APA Psychology Literature Review Example: Mindfulness and Adolescent Anxiety

Evidence boundary: This is an educational writing example, not clinical guidance. The evidence concerns varied populations, settings, interventions, controls, and outcome measures. It does not establish that a particular mindfulness program will treat an individual adolescent's anxiety.

Evidence snapshot

Annotated psychology literature review example

Paragraph 1: Define the question and establish the evidence pattern

[Scope and thesis] Evidence on mindfulness-based programs for anxiety in young people is mixed, and the most defensible conclusion is narrower than a claim that “mindfulness works for adolescent anxiety.” [Narrative citation and study design] Dunning et al. (2019) synthesized 33 randomized controlled trials involving 3,666 children and adolescents. Across all control conditions, statistically significant effects were small, ranging from d = .16 to .30 across several cognitive, behavioral, and emotional outcomes. [Specific outcome and comparator] When the analysis was restricted to active-control trials, the effect for anxiety/stress was d = .18. [Interpretation] This result supports a possible small benefit, but it does not isolate adolescent anxiety because ages and anxiety/stress outcomes were pooled. [Counterevidence] A review focused specifically on anxiety found a non-significant combined effect, d = .013, 95% CI [−.102, .128], across 18 controlled studies (Ruiz-Íñiguez et al., 2020). [Synthesis] Read together, these reviews suggest that the apparent effect depends partly on how the population, outcome, and comparator are defined.

Paragraph 2: Compare newer and broader evidence

[Update and evidence hierarchy] A later update doubled the randomized evidence base to 66 trials with 20,138 participants (Dunning et al., 2022). [Comparator-aware synthesis] Mindfulness-based programs were associated with improvements in anxiety/stress and several other outcomes when compared with passive controls, but only anxiety/stress and mindfulness remained statistically significant against active controls. The active-control effect for anxiety/stress was small, d = .11. [Follow-up and quality boundary] The update found no significant positive effects in studies with follow-up assessments and characterized the evidence overall as low quality and inconclusive. [Connection to prior synthesis] These results refine, rather than simply confirm, the earlier review: a larger evidence base still produced small estimates, and the conclusion weakened when the comparator and follow-up period became more demanding. [Responsible conclusion] A psychology literature review should therefore distinguish immediate post-intervention change from sustained benefit and passive controls from credible active alternatives.

Paragraph 3: Explain heterogeneity and state a researchable gap

[Broader context] Differences among reviews also show why “mindfulness intervention” should not be treated as one uniform exposure. Klingbeil et al. (2017) synthesized 76 studies and found small overall effects in both pre–post (g = .305) and controlled (g = .322) designs. After controlling for study quality, intervention dosage was not meaningfully related to outcomes. In school settings, Zenner et al. (2014) reported an overall between-groups effect of g = .40, but the review combined cognitive, emotional, and other outcomes across grades 1–12. [Synthesis rather than averaging] These findings cannot be converted into one adolescent-anxiety estimate because they answer different questions. [Precise gap] A useful next review question would ask whether mindfulness-based programs reduce validated anxiety outcomes in adolescents aged 12–18 when compared with active controls, and whether any effect persists for at least six months. [Completion criterion] That question identifies the population, intervention, outcome, comparator, and follow-up period needed for a reproducible search and defensible synthesis.

Why this is synthesis rather than summary

A summary reports each source separately. A synthesis organizes sources around a claim and explains why results converge or diverge.

APA 7 citation audit

Three or more authors

APA 7 uses the first author's surname followed by “et al.” from the first in-text citation:

• Narrative: Dunning et al. (2022)

• Parenthetical: (Dunning et al., 2022)

Do not list all authors in the prose on first mention. In the reference list, include up to 20 authors before applying APA's ellipsis rule.

One author and two authors

For a one-author work, the pattern is Author (Year) or (Author, Year). For a two-author work, use “and” in narrative prose and an ampersand in parentheses: Author and Author (Year) versus (Author & Author, Year). These are formatting patterns, not additional sources cited by the sample review.

Multiple sources in one parenthesis

Order different works alphabetically by the first author's surname and separate them with semicolons:

(Dunning et al., 2022; Klingbeil et al., 2017; Ruiz-Íñiguez et al., 2020)

Statistical reporting

Keep the statistic used by the source rather than relabeling it. Italicize statistical symbols such as d, g, p, and N where APA calls for it, but do not rely on typography alone. Name the population, design, comparator, and confidence interval when they are necessary to interpret the estimate.

Secondary citations

Use a secondary citation only when the original work cannot reasonably be obtained. Cite the original author in the text, add “as cited in,” and include only the source you actually read in the reference list. Whenever possible, retrieve and cite the original source.

What a poor draft gets wrong

Many studies show that mindfulness helps anxiety. Mindfulness programs work in schools and clinics, and longer programs may work better. Researchers have found significant results, although more research is needed.

This paragraph has no traceable evidence, collapses children and adolescents, treats schools and clinics as equivalent, asserts a dose response that a major synthesis did not support after quality adjustment, and does not identify a comparator or outcome measure. Its final sentence gives no actionable research gap.

A stronger revision should:

1. define the population and outcome;

2. identify the evidence design;

3. report a verified estimate only when it helps answer the question;

4. include conflicting or null evidence;

5. explain plausible reasons for disagreement without presenting speculation as fact; and

6. end with a gap that could guide a search or study.

Psychology-specific quality checklist

Before submitting an APA psychology literature review, confirm that:

• [ ] The opening states a bounded claim rather than a universal treatment conclusion.

• [ ] Children, adolescents, clinical samples, and universal school populations are not treated as interchangeable.

• [ ] Active and passive control groups are distinguished.

• [ ] Anxiety is not silently combined with stress, depression, wellbeing, or general emotional symptoms.

• [ ] Each effect size remains attached to its original design and outcome.

• [ ] Statistical significance is not presented as proof of practical or clinical importance.

• [ ] Null findings and uncertainty are represented fairly.

• [ ] Narrative and parenthetical citations are chosen for readability, not a fixed percentage.

• [ ] Every in-text citation has one matching reference-list entry, and vice versa.

• [ ] Every DOI resolves to the source named in the reference entry.

• [ ] Clinical conclusions are reviewed by an appropriately qualified human.

• [ ] Department, instructor, ethics, and journal requirements take precedence over this example.

How Acade can support this workflow

Acade is an academic research workspace for students, researchers, and professionals. For a psychology literature review, you can use it to move through a connected workflow:

1. Frame the review question.

   Enter the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, setting, and time boundary.

2. Search for literature.

   Develop search terms and locate potentially relevant academic sources.

3. Organize evidence.

   Record each study's population, design, comparator, outcome, estimate, and limitation in structured notes.

4. Build a synthesis outline.

   Group evidence by claim, method, or source of disagreement rather than by author.

5. Draft and revise.

   Turn the evidence map into paragraphs, then check that each claim is supported by the source cited.

6. Verify manually.

   Open every source, confirm the bibliographic details and statistics, and apply your institution's APA requirements.

Acade can assist with research, evidence organization, outlining, citation-supported writing, and academic revision. It cannot determine clinical appropriateness, guarantee citation accuracy, replace your reading of the sources, or assume responsibility for the submitted work.

Build your psychology literature review workflow with Acade — describe your topic, population, evidence boundary, and assignment requirements, then ask Acade to help you plan the next verifiable step.

References

Dunning, D. L., Griffiths, K., Kuyken, W., Crane, C., Foulkes, L., Parker, J., & Dalgleish, T. (2019). Research review: The effects of mindfulness-based interventions on cognition and mental health in children and adolescents—A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(3), 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12980

Dunning, D., Tudor, K., Radley, L., Dalrymple, N., Funk, J., Vainre, M., Ford, T., Montero-Marin, J., Kuyken, W., & Dalgleish, T. (2022). Do mindfulness-based programmes improve the cognitive skills, behaviour and mental health of children and adolescents? An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 25(3), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2022-300464

Klingbeil, D. A., Renshaw, T. L., Willenbrink, J. B., Copek, R. A., Chan, K. T., Haddock, A., Yassine, J., & Clifton, J. (2017). Mindfulness-based interventions with youth: A comprehensive meta-analysis of group-design studies. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.006

Ruiz-Íñiguez, R., Santed Germán, M. Á., Burgos-Julián, F. A., Díaz-Silveira, C., & Carralero Montero, A. (2020). Effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on anxiety for children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 14(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12849

Zenner, C., Herrnleben-Kurz, S., & Walach, H. (2014). Mindfulness-based interventions in schools—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00603

Frequently asked questions

Is APA 7 the correct style for a psychology literature review?

APA style is widely used in psychology, but it is not automatically required for every course, thesis, lab, or journal. Follow the instructions from your department, instructor, institution, or target publication.

Should I cite a meta-analysis or the primary studies it includes?

Cite the meta-analysis when your claim concerns its pooled result, scope, or method. Cite a primary study when you discuss that study's particular sample, procedure, mechanism, or finding. Do not imply that you read a primary paper if you encountered it only through a review.

How do I cite two works by the same author from the same year?

APA distinguishes them with lowercase letters, such as 2022a and 2022b. The letters are assigned from the order of the entries in the reference list after the entries have been arranged according to APA rules, and the same suffixes must appear in text.

Should reviews of adolescent anxiety separate self-report from clinician-rated measures?

They should at least record and evaluate the measurement method. Whether separate meta-analysis is appropriate depends on the review protocol, the number and comparability of studies, and the construct measured. Do not assume different instruments are interchangeable.

Can I reuse the citations in this example?

Use the structure as a model, but run your own search and read the sources relevant to your question. Verify every author, year, statistic, page range, and DOI before submission.

Continue with related examples

• APA 7 literature review example and formatting hub

• APA nursing literature review example

• Annotated literature review sample

Source and product information checked September 2, 2026. Research findings and product capabilities may change. Verify current sources, institutional rules, and Acade plan details before relying on them.