Step 2 is where the fun begins! We are going to get started writing and developing the "bones" of your research paper. I don't expect you to have this perfect right off the bat. The whole purpose of dividing your paper into multiple stages before the final submission is to give you a chance to make mistakes. I think a lot of us procrastinate with writing because we feel overwhelmed by not knowing where to begin. Steps 1-5 are "low stakes," meaning that they are not worth a large part of your final grade. Each step is an opportunity for you to build on your ideas, make improvements based on my feedback, and revise and clarify your thoughts so that you have a beautifully written finished product! I am here to help at every stage.In Step 1, you collected five peer-reviewed, scholarly articles describing original research conducted within the field of psychology. For Step 2, you will develop your ability to assess claims based on the Three Claims, Four Validities framework in your text. You will begin by analyzing one article following the instructions below. In the next phase, Step 3, you will add two more articles to the paper following the same guidelines, creating one cohesive Literature Review of three somewhat related articles.By now you should have read through each of your five articles. Choose the one that you feel you understand the best. I know these articles can be full of technical information that may be a bit confusing, but since we only work on one paper in this class, you have plenty of time to read them carefully, research confusing terms, and ask me for help if you need it. It is very important that the articles you select for the literature review be original research studies. You can review Step 1 instructions and resources for clarification on this, but one major hint is that the article will likely have some form of the following sections: an abstract, a literature review/ introduction, Participants, Methods/ Measures, Results/ Analysis, and Discussion. It will also have a long References list at the end. Here's an example (Links to an external site.) of what I mean.Step 2 Content1. Briefly summarize the research study.Article summaries flow best if they first discuss the reason the researchers sought to conduct their study (goals), briefly describe how they carried it out (methods/design), and then wrap up with what was discovered (findings/ conclusions). Scientific writing should be straightforward and concise. It isn't easy to summarize a lot of information into few words, but that is your goal here. Summaries should be about a half-page.Summary Checklist:state researcher's hypotheses/study's purposeconcise description of the methodologies usedsummary of findings/conclusionsdiscuss whether the main conclusion is a frequency, association, or causal claim (consider both the methods used and the conclusions made when trying to determine the type of claim); this will help guide you in discussing the four validities.2. Address each validity for the study as it relates to the claim made.Remember that you are being asked to scrutinize, not criticize, the research based on each of the four main validities described in Chapter 3. Demonstrate to me that you understand what aspects of participant recruitment and selection, research design and methodology, and analysis of statistical findings are contributing to and strengthening the study's validities. You should also demonstrate your ability to PRIORITIZE these validities based on the type of claim being made. I highly recommend referencing Chapter 3 of the textbook, including the "Working It Through" section on page 81, to help you with this part of the assignment.Discussion of the validities is the “meat” of your literature review. That is, you should spend more time on this section (and it should eventually be longer) than the article summary section.Three goals in discussing each validity:Demonstrate to me that you understand what that particular type of validity measures;Discuss the methods/ aspects of the study's design that address that particular type of validity;Be straightforward in explaining why an aspect of the study addresses that particular validity AND why that particular validity is or isn’t a priority based on the claims being made.Remember that you can say something, anything!, about each of the validities even if they are not a priority or addressed in the design. Here are a few things that might be relevant to your study that you should include in each subsection:Construct Validityremind readers of each of the variables analyzed in the study; identify each variable as either independent and dependent, or predictor and criterion variables; describe how each variable is manipulated/ measured/ operationally definedexplain why the method of measurement used contributes to the study's construct validitystate, why construct validity is/, is not a priority for this type of claimExternal Validitydescribe participant recruitment and the demographics of the sampleexplain the population that the researcher(s) hope to generalize their findings toshare why you think the sampling method contributes to the external validity