Term
The psychologist chose to summarise the data using the median.
Explain why the median might be the most appropriate measure of central tendency to
summarise the raw scores in this study. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
Two marks for an explanation.
One mark for any of the following: the data are not at interval level; rated so best treated
as ordinal data.
One mark for an expansion such as; a rating scale is too imprecise to make
mathematical operations permissible; the numerical data not considered as values on a
safe scale where intervals are equal.
Allow one mark max for alternative explanations eg better able to deal with extreme
values/outliers; the mode is not as sensitive as the median. |
|
|
Term
The psychologist randomly allocated the participants to the two groups.
Explain why this was an important form of control in this study. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
One mark fro general reason for random allocation covering points such as to try to
ensure that participant variables are spread evenly across the two groups; failure to
randomly allocate could introduce a confounding variable whereby the cause of any
differences between the two groups could be due to some uncontrolled participant factor
rather than the IV
Second mark for link to this study for example individual differences in memory evened
out across the two groups.
Credit other relevant points such as researcher bias. |
|
|
Term
| What is meant by the term validity? (1 mark) |
|
Definition
| One mark for an accurate definition: a test or measuring device is measuring what was intended or what it is supposed to be measuring. |
|
|
Term
The psychologist assumed that the participants in Group B were made anxious by the
story they heard. Explain why this assumption might not be valid. (2 marks)
outline one way in which the methodology of
the study could be improved. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
Up to two marks for the suggestion: some kind of check with the participants after they
had heard the story; trialing the stories and asking people to rate the stories for fear
content; reporting on their anxiety levels such as a questionnaire; a physiological
measure testing for increased arousal; comparing the control group with the
experimental group.
One mark for an incomplete or muddled answer.
Accept the original BPS ethical guidelines and the more recent ethical guidelines based
on respect, competence, responsibility and integrity.
One mark for identifying the issue. Answers will probably deal with protection from harm
and deception though candidates might make a case for confidentiality, informed
consent and right to withdraw.
Up to two marks for explaining how the issue applies to the study eg anxiety was
induced in participants – this was the variable that was manipulated. This carries with it
responsibility for the participants well-being during and at the end of the study.
One mark for a vague or incomplete explanation. |
|
|
Term
| Explain what is meant by qualitative and quantitative data collection. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
Qualitative: non-numerical data; information represented in words; represents
thoughts and feelings; what something means to an individual; recorded as a
conversation etc.
Quantitative: numerical; measuring behaviour in a numerical way etc. |
|
|
Term
The psychologist used an inferential statistical test to see whether there was a signifi cant
difference between the ratings for exploratory behaviour in baby boys and baby girls.
Name an appropriate statistical test that the psychologist could have used to compare
the scores in baby boys and baby girls. Give one reason for your answer. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
1 mark for the appropriate test: Mann-Whitney.
1 mark for identifying a reason. Accept a test of difference between the
ratings for baby boys and baby girls; unrelated scores; a rating scale cannot
claim to use units of equal intervals / not an objective measurement so level
of measurement is ordinal / data is non-parametric.
Only accept independent /unrelated t test if candidate refers to the scale
being standardised. |
|
|
Term
A difference was found at the 10% level (p =
v
0.10).
What conclusion could the psychologist draw from the results of the statistical analysis?
Explain your answer. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
1 mark for: ‘the probability of the difference occurring by chance is greater
than the minimum acceptable level of 0.05 level for a statistically significant
difference’ or similar.
1 mark for the conclusion: results are not significant; the psychologists cannot
reject the null hypothesis; the alternative hypothesis cannot be accepted.
Credit other possible answers such as if candidate states that the alternative
hypothesis should be accepted then an appropriate explanation is required. |
|
|
Term
In this study, the psychologist carried out the rating on her own. Explain why it might
have been better to have two psychologists rating the recordings. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
1 mark for each accurate point explained.
Likely answers: converting qualitative data into quantitative data is open to
bias / subjectivity; check for inter-rater / researcher reliability.
Accept any other relevant answers. |
|
|
Term
| The psychologist used the same set of twenty questions with all the parents. Briefly outline two advantages of carrying out the interview in this way. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
1 mark for each correctly outlined advantage.
Likely answers; can be standardised as interviewing up to forty parents;
easier to collate data from participants to examine patterns; focus of interview
can be maintained; easier to replicate the study; reduces researcher bias;
allows for comparison of responses.
Accept any other relevant answers. |
|
|
Term
Explain why measures of dispersion are often used in addition to measures of central
tendency to summarise data. (1 mark) |
|
Definition
One mark for an explanation.
Inform researcher of spread of scores. |
|
|
Term
Explain why the psychologists decided to use a Wilcoxon signed ranks test to analyse
the data. (3 marks) |
|
Definition
Maximum of 3 marks can be obtained from: one mark for each reason or two marks for each reason with explanation.
• Reason – ordinal level of measurement/non-parametric
Explanation – self reports/estimated scores of anger; data might not be normally distributed
• Reason – design of the study is related/repeated measure
Explanation – same people before and after
• Reason – research involving differences between the 2 sets of scores
Explanation – anger scores before and after |
|
|
Term
| Explain two possible reasons for asking each offender to keep a diary. (4 marks) |
|
Definition
Up to two marks for each reason and explanation. Likely points: as an aid to memory; a qualitative measure to supplement the quantitative data collected; to check the validity of the questionnaire; part of the therapeutic process/increased self-awareness.
Accept other valid reasons.
One mark for an appropriate reason and one mark for an explanation of the reason. |
|
|
Term
| Explain how having a control group could have improved this study. (3 marks) |
|
Definition
Up to three marks for outlining how a control group could have improved this study: it is not possible to tell if the programme has caused the improvement; improvement could have been due to the programme or due to spontaneous recovery; by using a control group would make it more scientific; scores can be taken at the same times (pre-programme/post-programme) as in an experimental condition; post programme differences between the groups can inform if programme is effective; can be more confident in inferring cause and effect .
Allow a maximum of one mark for the general purpose of a control condition: acts as comparison/baseline measure where nothing changes
Accept ‘scientific’ and ‘validity’ only if justified. |
|
|
Term
The independent researcher was also concerned that the psychologists had not checked
the reliability and validity of the questionnaire used to measure the level of anger.
Outline how the psychologists could check the reliability and the validity of the
questionnaire. (5 marks) |
|
Definition
Up to 5 marks for addressing both reliability and validity. One of these marks must be for reference to statistical testing.
A maximum of three marks if only one of these is addressed.
One mark for identifying a type of validity: face validity; concurrent validity. Accept also content validity; criterion validity; predictive validity.
Only accept identification mark if it matches how the assessment would be carried out.
One mark for outlining how the assessment would be carried out. For example in concurrent validity, scores from the questionnaire are compared with those from an established but similar questionnaire known to have good validity to see if the results are similar.
One mark for the statistical testing (checking for a positive correlation/applying Spearman’s rank order correlation).
One mark for identifying a way of assessing reliability. Most likely is test-retest but accept split-half reliability and item analysis.
Only accept identification mark if it matches how the assessment would be carried out.
Do not accept inter-rated/inter-observer reliability.
One mark for outlining how the assessment would be carried out. For example in test- retest, the same group of young offenders would be tested using the same questionnaire at a later date to see if the findings remained consistent.
One mark for the statistical testing (checking for a positive correlation/applying Spearman’s rank order correlation).
The one mark for statistical testing can only be credited once. |
|
|
Term
| Briefly explain one problem that might arise with the use of a two-tailed test. (1 mark) |
|
Definition
| One mark for a problem with the use of a two-tailed test: it is more difficult to achieve significant results; the minimum 5% probability of chance is halved to cover each tail. Increase probability of Type 2 error. |
|
|
Term
Outline one way in which the student teacher could have assessed the validity of the
empathy questionnaire. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
| 1 mark for a knowledge of a way (not just naming a type of validity) and 2nd mark for explaining how this would be implemented in this case. Most likely answers will address face validity or concurrent validity, but accept any other way such as construct validity, content validity, criterion validity and predictive validity. |
|
|
Term
Apart from the issue of validity, identify and briefly explain one methodological limitation
of the study. (2 marks) |
|
Definition
One mark for the identifying a methodological limitation of the study.
Likely answers: size/composition of sample/one school only; for test of empathy – no evidence of testing reliability; parental involvement in ‘time spent reading questionnaire’; self-report measures; correlation study.
One mark for a brief explanation.
Suggested explanations might cover: limits to generalisation; confidence in a test and its findings rests on it being deemed reliable; social desirability of parental responses and consequent bias; honesty of reporting/memory recall; cause and effect issues in correlation studies.
Accept any other plausible answers. |
|
|
Term
The researchers used random sampling to obtain equal numbers of boys and girls aged
13-14 years from the four schools. Outline how random sampling could have been carried out in this study. [2 marks] |
|
Definition
One mark for reference to selection by male/female or separate schools with reference to randomness
Two marks for reference to selection by male/female and separate schools with reference to randomness
For example:
For each school, all 13-14 year old girls would be given a number which would be entered onto a computer programme. Ten numbers would then be randomly generated for each of 4 schools to make a sample of 40 girls. This would be repeated for boys.
Credit answers that explain using other methods eg box, hat. |
|
|
Term
| Briefly explain one strength of content analysis. [1 mark] |
|
Definition
Answers might focus on the qualitative nature of content analysis – thematic (this gives more detailed information), OR categorising material to make it quantitative (as in this study) which is a strength as statistical analysis can be carried out.
Strengths also include: ability to analyse a wide range of materials without the necessity for direct contact with participants; fewer ethical/practical problems, validity etc. |
|
|
Term
Outline how the reliability of the analysis of the children’s essays could be checked.
[3 marks] |
|
Definition
One mark for knowledge of inter-/intra-rater (observer) reliability (this may be named or implicit in the application)
Plus up to two marks for applying knowledge of how reliability of the category system could be assessed in this study.
If more than one way of checking reliability is presented, can credit two marks for one way and one mark for the other.
For example:
The consistency between the recordings of two researchers would be assessed by asking each researcher to categorise the essays independently into the pre-selected categories. The categories would then be compared and if similar then the analysis is reliable. |
|
|
