The analysis was fine. The sentence describing it is what fails
A large share of corrections on results chapters are not statistical at all. They are claims the design cannot support, findings reported without the numbers that matter, or interpretation smuggled into a section that is supposed to report. All three are fixable in the writing.
Get your free quote
We reply within 1 business hour, no delays.
No card details required · 100% confidential · On time, or it's free
Results report. Discussion interprets. Keeping them apart is most of the battle
The results chapter says what you found. The discussion says what it means, how it relates to prior work, and what follows. Mixing them is the most common structural criticism, and it usually happens because writing a bare finding feels unsatisfying so an explanation gets attached to it.
Within results, the recurring problem is under-reporting. A p value alone does not let a reader evaluate your finding. They need the test statistic, degrees of freedom, the exact p, an effect size and ideally a confidence interval. APA 7 is specific about this and committees increasingly enforce it.
In qualitative work the equivalent failure is a theme asserted with one supporting quote and no sense of how common or contested it was across the dataset. A reader cannot tell whether the theme represents two participants or twenty, and that is exactly what they will ask.
- Results and discussion separated cleanly
- Complete reporting: statistic, df, exact p, effect size, interval
- Claims matched to what the design can actually support
- Tables and figures that follow APA 7 rather than the software
What a review covers
On your own draft, against your own rubric
- Whether each claim is supported by the analysis you ran
- Completeness of reporting against APA 7
- Causal language on non-causal designs, flagged line by line
- Table and figure formatting, numbering and callouts
- Whether non-significant or inconvenient findings are reported honestly
Four things that come back graded
Causal claims from correlational data
Led to, resulted in, caused, improved. Cross-sectional and correlational designs do not license any of these verbs, and changing them is often a one-hour fix that removes a major criticism.
Significance without magnitude
A significant result with no effect size leaves the reader unable to judge whether it matters. With large samples, trivial differences reach significance routinely.
Interpretation inside results
This suggests that, which indicates, likely because. All of it belongs in the discussion. Results states what was found, in past tense, without explanation.
Themes without weight
In qualitative chapters, a theme presented with a single quote and no indication of prevalence, variation or disconfirming cases. Examiners ask about all three.
What happens when you send a results chapter
You send the chapter, the output and the rubric
All three matter. Without the output we cannot check whether what you wrote matches what you found, which is the single most useful thing this review does.
We check claim against evidence
Line by line. Every claim gets traced back to the analysis that supports it, and anything that overreaches is graded with an explanation of why.
Reporting completeness against APA 7
What is missing from each reported result, what the table should look like, and where the numbering and callouts are wrong.
Structural comments
Whether anything in results belongs in discussion, whether the order follows your research questions, and whether a reader could follow it without the output in front of them.
You revise, and we look again if you want
Comments explain the reason rather than just grading the problem, so the second draft is usually yours alone.
We review your writing about your results
- We do not write your results or discussion chapter.
- We do not change your findings or suggest a more favorable interpretation.
- We do not fabricate, alter or supply data or output.
- We do not remove an inconvenient result from your reporting.
- We mark what does not hold up and explain why, so you can fix it.
If a claim in your draft is not supported by your analysis, we will tell you, and the remedy is always changing the claim rather than changing the data. Read the full policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Results states what you found, in past tense, with the numbers and without explanation. Discussion interprets it, relates it to prior literature, acknowledges limitations and says what follows. If a sentence in your results section contains the word because, it is probably in the wrong chapter.
The test statistic with degrees of freedom, the exact p value, and an effect size, alongside the descriptive statistics for each group. Reporting a p value alone is the most common omission, and it is the one that most reliably comes back graded.
Yes. Selectively reporting only significant findings misrepresents what you did and is a research integrity problem rather than a stylistic choice. A well-handled null result with attention to power and effect size is perfectly respectable.
No. SPSS output is not in APA 7 format and pasting it in is an immediate correction. Tables need rebuilding with the right structure, title placement, notes and numbering. It is quicker than it sounds once you have seen one done.
No, and trying to hide it is much worse. A disconfirmed hypothesis honestly reported and thoughtfully discussed is a legitimate contribution. Reframing the question after the fact to match the result is a recognized problem and examiners are alert to it.
Say how many participants contributed to it and whether it was contested, and present variation and disconfirming cases rather than only the cleanest quote. Some methods accept counts and some resist them, so match it to your stated approach, but the reader always needs a sense of weight.
Send the chapter, the output and the rubric
We will tell you which claims your analysis actually supports, what is missing from the reporting, and what a committee will question first.
Get My Results Reviewed