watched pedestrians at 20 high-risk intersections in Seattle during one of three randomly assigned time windows in 2012. For each pedestrian, they recorded age group, gender and any distracting activity, along with crossing behaviors: looking both ways, crossing at the light, crossing within the crosswalk and the time taken to cross. The analysis used regression models adjusted for age and gender and accounted for clustering, since pedestrians at the same intersection share conditions.

Results

Of 1,102 pedestrians, 29.8 percent were doing something distracting: 11.2 percent were listening to music, 7.3 percent texting and 6.2 percent talking on a handheld phone. Texting pedestrians took 1.87 seconds longer to cross the average intersection than undistracted pedestrians, about 18 percent more time, and were 3.9 times as likely to show at least one unsafe crossing behavior.

Nearly two seconds longer in the crosswalk is small to a pedestrian and large to a driver turning right.

Strengths

Three features strengthen the study. The sample was large and drawn from many intersections, which improves generalizability within the city. Randomly assigning observation time windows reduced the chance that results reflected only rush hour or quiet periods. And adjusting for age and gender, and for clustering by intersection, made the comparisons fairer.

What this part is doingExplaining why each design feature matters shows the analysis evaluates rather than summarizes.
3

Limitations

The main limitation is the design itself. Because the study observed rather than assigned behavior, texters may differ from other walkers on traits the statistics never measured, for instance being in a hurry or less experienced with the intersection. Observers also had to judge distraction from outside, so some phone use may have been missed or misclassified, and the paper's methods should be checked for how agreement between observers was handled. Results from Seattle intersections in 2012 may not apply everywhere or to today's phones and habits.

Use for My Project

The study gives my crosswalk observation a model: defined behaviors, random time windows and attention to age as a possible confounder. It also warns me not to claim that phones cause unsafe crossing from observation alone. A related study of a university plaza found that people walking while talking on a phone were less likely than other walkers to notice a unicycling clown nearby (Hyman et al., 2010), which offers one possible mechanism, inattention, that my survey can ask about. Cozby and Bates (2020) describe this distinction between association and causation as the central question to ask of any nonexperimental study, and I will build my conclusions around it.

What this part is doingEnding with how the article shapes the writer's own project shows the analysis was done for a purpose.
4

References

Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2020). Methods in behavioral research (14th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Hyman, I. E., Jr., Boss, S. M., Wise, B. M., McKenzie, K. E., & Caggiano, J. M. (2010). Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 597-607. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1638

Thompson, L. L., Rivara, F. P., Ayyagari, R. C., & Ebel, B. E. (2013). Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: An observational study. Injury Prevention, 19(4), 232-237. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040601

The Purdue Global PS300 Unit 3 instructions

PS300's third unit commonly asks you to find a peer-reviewed study and analyze its question, method, sample, results and limits. Explain how you found the article and why it is relevant to your project. Summarize each section accurately in your own words, including key numbers from the results. Evaluate the study fairly: name features that strengthen it, such as sample size or random sampling of times, and limitations that restrict its conclusions, especially about cause and generalization. Consider whether the authors' conclusions follow from the design. Finish by explaining how the study will shape your own project. Cite the article in APA style, and avoid copying the abstract or overstating findings beyond what the authors reported.

How this PS300 Unit 3 example is built

The analysis begins with a library search filtered for peer-reviewed observational studies. The question section names the distractions studied and the implied hypothesis. Method covers the 20 intersections, random time windows, recorded behaviors and regression adjusted for clustering. Results report the 29.8 percent distraction rate, the types of distraction and the texting findings, under a highlighted line about two seconds mattering to a turning driver. Strengths cover sample, timing and adjustment. Limitations cover unmeasured differences, outside judgment of distraction and generalization. The close explains how the study models the writer's own observation and adds Hyman and colleagues on inattention. Every claim about the study is tied to the section of the article it comes from.

PS300 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points

Article analyses are graded on accurate summary and fair evaluation. Instructors look for each section of the study described correctly, with the main numbers reported as the authors reported them. Strengths should be explained, not just named, so the reader knows why a feature matters. Weaknesses count only when they belong to this design and these authors' claims. Judging whether conclusions follow from the method demonstrates the core skill of the course. Connecting the article to the student's own project shows purpose. Accurate APA citation of the article and any supporting sources completes the analysis, along with clear writing that does not echo the abstract.

Common PS300 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most common slip paraphrases the abstract and calls it an analysis. Another lists limitations that apply to all research, such as small sample, without checking whether they apply here. Students often report results with wrong numbers or overstate them, for example saying texting caused unsafe crossing. Strengths are frequently skipped. The connection to the student's own work is usually missing. Before submitting, check every number against the article's results, write at least two strengths and two limitations specific to this study, state whether the authors' conclusion matches the design and add a paragraph on how the study changes your project. Those steps turn a summary into an analysis.

Get a PS300 Unit 3 example written to your instructions

Send the article or topic and the instructions with the rubric. A custom analysis breaks the study into its parts and evaluates it. The first is free, back within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

Request this unit free All PS300 units Finished samples

More PS300 papers and BS in Psychology samples

PS300 Unit 3 questions, answered

Where is the method described?

In the method section, usually with participants, materials and procedure.

What is a limitation?

A feature of the study that restricts the conclusions it can support.

Should the analysis critique the study?

Yes, fairly, noting strengths as well as weaknesses.

Where can I find a free PS300 Unit 3 sample paper?

This page carries the complete PS300 Unit 3 analysis of a published observational study of distracted pedestrians, with strengths and limits.

What did the study in the PS300 Unit 3 sample find about texting?

Texting pedestrians took 1.87 seconds longer to cross and were 3.9 times as likely to show at least one unsafe crossing behavior.