1. Objectives of the Comprehensive Examination
The Comprehensive Examination is designed to test the candidate's mastery of material beyond the subject matter of the thesis. This should reflect the student's capacity to critically integrate research and/or theories pertaining to one or more issues that are fundamental to his or her field of study. It comprises the preparation, submission, evaluation, and oral defence of a written text (the comprehensive document) on a topic that lies outside the narrow subject matter of the thesis but may be connected to the larger thesis area. In any case, the comprehensive document is not to be an integral component of the thesis and the references cannot overlap significantly with those of the thesis.
The document should be of considerable scope (40 to 60 pages in length, including the references), examining its subject in depth, and should include a critical analysis that is original. It should clearly demonstrate a mastery of its topic.
2. Procedural Guidelines
2.1 Registration for the comprehensive examination - Experimental Program
Registration for the comprehensive examination must take place one year before the date planned for its completion. Prior to registration, the composition of the comprehensive examination committee and the topic of the comprehensive exam must have been approved by the program director. For the approval of the topic, the student must submit to the program director a brief one-page topic description on the approved form. The description must emphasize the distinction between these two documents. In all cases, the comprehensive examination must be completed before the submission of the thesis, in agreement with the regulations of the FGPS.
Comprehensive examination - Topic approval form (PDF, 1.05MB)
2.2 Composition and role of the Comprehensive Examination Committee
The examining committee is composed of three (3) voting members who determine the procedural guidelines in accordance with the stated regulations and who carry out the final evaluation of the student's document. The members can be drawn from full-time, cross-appointed, adjunct, or clinical professors of the School of Psychology. The program director, taking into account the topic description and the student's recommendations, appoints all members of the examining committee, including the chair of the committee. The thesis supervisor is usually, although not required to be, a member of the comprehensive committee. However, if a member, the thesis supervisor cannot be the chair of this committee.
During the month following the registration for the comprehensive examination, the chair calls a meeting with the student and the two members selected to establish procedural guidelines in terms of how often the meetings will occur (weekly, monthly, etc.), if the student meets members individually or as a committee, as well as to determine a detailed schedule of deadline dates for the various phases of the examination process.
The program director may request the comprehensive examination committee to provide an opinion about the distinction between the topic of the comprehensive examination and that of the thesis. In cases where this distinction is not clear, the committee will ask the student to provide the detailed lists of references consulted for the thesis and for the comprehensive examination. There must be no significant overlap between these two reference lists.
2.3 Submission of the examination document
The student must submit a copy of the final version of his or her document to each member of the committee and to the Graduate Studies Secretariat no later than one year after the registration for the comprehensive exam – that is, before the end of August if registration for the comprehensive examination occurred in the fall semester and before the end of December if registration for the comprehensive examination occurred in the winter semester. Upon receipt of the document, the chair, in consultation with all parties, sets the date of the oral examination.
2.4 Evaluation by the committee members, written feedback to the student, and oral examination
The committee members will have at least one month to evaluate the document and forward to the chair a grade of Pass or Fail accompanied by a written commentary. The chair then forwards the marks and written comments, including his/her own mark and comments, to the student. The student must receive this feedback at least one week prior to the date of the oral examination.
2.5 Oral examination and assignment of an overall grade
The oral examination of the comprehensive examination document is meant to be an exercise of the same nature as that of the oral defence of the thesis. It must be audio taped. Questions from the examiners should bear on issues pertinent to the comprehensive examination document. No separate mark will be given for the oral examination; rather, the evaluation should consist of a reassessment of the mark given to the written document in the light of the student's oral performance. At the end of the oral examination, examiners communicate their reassessed mark to the chair, who compiles the three results: two or three passing grades signify an overall Pass, or conversely, two or three failing grades signify an overall Fail. The student and the appropriate program director are then informed of the overall result.
In accordance with the regulations of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-Doctoral Studies, a student who has failed for the first time is entitled to one (and only one) re-examination, for which the procedural guidelines are described in Section 2.7 below. Moreover, the student may appeal the result, in accordance with the procedural guidelines of the School of Psychology as described in Section 2.6 below. The student would normally first contact the School of Psychology, but alternatively, he/she may follow the guidelines detailed in Section 10.1(3) of the calendar of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-Doctoral Studies.
2.6 Appeal to Graduate Studies Committee of School of Psychology
A student choosing to appeal the committee's decision to the School of Psychology must do so in writing during the two weeks following his/her receiving notification of the committee's decision. This letter must state clearly the reason for his/her decision to appeal the examination result and must be forwarded to the chair of the Graduate Studies Committee of the School of Psychology.
2.7 Re-examination
A student wishing to be re-examined has six months, from the date he/she receives notice of a failed examination (or of an unsuccessful appeal), to discuss the reasons for the failing grade with the members of his/her committee, revise his/her document accordingly, and re-submit it for a last evaluation, including the oral examination.
2009-08-12
(Policy approved by the School Council on December 12, 1999; Comprehensive exam abolished in the Clinical Program by School Council on November 30, 2007. )
Published comprehensive papers
Shane Sweet (2005 - 2011; supervisor Michelle S. Fortier)
Sweet, S.N. & Fortier, M.S. (2010). Improving Physical activity and dietary behaviours with single or multiple health behaviour interventions? A synthesis of meta-analyses and reviews. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7, 1720-1743.
Joelle Laplante (2005- 2010; supervisor: Francine Tougas)
Laplante, J., Tougas, F., Lagacé, M., & Lortie-Lussier, M. (2009). Infantilisées et contrôlées: le sort des travailleuses séniores ? Vie et vieillissement, 7, 15-22.
Amanda Kentner (2003-2007; supervisor: Catherine Bielajew)
Kentner, A., Abazaid, A, & Bielajew, C. (2010) Modeling dad: animal models of paternal behaviour. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 438-451.
Maia Miguelez (1998-2003; supervisor: Catherine Bielajew)
Miguelez, M., & Bielajew, C. (2004). Mapping the neural substrate underlying brain stimulation reward with the behavioural adaptation of double-pulse methods. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 15, 47-74.
France Landry (1997-2003); supervisor: Catherine Plowright)
Landry, F. (2001). Bien-être animal: Contribution de la psychologie cognitive compare. Revue de l'Université de Moncton, 32, 239-252.
Anne Konkle (1997-2002); supervisor: Catherine Bielajew)
Konkle, A.T.M., & Bielajew, C. (2004) Tracing the neuroanatomical profiles of reward pathways with markers of neuronal activation. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 15, 383-414.
Carole Gentile (1988-1994; supervisor: Alastair Younger)
Gentile, C. & Younger, A. (1996). Nature et bénéfices de l'amitié dans le développement de l'enfant. Dans R. Tessier, G. Tarabulsy, & M. Provost (Eds.) Les relations sociales entre les enfants. Monographies de psychologie, 12, les Presses de l'Université du Québec, pp. 70-100.