If you're anything like me, by this point in your revision looking at past papers and studies have started to get so monotonous you aren't sure it's going in. So, try a different approach.
Here's a link to a website some of you might find really useful. It's full of videos and short summaries of characteristics of disorders, explanations and treatments. Just use the search bar at the top to navigate yourself around.
Enjoy!
Showing posts with label help. Show all posts
Showing posts with label help. Show all posts
Sunday, 9 June 2013
Friday, 7 June 2013
What the examiners are looking for
Obviously, you need to answer 4 questions from 2 sections. You need to answer them well, describe and evaluate research and studies, and show the examiners what you know.
Sometimes though, the mark schemes are less than clear about how to reach that top band (the As and A*s). Here are some generic tips I've found in the mark schemes that are important in getting as close to full marks as you can:
Sometimes though, the mark schemes are less than clear about how to reach that top band (the As and A*s). Here are some generic tips I've found in the mark schemes that are important in getting as close to full marks as you can:
January 2013
- Relevant research should be applied to part a)
- Must address “how” if the question asks for this
- “Discussion” may involve a comparison and following/challenging a viewpoint
- Detail is beneficial in part a)
- Usefulness, application, ecological validity, reductionism, reliability and ethics are all good evaluation points for interviewing witnesses
- A good way to “assess strengths and weaknesses” is to discuss whether or not an apparent “weakness” may actually be desirable or necessary in order to fulfil a function
June 2012
- Responses should be clear, precise and explicit
- To what extent implies a degree of judgement is necessary
- Responses should directly answer the question rather than simply describing research when this is not asked for. Research can be used to illustrate responses but this should be linked to the question.
- Usefulness can be examined in terms of validity, reliability, ethnocentrism, etc.
- Stronger answers with regards to treatments will be contextualised
- Comparison invites similarities as well as differences
- Reliability can be affected by mood, interviewee, social desirability bias, lying and misjudgement
Thursday, 6 June 2013
Effectiveness and Appropriateness
These two seem to catch a lot of people out, because they're pretty hard to define and apply to different areas. Here's some generic tips, with an example to help.
Effectiveness - the extent to which something brings about an effect, usually a positive one.
(Example question: Assess the effectiveness of offender treatment programmes)
Introduction - define effectiveness
1. Who is it effective for?
(e.g. anger management is only effective for non-psychopathic males, who have an anger problem so it isn't effective for a wide audience, whilst cognitive skills programmes are effective for most offenders as they target the cognitions believed to result in criminality, such as taking a social perspective, self-control and morality)
2. To what extent does it make a difference?
(e.g. to what extent do the treatments reduce recidivism or improve behaviour? Anger management is believed to be somewhat effective, but not in all cases. Ireland et al found it did reduce some angry behaviours. Ear acupuncture appears to make a significant difference to aspects of an addicts life such as improving mood and sleep as well as cravings and withdrawal symptoms. Cognitive skills programmes found to reduce recidivism rates by 14% which is positive, but it's obviously not effective enough to reduce it by more)
3. Is it time and cost effective?
(e.g. therapy treatments tend not to be because they require several sessions, whilst biological treatments such as acupuncture are quick and easy to administer)
Conclusion: summary
Somewhat effective, but a holistic approach where two or more methods are combined would be most effective.
Appropriateness
Appropriateness refers to the extent to which something is suitable, usually in terms of population or situation.
To what extent are treatments for your chosen disorder (e.g. depression) appropriate?
You could answer this by looking at the population: people with depression. Personally, I'd break it down into biological treatments and therapies.
Biological treatment: drug therapy.
Yes it's appropriate because... it requires little participation from the client, who is likely to feel apathetic, lack motivation, etc.
No it's not appropriate because... treating a disorder that does not necessarily have a biological cause with drugs may not be treating the real issue, but actually just reducing the symptoms of low serotonin levels.
Cognitive/behavioural therapies: CBT
Yes it's appropriate because... the relationship between the client and therapist may boost confidence in the client and in others and give them a sense of purpose. The behaviourist element to CBT also encourages and rewards self-motivation and non-depressed activities, which helps to teach the client to overcome possible future relapses.
No it's not appropriate because... it requires a LOT of motivation on behalf of the client, it's often quite a lengthy process which people suffering with depression are unlikely to have the energy to go through, etc.
And my conclusion would probably be that drug therapy is appropriate for those with short-term, reactive depression because they need a "quick fix", but if depression is long-term or recurring, therapy enables skills to deal with depression more effectively and thus this may be more appropriate in the long run.
Effectiveness - the extent to which something brings about an effect, usually a positive one.
(Example question: Assess the effectiveness of offender treatment programmes)
Introduction - define effectiveness
1. Who is it effective for?
(e.g. anger management is only effective for non-psychopathic males, who have an anger problem so it isn't effective for a wide audience, whilst cognitive skills programmes are effective for most offenders as they target the cognitions believed to result in criminality, such as taking a social perspective, self-control and morality)
2. To what extent does it make a difference?
(e.g. to what extent do the treatments reduce recidivism or improve behaviour? Anger management is believed to be somewhat effective, but not in all cases. Ireland et al found it did reduce some angry behaviours. Ear acupuncture appears to make a significant difference to aspects of an addicts life such as improving mood and sleep as well as cravings and withdrawal symptoms. Cognitive skills programmes found to reduce recidivism rates by 14% which is positive, but it's obviously not effective enough to reduce it by more)
3. Is it time and cost effective?
(e.g. therapy treatments tend not to be because they require several sessions, whilst biological treatments such as acupuncture are quick and easy to administer)
Conclusion: summary
Somewhat effective, but a holistic approach where two or more methods are combined would be most effective.
Appropriateness
Appropriateness refers to the extent to which something is suitable, usually in terms of population or situation.
To what extent are treatments for your chosen disorder (e.g. depression) appropriate?
You could answer this by looking at the population: people with depression. Personally, I'd break it down into biological treatments and therapies.
Biological treatment: drug therapy.
Yes it's appropriate because... it requires little participation from the client, who is likely to feel apathetic, lack motivation, etc.
No it's not appropriate because... treating a disorder that does not necessarily have a biological cause with drugs may not be treating the real issue, but actually just reducing the symptoms of low serotonin levels.
Cognitive/behavioural therapies: CBT
Yes it's appropriate because... the relationship between the client and therapist may boost confidence in the client and in others and give them a sense of purpose. The behaviourist element to CBT also encourages and rewards self-motivation and non-depressed activities, which helps to teach the client to overcome possible future relapses.
No it's not appropriate because... it requires a LOT of motivation on behalf of the client, it's often quite a lengthy process which people suffering with depression are unlikely to have the energy to go through, etc.
And my conclusion would probably be that drug therapy is appropriate for those with short-term, reactive depression because they need a "quick fix", but if depression is long-term or recurring, therapy enables skills to deal with depression more effectively and thus this may be more appropriate in the long run.
Monday, 20 May 2013
Tackling part b) questions
Part b) generally consists of an evaluation on the section of the syllabus relating to part a). So, if you had a part a) question on brain dysfunction, you'd get a part b) on biological explanations of crime.
There is no set structure for how to answer these questions. I can give you some pointers, but essentially you're going to have to find a way that works for you. That being said, some starting points and structures can help.
The most important thing
The most important piece of advice I can give you is answer the question you're being set. Not the one you can best answer, not one you'd like to have come up. Everything you write must be related to the question. I'd suggest highlighting key words in the question including the key verb (e.g. assess, compare, evaluate). This'll get you in the right frame of mind.
Questions; what they're asking for
"Assess," "evaluate" and "to what extent" questions are essentially asking you to look at both strengths and weaknesses of a section, and then to come to a judgement in your conclusion. "Compare" questions obviously require key words such as "both","on the other hand", "in contrast" and "similarly" to really emphasise that you're answering the question.
The way that questions in this section are worded are sometimes a little tricky to get your head around. Words such as "appropriateness" and "effectiveness" are seemingly easy to understand until you start to write it down. So, learn some simple definitions. By defining a key term in the intro, you will start to think of evaluation issues to relate to it and give your mini-essay some structure. "Appropriateness" refers to suitability, and encompasses suitability to a person or group, situation, or occasion. So you could evaluate temporal validity, generalizability, ethnocentrism, etc. "Effectiveness" refers to the extent to which it brings about an effect, or achieves the desired results. So, you could talk about if it has negative or positive implications, the strength of these applications, and more specific factors such as recidivism rates or benefits to society.
Remember that this is an evaluation section; they want you to make judgements and insights, and then to illustrate these with examples from studies/theories/techniques, but you won't get marks for just outlining or describing the studies. Using key terms such as "reliability", "validity", "usefulness" and "applications"
Structure
You need a brief intro, a main body consisting of two or three paragraphs (and about five to seven evaluative points), and a brief conclusion linking explicitly back to the question.
One way some people like to structure their paragraphs is PEcEC:
Point, Example, compare, Example, Conclude
Note that the conclude section will include at least two or three evaluation points.
Final thoughts
But this isn't necessary and it doesn't work for some people. As long as you give a range of evaluation points related to the question, that you're concise, use relevant detail, illustrate with examples and conclude with explicit link back to the question, then that's all you need. Keep practising your timing too; you only have 15-20 mins for this section and if you run over, you run the risk of not having time to answer the other questions.
If you'd like to see an example of a 15 mark question (full marks), click here.
There is no set structure for how to answer these questions. I can give you some pointers, but essentially you're going to have to find a way that works for you. That being said, some starting points and structures can help.
The most important thing
The most important piece of advice I can give you is answer the question you're being set. Not the one you can best answer, not one you'd like to have come up. Everything you write must be related to the question. I'd suggest highlighting key words in the question including the key verb (e.g. assess, compare, evaluate). This'll get you in the right frame of mind.
Questions; what they're asking for
"Assess," "evaluate" and "to what extent" questions are essentially asking you to look at both strengths and weaknesses of a section, and then to come to a judgement in your conclusion. "Compare" questions obviously require key words such as "both","on the other hand", "in contrast" and "similarly" to really emphasise that you're answering the question.
The way that questions in this section are worded are sometimes a little tricky to get your head around. Words such as "appropriateness" and "effectiveness" are seemingly easy to understand until you start to write it down. So, learn some simple definitions. By defining a key term in the intro, you will start to think of evaluation issues to relate to it and give your mini-essay some structure. "Appropriateness" refers to suitability, and encompasses suitability to a person or group, situation, or occasion. So you could evaluate temporal validity, generalizability, ethnocentrism, etc. "Effectiveness" refers to the extent to which it brings about an effect, or achieves the desired results. So, you could talk about if it has negative or positive implications, the strength of these applications, and more specific factors such as recidivism rates or benefits to society.
Remember that this is an evaluation section; they want you to make judgements and insights, and then to illustrate these with examples from studies/theories/techniques, but you won't get marks for just outlining or describing the studies. Using key terms such as "reliability", "validity", "usefulness" and "applications"
Structure
You need a brief intro, a main body consisting of two or three paragraphs (and about five to seven evaluative points), and a brief conclusion linking explicitly back to the question.
One way some people like to structure their paragraphs is PEcEC:
Point, Example, compare, Example, Conclude
Note that the conclude section will include at least two or three evaluation points.
Final thoughts
But this isn't necessary and it doesn't work for some people. As long as you give a range of evaluation points related to the question, that you're concise, use relevant detail, illustrate with examples and conclude with explicit link back to the question, then that's all you need. Keep practising your timing too; you only have 15-20 mins for this section and if you run over, you run the risk of not having time to answer the other questions.
If you'd like to see an example of a 15 mark question (full marks), click here.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
What is Reliability?
Reliability is probably one of the most difficult concepts to get a handle on that you have to understand at A-level psychology. So I'll ease you in gently.
Reliability refers to the extent to which something is consistent. It does not imply validity, as something may consistently give incorrect measures, though both can be affected by factors such as participant variables, observer bias, subjectivity and standardisation.
You can be asked to assess reliability of a number of things, most commonly:
- reliability of a measure
- reliability of research
- reliability of a method
There are two main types of reliability: external reliability and internal reliability. Internal reliability refers to the extent to which a measure is consistent within itself whilst external reliability is consistency over time (i.e. it is externally reliable if the measure taken in similar circumstances would produce similar results).
Generally, the factors that affect reliability are:
- the level of control over confounding variables. The higher the control, the less chance there is of inconsistencies over time and thus the more externally reliable it is likely to be
- standardisation. If research into an area tends to use experiments with standardised procedures, or a manual is used, it's more likely that reliability will be high.
- population and ecological validity (research). If a study has poor generalisability due to an ethnocentric or biased sample, or poor mundane realism (as in the case of many lab experiments) findings when applied to real life cannot be expected to be consistent with that of the research.
-subjectivity. If a measure or study relies on subjectivity to give results, as with all qualitative data, self-reports or observations and much research done in cognitive/psychodynamic psychology, it's unlikely to produce consistent results and will probably lack in internal reliability because interpretation becomes a confounding variable and thus may change from measure to measure.
Reliability refers to the extent to which something is consistent. It does not imply validity, as something may consistently give incorrect measures, though both can be affected by factors such as participant variables, observer bias, subjectivity and standardisation.
You can be asked to assess reliability of a number of things, most commonly:
- reliability of a measure
- reliability of research
- reliability of a method
There are two main types of reliability: external reliability and internal reliability. Internal reliability refers to the extent to which a measure is consistent within itself whilst external reliability is consistency over time (i.e. it is externally reliable if the measure taken in similar circumstances would produce similar results).
Generally, the factors that affect reliability are:
- the level of control over confounding variables. The higher the control, the less chance there is of inconsistencies over time and thus the more externally reliable it is likely to be
- standardisation. If research into an area tends to use experiments with standardised procedures, or a manual is used, it's more likely that reliability will be high.
- population and ecological validity (research). If a study has poor generalisability due to an ethnocentric or biased sample, or poor mundane realism (as in the case of many lab experiments) findings when applied to real life cannot be expected to be consistent with that of the research.
-subjectivity. If a measure or study relies on subjectivity to give results, as with all qualitative data, self-reports or observations and much research done in cognitive/psychodynamic psychology, it's unlikely to produce consistent results and will probably lack in internal reliability because interpretation becomes a confounding variable and thus may change from measure to measure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)