Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I have seen a lot of past paper questions that I would not be able to answer for both Health and Forensic psychology.

    So we've been taught for part B questions that are in the style of say: Evaluate methods of health promotion, to do 3 paragraphs on 3 different issues, so you might do a paragraph on validity comparing 2 studies, a paragraph on reliability using 2 studies and a paragraph on ethics using 2 studies.

    I assume that this structure could be used for questions that also ask for usefulness, for example "to what extent is research into persuading a jury useful?" so you'd do a paragraph on say how good validity means its useful, good generalizability means its useful etc.

    But I have absolutely no idea how to answer questions such as "assess the reliability of research into interviewing witnesses?" where it focuses on 1 issue such as reliability, or ecological validity. How would you answer this, because you cannot do the structure that I have been taught?

    I also have no idea how to answer questions on application or appropriateness, such as "evaluate the application of research into what influences reaching a verdict in court" or "assess the appropriateness of different explanations of dysfunctional behaviour" or questions that ask to "assess the usefulness of qualitative and quantitative data when creating a profile" as that seems very limiting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've been taught quite differently. I've been told to do 4 paragraphs for each question using 3 studies and 'doubling up' on another one. It depends on the question but it's loosely around strengths and weaknesses, for example, 'to what extent is research into persuading a jury useful?' you would aim to do 2 paragraphs on how research is useful using 2 studies and then 2 on how it may be less useful using 2 studies again to support it. I find it a really quick way to plan and to make sure your timing is okay without needing to cram too much in so you can support your argument more!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone seems to have different structures which is weird! Ah ok thank you! So for the strengths and weaknesses, would you do say for example 1) it's valid so it's useful 2) it's generalisable so it's useful 3) it's not reliable so it's not useful 4) it's reductionist so it's not useful, like as in putting different issues in applying them to usefulness?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes exactly like that! Keep reiterating why it's useful as well

    Not every question needs strengths and weaknesses though, like that qualitative and quantitate approaches question is saying how they've used those methods and why they are those particular approaches if you get me
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethyvictoria)
    Yes exactly like that! Keep reiterating why it's useful as well

    Not every question needs strengths and weaknesses though, like that qualitative and quantitate approaches question is saying how they've used those methods and why they are those particular approaches if you get me
    Ah ok thank you so much! Never knew about the whole strengths and weakness thing until I came on here!

    Oh I just seen a past paper asking about the usefulness or something of qualitative and quantitative data and was so confused as to what the hell you would write!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I despised this paper.
    Good luck kids
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I despised this paper.
    Good luck kids
    I'm yet to see anyone that hasn't hated it!😫 Think we'll need all the luck we can get so thank you!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I despised this paper.
    Good luck kids
    It's horrible, but it'll be over soon :')
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Idk if this helps, but here are some structures my teacher uses for regular evaluation question (e.g. Discuss methodological issues when researching persuading a jury.)

    3x PEC
    P - Point => What is the issue? For example, ecological validity refers to the extent to which a study reflects a real life task or environment. In the context of persuading a jury, does it relate to the courtoom environment and how a jury is persuaded in real life.
    E - Evidence => Discuss in relation to a study. For example, discuss the study by Hosch and Beck into persuasion and the use of expert witnesses. Then state how the study is high/low in ecological validity (e.g. low due to having just 6 jurors in each group, in real life, this would be 12 jurors).
    C - Comment => Why is it a strength or a weakness? For example, this is a weakness as the findings into expert witnesses cannot be applied to real life and so reduces usefulness of the research.

    Then 3 of these structures. The points are more expanded on, especially in comment (I would talk about practical applications of findings being limited).

    OR.

    2x PECC
    The PEC structure is more or less the same, the additional C however..
    C - Counter comment => Shorter version of a PEC where study detail is not needed. The counter comment would need to link to the strength/weakness you have used and be the opposite (rather than just randomly making up some junk like countering ethics with type of data). For example, HOWEVER, having low ecological validity suggests a task or environment may be high in controls and so have high reliability. E.g. same mock trial was used in study etc.

    And one more of these.

    It is important with both of these that there is constant context in all of the evaluation point and you link back to the point you have made when writing the comment. It is especially important with the reaching a verdict subsection that you link to the specific mock trial that was used, rather than just stating "mock trial" which was used for more-or-less all of the studies due to their courtoom aims. If you find this structure easier to use than the one your teacher is taught, maybe ask your teacher if they feel it would be good enough to use in the exam.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    omg i hate these part b questionsss
    Evaluate biological explanations of criminal behviout(15)
    Can anyone explain what kind of things i should include and how i would go about doing this.
    thankkssss
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I keep failing the part B questions on every single answer I get my teacher to mark so my brain has decided to just give up. I've tried every structure ever created and my teacher still never gives me more than half marks. I've just lost all hope for this stupid paper.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariaaa786)
    omg i hate these part b questionsss
    Evaluate biological explanations of criminal behviout(15)
    Can anyone explain what kind of things i should include and how i would go about doing this.
    thankkssss
    Debates are the best way to go about doing this. Bring in determinism, and maybe relate to genes and serotonin being determined from birth, so we have no control. Then maybe bring in the study by Brunner as a counter, which found that, whilst most of the family with the mutation were prone to violent outbursts, this wasn't the case for one of them, suggesting there is some free will in this biological explanation. Then, for a second point, maybe do individual vs situational, reductionism or nature nurture (whichever you're more comfortable with), I find the determinism point would be really strong, but maybe nature could work seeing as it's an entirely nature related topic.

    (Original post by natashaellenx)
    I keep failing the part B questions on every single answer I get my teacher to mark so my brain has decided to just give up. I've tried every structure ever created and my teacher still never gives me more than half marks. I've just lost all hope for this stupid paper.
    Please don't give up. First, make sure you are comfortable with the content (aswell as any likely areas that should come up in the exam), as this will make you more comfortable with answering questions. Then, I'd suggest reading my guide a few posts up which helps my answers flow as much as they can, but if not, just try and make evaluative points about the studies, with reference to a variety of things like issues (validity, reliability, ethics, data collection), debates (reductionism, determinism etc.) and comparisons in areas like methods of offender profiling, explanations for disorders etc. and treatments (if you do these topics).
    Read over the comments that your teacher has put (if he/she hasn't, email them and ask what you can do), and consider what the best one is which you felt most comfortable doing.

    If you want me to go over any of the issues/debates and definitions you aren't sure about, just ask me. What subsections are you doing? I might be able to help you with that content if you're doing similar ones.

    Most importantly though, don't give up on this exam, it will definitely be worth the revision when you walk out of that exam in 2 weeks time and don't have to worry about it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    Debates are the best way to go about doing this. Bring in determinism, and maybe relate to genes and serotonin being determined from birth, so we have no control. Then maybe bring in the study by Brunner as a counter, which found that, whilst most of the family with the mutation were prone to violent outbursts, this wasn't the case for one of them, suggesting there is some free will in this biological explanation. Then, for a second point, maybe do individual vs situational, reductionism or nature nurture (whichever you're more comfortable with), I find the determinism point would be really strong, but maybe nature could work seeing as it's an entirely nature related topic.



    Please don't give up. First, make sure you are comfortable with the content (aswell as any likely areas that should come up in the exam), as this will make you more comfortable with answering questions. Then, I'd suggest reading my guide a few posts up which helps my answers flow as much as they can, but if not, just try and make evaluative points about the studies, with reference to a variety of things like issues (validity, reliability, ethics, data collection), debates (reductionism, determinism etc.) and comparisons in areas like methods of offender profiling, explanations for disorders etc. and treatments (if you do these topics).
    Read over the comments that your teacher has put (if he/she hasn't, email them and ask what you can do), and consider what the best one is which you felt most comfortable doing.

    If you want me to go over any of the issues/debates and definitions you aren't sure about, just ask me. What subsections are you doing? I might be able to help you with that content if you're doing similar ones.

    Most importantly though, don't give up on this exam, it will definitely be worth the revision when you walk out of that exam in 2 weeks time and don't have to worry about it.
    Thank you for this! I think it's partly the way my teacher taught me - I never really responded to it. One night when I received a mark back from an answer I gave him, I did end up emailing (in quite an angry rage - since he gives me the same feedback every time and doesn't expand on what he means) asking if there was any specific thing or structure I can do to get all the points in but all he said was 'no there's not a structure, you just have to make sure to fully answer the question' and that did not help at all. Like literally, I'm pretty sure everyone knows you have to answer/address the question!! Which I thought I was doing. I was working on my answers last night and I sent him two questions to mark, whether he will or not I don't know, but I chose two really difficult questions to test my ability, so we will see how that goes. I'm just really relying on my pleasing AS grade and the G544 exam (I'd rather do two of these than the G543!!)
    I'm going to keep on my revision of the studies and hopefully get them all memorised (which also seems like an impossible task), and then hopefully I will be able to confidently answer the questions - like you said.
    Thank you again!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys could anyone plz help me, its about the evaluation questions? So basically if a part b question asked to evaluate the methodology used in certain research what could i say about these points, so how these could b a good or a bad thing:
    Snapshot study
    longitudinal study
    self report methods
    data collection from a census
    review article method
    data collection from urine sample
    the fact that participants are paid or given extra credit t take part
    the effect of not having a control group

    sorry i know these are a lot of points, but any help would be very much appreciated, thanks x
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariaaa786)
    Hey guys could anyone plz help me, its about the evaluation questions? So basically if a part b question asked to evaluate the methodology used in certain research what could i say about these points, so how these could b a good or a bad thing:
    Snapshot study
    longitudinal study
    self report methods
    data collection from a census
    review article method
    data collection from urine sample
    the fact that participants are paid or given extra credit t take part
    the effect of not having a control group

    sorry i know these are a lot of points, but any help would be very much appreciated, thanks x
    Snapshot- large amounts of data in a short period or time, but you can't see changes over time (longitudinal basically opposite)

    Self report- demand characteristics/social desirbality, can get true honest answers, real opinions

    Census- quantitative data
    Review article- if they are all different types of studies then lack of reliability,
    Urine sample- standardised, scientific
    Extra credit- ethics- bribery , also demand characteristics,
    No control- hard to compare results
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lulu1609)
    Snapshot- large amounts of data in a short period or time, but you can't see changes over time (longitudinal basically opposite)

    Self report- demand characteristics/social desirbality, can get true honest answers, real opinions

    Census- quantitative data
    Review article- if they are all different types of studies then lack of reliability,
    Urine sample- standardised, scientific
    Extra credit- ethics- bribery , also demand characteristics,
    No control- hard to compare results
    oh wow it all seems so obvious now thank-you that was very useful
    btw if a self report method was used then would this affect reliability or would affect the validity - I always get mixed up between the two.
    p.s sorry for being a pain this g543 got me likee
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys,could anyone plz read this part b answer that I did and give me feedback on it.To whatextent does the biological approach provide an explanation of criminalbehaviour(15)The biological approach to criminal behaviour explains thatwhetehr or not a person becomes a criminal is down to their biology. Thisincludes gender, geness, hormones, etc.These ca all influence a person to turn to crime. However, a lot of the researchmthods are flawed and fail to show a great extent to the biological approachprovding an explanation for criminal behaviour. To an extent the biological approach is able to provide an explanationfor criminal behaviour as t is usefu;. Ffor example, Rraine study into understandingaggressive and antisocial behaviour in childten was useful as he concluded thatearly intervention and prevention couldbe usefulin revesing the biological deficits that predispose an individual to antisocialbehaviour. This is useful as it hows that there is an effective way of pervertingan individual from turning to crime. However a problem with the biological approach is that it isvery reductionist. The approach fails to show how other factors can influence criminalbehaviour as it only takes into account the nature side of the nature-nurturedebate. For example, Brunner et al’s study which investigate mental retardationand abnormal violent behaviour of males ina family in the Netherlnads,concluded that this was due to the deficit of the enzyme MAOA. But they didn’t lookat the cognition or the experienes of the males to show how this could haveinlfuneced their behaviour, despite the fact that there is many research whichshows how important these factors are in influencing criminal behaviour. A good point about the biological approach as an explanation of criminak behaviour is thatit is reliable due to the use of scientific methods. BRNNER ET AL used urinesamples in their stdy to assess the levels of hromones and enzymes In theirbody and how this could have infucneced their behaviour. Thye found a deficit of the enzyme MAOA which led too impairedserotonin metabilsm Ths ias a relable method to use to support the bilogivaexpanaon of criminak behaviour.Overall, the bilogival approach to a great extent I able toprvide an exapanation of criminal behaviour, due to using reliable methods andalso the usefullness of the resercah.
    any hep would greaty appreciated thank u
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariaaa786)
    oh wow it all seems so obvious now thank-you that was very useful
    btw if a self report method was used then would this affect reliability or would affect the validity - I always get mixed up between the two.
    p.s sorry for being a pain this g543 got me likee
    Reliability - Can the procedure be replicated to get the same results? In a questionnaire, this can be high as you would send the same set of questions out to people, similar in a structured interview. However, in an unstructured interview, it could be quite low.

    Validity - Is the researcher measuring what they intend to measure? Can results be generalised? This is generally an issue in questionnaires due to social desirability bias, in a questionnaire on healthy eating for example, participants would want themselves to appear as health so would try and answer questions in that way. Leading questions can also be an issue here as part of researcher bias.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    Reliability - Can the procedure be replicated to get the same results? In a questionnaire, this can be high as you would send the same set of questions out to people, similar in a structured interview. However, in an unstructured interview, it could be quite low.

    Validity - Is the researcher measuring what they intend to measure? Can results be generalised? This is generally an issue in questionnaires due to social desirability bias, in a questionnaire on healthy eating for example, participants would want themselves to appear as health so would try and answer questions in that way. Leading questions can also be an issue here as part of researcher bias.
    ohh right okaay i understand now - thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    wat things would affect reliability so what things would make a research more or less reliable?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 31, 2016
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.