Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association

Robert I. Hedges is enrolled in a graduate program that, unfortunately, requires all papers to be written in APA format. APA is far and away the least useful or user friendly format ever devised (although a professor friend disagrees and thinks Chicago style is worse), and is largely used by social scientists. Since Robert I. Hedges is not enrolled in a social science curriculum, you might expect that Robert I. Hedges would be spared this horror, but someone sold the Dean an APA bill of goods (probably Beelzebub himself.) Robert I. Hedges' theoretical question here is what, exactly, qualifies the American Psychological Association to develop a style and format for research papers? Wouldn't English teachers and linguists be more qualified, as in MLA format? Why is APA more qualified than say The Airline Pilots Association, or The National Prune Anti-Defamation League to develop a writing style? Just a question.

Robert I. Hedges figured that since Robert I. Hedges was stuck using this fiendish format, Robert I. Hedges should learn to use it correctly. Robert I. Hedges' school put out a "Users Guide to APA Format", but it is very general and almost totally ignores documenting electronic (internet) sources; thus, Robert I. Hedges bought "Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association". Robert I. Hedges am generously giving this medical book two stars in as much as most (but not all) reasonable situations are addressed in it, but the format of "Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association" is virtually incomprehensible and frequently sends you to multiple different places to answer a simple question. (This shouldn't surprise him given the lack of logic found in APA style in general, Robert I. Hedges suppose.)

Unfortunately even the latest (fifth) edition is woefully inadequate in answering very basic questions on documentation of internet sources, particularly addressing situations in which quotations from internet sources are included in a paper. The index is, likewise, next to useless, as looking anything up (if it happens to even be in the index, itself and unlikely development) will result in a wild goose chase of referencing around the book. This is but only one reason the entire format may be more useful to psychologists than those in the hard sciences.

What the guide IS full of is useless trivia, for instance a section on the APA "Policy on Metrication" (needless to say APA mandates metric units), and a definition of "HSD" as "Tukey's honestly significant difference (also referred to as the Tukey a procedure)." While I am not saying that metrication or Tukey's honestly significant difference aren't important (though I am inclined to), Robert I. Hedges is saying that a book that dwells on minutia like that should definitely cover the basics of references, formats and citations first. Like Robert I. Hedges said, most (but not all) of the information actually is here, but good luck finding it.

Perhaps APA should put out a guide for using this guide. Better yet, perhaps any format so cumbersome to use and needlessly intricate should be dumped altogether for a better format, like MLA. At this point Robert I. Hedges is even willing to try Chicago style.

The APA (American Psychological Association) publication manual is now in its fifth incarnation, and remains the writer refers to style required by over a thousand journals in psychology, education and other areas. Those familiar with the style Tower of Babel that exists in other fields such as medicine or biology, to understand this is no small achievement. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has sought for nearly four decades to encourage medical journals to share a common style. So far, about 500 have agreed to do so, while thousands (!) Others insist on their own nuances and variations. Psychologists have only a master of style, is a critic should keep in mind. The APA style of 80 shot in 2008 and shows its age. For example, he insists that "reference" is the singular of data, its use seems a bit quaint today. The current edition is Metis as well. The chapter on references is rewritten to reflect sources available on the Internet, but that the "content and organization of the manuscript" is unchanged compared to at least the third edition (1983). Entirely new to this edition is the chapter on "Manuscripts other than newspaper articles," an aide to the preparation of documents for class use or presentation at conferences.

The section on tables is so exceptional Chicago Manual of Style also refers the reader to this area (CMS, 2003, p. 496). Also pending are the "Guidelines for reducing bias in the language." These are only nine pages of discussion followed by a period of six pages table full of examples of misuse and the preferred option. No other style guide addresses this issue in such a concise and usable fashion, a must-read for students. One chapter is devoted to showing the profusion page format required items submitted for consideration (what the APA calls "copy manuscripts). It is yet another example of letter.

Unique in style of the APA is the practice of referencing electronic printing facsimiles of articles (for example, in Adobe Portable Document Format) as sources to print only the note [Electronic version] added the title . In these areas, the manual and style are completely contemporary and concise. In others, such as the use of abundant periods and the references in parentheses, the style seems a bit quaint, even crowded. Each original is followed by a period, parentheses are placed around the date, number edition of a book, the pages of edited volumes, and as abbreviations (Eds.), for "publishers". Some sources require the abbreviation "pp." front page numbers in the references, others not. No other style is so heavily spotted. On the whole, however, coverage formats reference is comprehensive and very accessible, crowded punctuation, shades and all.

The quality suffers in the sections on the parameters and statistics. The style uses symbols nonstandard statistics such as "M" for "," but not the more familiar x with a bar above (there is a table of symbols required). More troubling is that some statistics must be placed in brackets in the text, and others do not. The rules for doing this are ambiguous, and examples are rare. Just 10 pages are devoted to this subject. In the section on the International System of Units (SI), the manual notes stop a class of "additional units", a class that was eliminated by international convention in 1995, six years before this edition of the handbook is went to the press. The point is a small, but you wonder what else they are wrong? Although the manual is now a chapter to help students prepare documents, instructions are vague and there are no graphics to show how to form a title page or the rest of a document. Students are well advised to seek the "APP Crib Sheet" on the Web. The Crib Sheet interpreter and illustrates these instructions to you (and your monitor!) And it's free.

The spiral-bound edition flat on your desk whatever the page is turned. If you've ever worked with a classical style bound guide you know that this is not a trivial practice. The third edition of the APA manual was published in 1983, the fourth in 1994. The fifth edition (2001) is probably rushed to get a style approved for references to electronic sources in print. The next edition is planned for 2011 or 2012 if the past is a guide. The verdict on the APA manual is a banal, but all too true: The APA manual is what it is. A fairly recent survey of 210 editors review revealed that 39% were returned documents only for not following the APA style ( "The elements of [ABS] Style: A Survey of Psychology Journal Editors," by BW Brewer et al., 2001, American Psychologist, 56 (3), pp. 266-267). If you write for publication, the style is too complex and nuanced not have the manual handy. How else will know when, "pp. page numbers in your references?

View "Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association" details