Here is a reference for psychology graduate students drafting professional writing, including clinical reports, case notes, manuscripts, literature reviews, etc. Each entry gives the rule, why it matters, and an example.
1. Strong Topic Sentences
Rule: Open each paragraph with the main point. Don’t build up to it. Lead with it, then support it with evidence.
Why it matters: Readers, including supervisors, reviewers, and patients, often skim. A reader who only reads topic sentences should still get the argument or clinical picture. Burying the main point mid-paragraph forces the reader to reconstruct your reasoning themselves.
Example (clinical):
Weak: “On a task requiring the patient to hold information in mind while manipulating it, she scored in the 9th percentile. She also struggled on a similar spatial span task. Together, these results suggest...”
Strong: “The patient demonstrated a significant weakness in working memory, scoring in the 9th percentile on a task requiring her to hold and manipulate information.”
Example (academic):
Weak: “Several studies from the 1990s used small samples. Later replications found inconsistent effects. Taken together...”
Strong: “Evidence for this effect has been inconsistent across the literature, in part because early studies relied on small samples.”
2. Vague “This”
Rule: Never start a sentence with “This” unless it’s immediately followed by a noun that tells the reader what “this” refers to.
Why it matters: An unanchored “this” forces the reader to guess whether you mean the previous finding, the previous method, or the whole paragraph. In writing used for diagnosis, treatment planning, or scholarly argument, that ambiguity can lead to misinterpretation.
Example (clinical):
Vague: “The patient scored below average on measures of processing speed. This is consistent with reports of slow task completion.”
Clear: “The patient scored below average on measures of processing speed. This slower processing speed is consistent with reports of slow task completion.”
Example (academic):
Vague: “The intervention group showed greater gains than controls. This suggests the mechanism is domain-general.”
Clear: “The intervention group showed greater gains than controls. This pattern of gains suggests the mechanism is domain-general.”
3. Incomplete Comparisons
Rule: If you use a comparative word (more, less, better, worse, higher, lower), state explicitly what the comparison is relative to.
Why it matters: “More distractible” or “a stronger effect” begs the question: more or stronger than what? Without the anchor, the comparison can’t be evaluated or verified against a baseline, a norm, or another condition.
Example (clinical):
Incomplete: “The patient was more anxious during the interview.”
Complete: “The patient was more anxious during the interview than is typical for someone her age, as reflected in frequent requests for reassurance.”
Example (academic):
Incomplete: “This treatment produced better outcomes.”
Complete: “This treatment produced better outcomes than the waitlist control condition.”
4. Passive Voice
Rule: Default to active voice. Name the actor—the patient, the clinician, the researcher—as the subject of the sentence.
Why it matters: Passive constructions can obscure who did what, and that ambiguity matters both clinically (did the patient refuse the task, or did the examiner discontinue it?) and in research writing (did the authors control for a variable, or did it simply “get controlled for”?). Active voice is also more direct and easier to read.
Example (clinical):
Passive: “The task was discontinued after three consecutive failures were observed.”
Active: “The examiner discontinued the task after the patient failed three consecutive items.”
Example (academic):
Passive: “It was found that reaction times were slower under load.”
Active: “We found that reaction times were slower under load.”
5. “First/Second/Third,” Not “Firstly/Secondly/Thirdly”
Rule: Use first, second, third (etc.) as sequencing words. Avoid the “-ly” forms.
Why it matters: “Firstly/secondly/thirdly” is dated and adds syllables without adding meaning. Modern style guides favor the plain forms for concision. Plus, is “fourthly” a word? “Seventhly”?
Example:
Avoid: “Firstly, participants completed a baseline measure. Secondly, they underwent the intervention.”
Prefer: “First, participants completed a baseline measure. Second, they underwent the intervention.”
6. Anthropomorphizing Studies
Rule: Studies don’t “show” or “believe” anything. Attribute claims to results, findings, or the authors: “results suggest,” “findings indicate,” “the authors argue.”
Why it matters: This is a precision issue as much as a style one. A study is a method, not a mind. “Studies show X causes Y” overstates certainty; “findings suggest an association between X and Y” accurately represents what the data can support.
Example:
Avoid: “Studies show that early intervention improves outcomes.”
Prefer: “Findings suggest that early intervention is associated with improved outcomes.”
7. “Girl/Boy” or “Woman/Man,” Not “Female/Male” (as Nouns)
Rule: Use “girl,” “boy,” “woman,” or “man” (or “patient,” “participant,” “client”) when referring to a person. Reserve “female” and “male” as adjectives, not as standalone nouns for a person.
Why it matters: Using “female” or “male” as a noun (”the female was uncooperative during testing,” “twelve males were recruited”) is clinically and academically distancing if not downright dehumanizing—it reads as though describing a specimen rather than a person. This convention holds in both clinical notes and research manuscripts.
Example:
Avoid: “The female was administered the interview.”
Prefer: “The patient was administered the interview.” (or, once introduced, use her name.)
Avoid: “Twelve males and fourteen females participated.”
Prefer: “Twelve men and fourteen women participated.” (or “boys/girls,” as age-appropriate)
8. “Emotion, Behavior, Attention Regulation,” Not “Emotional, Behavioral, Attentional (Regulation)”
Rule: When describing regulation, use the noun form of the modifier—“emotion regulation,” “behavior regulation,” “attention regulation”—rather than the adjective form.
Why it matters: “Emotion regulation” is the established term in the clinical and developmental literature. We regulate emotions, not emotionals. Same reasoning extends for behavior and attention.
Example:
Imprecise: “The patient demonstrated difficulty with emotional regulation and behavioral regulation.”
Precise: “The patient demonstrated difficulty with emotion regulation and behavior regulation.”
9. “Every Day” vs. “Everyday”
Rule: “Every day” (two words) is an adverbial phrase meaning “each day.” “Everyday” (one word) is an adjective meaning “ordinary” or “routine.” Watch out for other similar pairs (e.g., “work out” vs. “workout”).
Why it matters: This small error undermines credibility in formal writing.
Example:
Incorrect: “She reported struggling with everyday transitions between tasks.”
Correct (frequency): “She reported struggling with transitions every day.”
Correct (routine/ordinary): “She reported struggling with everyday transitions, such as moving from one meeting to the next.”
10. Reflexive Pronouns in Place of Object Pronouns
Rule: Don’t use “myself,” “himself,” “herself,” etc. as a substitute for “me,” “him,” “her” when there’s no antecedent in the same clause for the reflexive to refer back to.
Why it matters: “Please direct questions to myself” is grammatically incorrect and reads as a failed attempt to sound formal. Plus, it’s an oddly narcissistic sentence construction; how many times do we need to refer to ourselves?
Example:
Incorrect: “The results were reviewed by the supervisor and myself.”
Correct: “The results were reviewed by the supervisor and me.” (or, better, switch to active voice: “My supervisor and I reviewed the results.”)
11. Misused Conditional Tense
Rule: Don’t use “would” to report a single, specific, observed event. Reserve “would” for genuinely habitual or hypothetical behavior, and use simple past tense for what was actually observed or reported.
Why it matters: “She would become frustrated and stop the task” (describing one specific session) implies a hypothetical rather than something directly observed, which subtly weakens the evidentiary weight of the statement. Overuse of “would” across a document can make documented, repeated events sound speculative rather than established.
Example (clinical):
Misused: “When presented with a difficult item, the patient would become frustrated and push the materials away.”
Correct (single observed instance): “When presented with a difficult item, the patient became frustrated and pushed the materials away.”
Correct (genuinely habitual, per history): “According to his mother, he would often refuse homework when he felt overwhelmed.”
Example (academic):
Misused: “Participants in the high-load condition would show slower response times.”
Correct: “Participants in the high-load condition showed slower response times.”
12. Comma Splices
Rule: Don’t join two independent clauses with only a comma. Use a period, a semicolon, or a coordinating conjunction (and, but, so, etc.).
Why it matters: Comma splices are a basic grammatical error that can also create ambiguity in dense professional writing about where one idea ends and the next begins.
Example:
Splice: “The intervention was brief, the effects persisted at follow-up.”
Corrected: “The intervention was brief, but the effects persisted at follow-up.”
Corrected: “The intervention was brief. The effects persisted at follow-up.”
13. Call People by Their Names, Not Generic Role Labels
Rule: Once a person has been introduced, refer to them by name (or a specific role, e.g., “Dr. Alvarez, the referring physician”) rather than defaulting to generic labels like “the parent,” “the patient,” “the teacher,” or “the author” throughout the document.
Why it matters: Writing reads as more precise and more person-centered when it names the actual people involved.
Example (clinical):
Generic: “The mother reported sleep difficulties. The teacher noted similar concerns about fatigue.”
Specific: “Mrs. Chen reported sleep difficulties. His teacher, Mr. Patel, noted similar concerns about fatigue.”
Example (academic):
Generic: “The author argues that the effect is overstated.”
Specific: “Kahneman argues that the effect is overstated.”
14. “More” vs. “Most”
Rule: Use “more” when comparing two things; use “most” when comparing three or more (superlative).
Why it matters: In writing that compares multiple domains, conditions, or studies, mixing these up misrepresents how many things are actually being compared — which matters when a reader is trying to gauge relative magnitude or severity.
Example:
Incorrect (only two conditions compared): “Of the two conditions tested, the high-load condition was the most impaired.”
Correct: “Of the two conditions tested, the high-load condition was the more impaired.”
Correct (three or more): “Of the four conditions tested, the high-load condition was the most impaired.”
This document was prepared with AI assistance. I consider it live and will continue to edit it as I see fit. Students, please check back often!