The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

AQA A2 Psychology PSYA3/PSYA4 Revision Thread 2016

Scroll to see replies

Original post by charlie2466
Did anyone else do anomalistic?


Yaaaaaaas
Was the graph supposed to be in pen!??!?!?!?!?!! I was so happy i did it correctly oh my god :frown:
Original post by keepdreaming-
I wrote that the scores would be lower after the programme but then I thought it might be wrong so I wrote "or..." what would I get for that? 0? Or would they mark the first answer?


You had to state one direction so if you wrote 'or' I don't think you'd get the full two marks. I'm not entirely sure!
Original post by Plexy76
still a Mann Whitney u test, you can get the mark for saying 'at least ordinal' or 'more complex than nominal' rather than specifying ordinal/ ratio/ interval


Even though I said Spearman rho? -and then independent groups and nominal data?
Phobias anyone???
Original post by charlie2466
Did anyone else do anomalistic?


Yes! How many methodological problems of the Ganzfeld procedure did you include in that second question?
Original post by Romanoff
Of course you would, the data was not continuous. If your bars touched then you've definitely lost a mark and probably should go back to AS and learn how to express discontinuous data.


I think you need to go back to GCSE maths and learn how to learn from mark schemes, baby girl x
For the one tailed hypothesis reason, am I the only 1 who put its because previous research already suggests the direction of the difference...?
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 6088
Avatar for Ame32
Ame32
2
Original post by Aishakayx
For the one tailed hypothesis reason, am I the only 2 who put its because previous research already suggests the direction of the difference...?


I did! :smile:
Original post by marioandluigi
I think you need to go back to GCSE maths and learn how to learn from mark schemes, baby girl x




maths to read a mark scheme?

g'wan
It was so *****y :frown: biological therapies came up :frown: barely did any revision on it. Addiction and research methods were okay.
I wrote to aviod bias
Original post by SunDun111
for the question on why the particpants was randomly allocated to each conditon? would it be to avoid treatement bias? could this be a sufficient answer?
Original post by Aishakayx
For the one tailed hypothesis reason, am I the only 2 who put its because previous research already suggests the direction of the difference...?


I put the hypothesis is directional which can be backed up with evidence from previous research
Original post by Romanoff
Yaaaaaaas


Yeyaa, how'd you find the questions? I was quite pleased with them :smile:

Original post by Jadejadejade16
Yes! How many methodological problems of the Ganzfeld procedure did you include in that second question?

I felt the questions were quite nice ones woo 🎉 How did you feel? I literally tried to eek out everything I could find haha! From what I can remember I put the sheep-goat effect because she's a believer, the fact she volunteered herself, only having them in different rooms and not sound proof or electromagnetically shielded, playing white noise through the headphones (just incase ahha as they didn't state anything would be playing through them), having the sender choose the image instead of being randomly chosen by computer, use of the researcher giving the cards to reciever (I.e he could pass on info with a bent corner for example), only using one person and the file drawer effect by choosing the 'hits' that occurred during the several trials but overlooking the 'misses'. Literally just brain vomited everything in my brain onto the paper in hope they'll find some marks haha. How many did you put? :smile:
Oh GOD I wish I never read this I thought the last section was taking about repeated measures?! I was in such a rush I must've read it wrong :frown: Does anyone remember how many marks were based on the matched pairs bit? Was it just a 2+2 or was there another 4 marker before it? Desperately needed to smash research methods as everything else went sh*t I am guttedddd... goodbye uni
Original post by mosahra
Spearman rho ? I thought it was correlational but at least Mann whitney and Spearman are both ordinal and independent groups, that's what I mean would I be able to get marks or not?


No you wouldn't because u had to get the test right for the justification marks to be awarded! Says on this mark scheme for a different paper-
ImageUploadedByStudent Room1465912137.614957.jpg


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mosahra
Even though I said Spearman rho? -and then independent groups and nominal data?


Unfortunately seems like 0 from this previous mark scheme

image.png

Sorry :frown:
Reply 6097
Avatar for ombbk
ombbk
9
Original post by Allibay
Phobias anyone???


yeah how did you find it??
Reply 6098
Avatar for NHM
NHM
11
Original post by RHobbs
If it was ordinal what did u say the test was then?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Mann Whitney U
Reply 6099
Avatar for NHM
NHM
11
Original post by Bekah22
Oh GOD I wish I never read this I thought the last section was taking about repeated measures?! I was in such a rush I must've read it wrong :frown: Does anyone remember how many marks were based on the matched pairs bit? Was it just a 2+2 or was there another 4 marker before it? Desperately needed to smash research methods as everything else went sh*t I am guttedddd... goodbye uni


Lame 4 marks it was.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you