A Level options, issues and methods
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- —
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
—A Level specialist options and assumed AS content• A Level specialist options and assumed AS content- The content of the AS Level course, including research methodology, is assumed knowledge for the assessment of Paper 3 and Paper 4. The core studies will not be the direct focus of questions on Paper 3 and Paper 4 but candidates will be expected to build upon their knowledge of approaches, issues and debates and psychological research methodology during their study of the A Level specialist options. The specialist options introduced at A Level explore how psychology can be applied in a range of contexts. Candidates study how psychology is applied in two of the following areas:- Clinical Psychology- Consumer Psychology- Health Psychology- Organisational Psychology to apply their knowledge of AS Level research methodology to the A Level content. In addition we introduce some new research methods and methodological concepts relevant to A Level studies. AS and A Level Research Methodology subject content for the planning studies questions in Paper 4 on page 52.—A Level issues and debates• A Level issues and debates- the application of psychology to everyday life- individual and situational explanations- nature versus nurture- the use of children in psychological research- cultural differences- reductionism versus holism- determinism versus free-will- idiographic versus nomothetic.—Randomised control trials• Experiments- Candidates should be able to:- describe and evaluate the main features of randomised control trials.—Postal questionnaires and rating scales• Questionnaires- Candidates should be able to:- describe and evaluate the use of postal questionnaires- describe and evaluate the use of rating scales; forced/fixed choice. Methodological concepts which are relevant to all of the A Level specialist options.—Psychometric tests• Psychometric tests- Candidates should be able to:- describe and evaluate psychometric tests.—A Level hypotheses• Hypotheses- Candidates should be able to:- write and apply knowledge of null hypotheses and alternative directional (one-tailed) and non-directional (two-tailed) hypotheses.—Temporal validity• Validity- Candidates should be able to:- describe and evaluate studies based on their validity, including temporal validity.—Use of key studies and example studies• Use of studies- Psychology is an applied subject and teachers are encouraged to illustrate the theory and application of the concepts, theories, evidence and research through the use of studies where appropriate. There are key studies associated with each topic. We have listed the specific aspects of key studies that a candidate will be expected to know and understand. These aspects are listed at the start of each specialist option. It is not necessary for candidates to read the original study but you must provide them with a detailed summary of the key study which must cover all the aspects listed. To aid teaching and ensure candidates can see how psychological research relates to the subject content we have provided some examples of studies which might be useful to you in your teaching. Where we say, 'including a study, e.g.', candidates will not be asked questions which require a specific knowledge of these studies, however candidates should use an example in their responses. Where an example is provided, it does not necessarily cover all the relevant content and you may provide a different example if you know of one which sufficiently covers the subject content using appropriate research methodology. A full reference to all the key studies and example studies can be found in the Reference List for 9990 AS & A Level Psychology, available on the website.
A Level applies the AS foundation to two specialist options and Paper 3/4 reasoning
Paper 3 and Paper 4 assume AS approaches, issues/debates and research methodology. Core studies are not their direct question focus, but the reasoning learned from them must be transferred into two chosen specialist options: Clinical, Consumer, Health or Organisational Psychology.
| AS foundation | A Level use |
|---|---|
| Biological/cognitive/learning/social approaches | Explain specialist behaviour and compare levels of explanation |
| Research methods/concepts | Evaluate key evidence and design Paper 4 studies |
| Core-study evidence reasoning | Link method → result → bounded conclusion without direct core-study recall questions |
| Issues/debates | Build contextual evaluation across specialist theories/applications |
| Task | Required response |
|---|---|
| Paper 3 specialist content | Accurate concepts, theories, studies, applications and contextual evaluation |
| Paper 4 planning | Operational aim/hypothesis, sample, method/design/procedure, controls, data and ethics |
| Both | Study only two options but retain the full AS methodological toolkit |
A Level does not replace AS, and candidates do not study all four options. Core studies provide transferable reasoning rather than the direct Paper 3/4 content target. New A Level methods extend—not cancel—the AS syllabus.
A Level debates turn specialist evidence into balanced explanations and judgements
| Debate | Core question | Balanced judgement |
|---|---|---|
| Application to everyday life | Does evidence produce useful, ethical change? | Usefulness depends on population/context and may trade with control |
| Individual vs situational | Person trait/history or environment/role? | Interaction often explains when each matters |
| Nature vs nurture | Biology/inheritance or experience/environment? | Development commonly reflects gene–environment interaction |
| Children in research | What changes ethically/methodologically with minors? | Assent/guardian consent, harm and developmental validity need special handling |
| Debate | Core question | Balanced judgement |
|---|---|---|
| Cultural differences | Universal mechanism or culture-bound meaning/sample? | Compare emic context and cross-cultural replication |
| Reductionism vs holism | Explain by one component or interacting whole? | Reduction aids testing; holism preserves context/interaction |
| Determinism vs free will | Behaviour caused predictably or chosen? | Probabilistic constraints can coexist with agency |
| Idiographic vs nomothetic | Intensive individual understanding or general laws? | Case depth and group patterns can complement each other |
Debate paragraph: define the contrast → make one side's claim → cite exact theory/study method/result → explain why it supports that side → counter with competing evidence/limitation → judge by condition, population and application. A study name or label without the link is not evaluation.
These are analytic continua, not forced either/or answers. Do not confuse individual/situational with nature/nurture: a learned individual trait is nurture yet dispositional; a hormonal response to context is biological yet situationally triggered.
Randomised controlled trials estimate intervention effects through allocation and comparison
An RCT randomly allocates eligible participants to an intervention and one or more control/comparator conditions, standardises follow-up and compares pre-specified outcomes. Random allocation aims to balance known and unknown confounds so outcome differences can be attributed more confidently to treatment.
| Stage | Required decision | Main threat |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility/baseline | Define population, criteria and baseline measure | Selection/generalisation |
| Allocation | Concealed random sequence | Allocation bias/unequal prognostic groups |
| Comparator | Wait-list, treatment-as-usual, active or placebo control | Expectancy/attention and ethical withholding |
| Masking | Blind participant, provider and/or assessor where feasible | Demand/experimenter/assessment bias |
| Delivery | Manual, adherence and contamination checks | Unequal dose/crossover |
| Outcome/follow-up | Valid measure, fixed timing, attrition accounting | Selective outcome/missing-data bias |
| Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Strong causal inference and transparent comparator | Artificial protocol/strict criteria may limit ecological/population validity |
| Random allocation balances confounds probabilistically | Small samples can remain imbalanced; attrition breaks initial balance |
| Blinding/placebo can isolate expectancy | Psychotherapy/behavioural blinding may be impossible; placebo can raise ethics |
| Standard outcomes allow replication/meta-analysis | Group averages may hide individual response/adverse effects |
Random allocation is not random sampling. A control group without random assignment is not an RCT. Randomisation does not repair invalid outcomes, poor adherence, differential dropout or unethical withholding of effective care.
Postal questionnaires trade broad standardised reach for response and option bias
| Postal pipeline | Benefit | Threat/remedy |
|---|---|---|
| Sampling-frame addresses | Reaches dispersed/offline population | Outdated/incomplete frame; verify/stratify |
| Standard pack/cover/return envelope | Same wording; low interviewer effects; convenience/privacy | Misunderstanding; pilot and clear instructions/contact |
| Mail-out/reminders/incentive | Potentially large, cheap per case | Low/unequal response; reminders/prepaid return and non-response comparison |
| Anonymous ID/data handling | May reduce social desirability | Anonymity not automatic; separate identifiers and secure storage |
| Format | Example/use | Main issue |
|---|---|---|
| Likert rating | 1 strongly disagree–5 strongly agree | Acquiescence, midpoint and unequal interpretation |
| Numerical/semantic scale | Pain 0–10; calm 1–7 anxious | Anchor meaning and subjective intervals |
| Forced/fixed choice | Choose A or B / one option from list | Comparable and avoids midpoint, but may force false choice |
| Frequency categories | Never/rarely/sometimes/often | Categories need clear time frame and exhaustive boundaries |
State target/frame, exact mailing/reply/reminder process, consent/confidentiality, neutral single-idea items, balanced scale anchors and scoring. Pilot readability. Report response rate and compare responders/non-responders where possible.
Postal does not guarantee random sampling, anonymity or representativeness. Forced choice constrains response options; it does not coerce participation. A precise rating produces quantitative data but remains a subjective judgement unless the measured event is objective.
Psychometric tests standardise psychological measurement against evidence and norms
A psychometric test uses standardised administration and scoring to quantify a psychological construct such as ability, personality or symptom severity. A raw score becomes interpretable only through reliability/validity evidence and an appropriate normative or criterion reference.
| Component | Question |
|---|---|
| Construct/item design | Do items represent the intended domain rather than language/culture/test skill? |
| Standardisation | Are instructions, timing, materials and scoring identical? |
| Norms/cut-offs | Is the reference sample relevant in age, culture, language and context? |
| Reliability | Are scores consistent across items/raters/time as appropriate? |
| Validity | Do scores predict/agree with relevant behaviour or diagnosis and distinguish alternatives? |
| Use | Is interpretation proportionate—screening, comparison, selection or diagnosis? |
Strengths: efficient quantitative comparison, replicable scoring, tracking and evidence-based decisions. Limits: reductionism, coaching/response bias, culture/language norm bias, construct overlap and harmful labels. Protect consent, confidentiality, feedback and qualified interpretation.
Standardised does not mean culture-free, objective in construct meaning or diagnostically certain. A reliable test can consistently measure the wrong construct. A group cut-off indicates probability/criterion status, not a complete person or inevitable outcome.
A Level hypotheses operationalise specialist populations, interventions and outcomes
| Form | Specialist-option template |
|---|---|
| Directional alternative | Adults meeting [criteria] randomly allocated to [intervention] will have lower [named score at fixed follow-up] than those receiving [control] |
| Non-directional alternative | There will be a difference in [operational outcome] between [level 1] and [level 2] for [population] |
| Correlational alternative | There will be a positive/negative/non-directional relationship between [operational co-variable X] and [operational Y] in [population] |
| Null | There will be no difference/relationship using the same population and operational variables |
Name eligibility/population, exact condition or both co-variables, outcome scale/behaviour and follow-up window. Direction must be justified before data. Use causal wording only for manipulated controlled designs; use association for correlations.
Example RCT null: 'There will be no difference in mean score on the named 7-item insomnia scale at eight weeks between shift workers randomly allocated to digital CBT-I and sleep-hygiene information.' Every element is measurable and logically mirrors its alternative.
A diagnosis is a population criterion, not automatically an operational DV. 'Treatment improves health' lacks comparator, outcome and time. A one-tailed hypothesis predicts one direction, not one measure or group.
Temporal validity asks whether findings survive historical and social change
Temporal validity is the extent to which a finding, measure, explanation or application remains applicable across time. It depends on whether the underlying mechanism and relevant social, technological, diagnostic and institutional context have changed.
| Change source | Question | Test/improvement |
|---|---|---|
| Technology/media/work | Is the original task/exposure still representative? | Update task while preserving construct; compare eras |
| Norms/law/culture | Would authority, stigma, family or consumer meanings differ now? | Contemporary/cross-cohort replication |
| Diagnosis/treatment | Have criteria, base rates or care standards changed? | Re-score/recruit under current definitions and comparator |
| Population/cohort | Does generation have different education/history/exposure? | Sequential cohorts, representative replication |
| Measure language/norms | Do items/cut-offs retain meaning? | Revalidate and renorm |
State original date/context → identify a specific changed/stable mechanism → explain predicted effect on procedure/response/application → cite contemporary replication or propose one → judge which claim transfers. Age alone is not an argument.
Old does not automatically mean invalid: basic mechanisms may replicate despite outdated surfaces. New does not guarantee temporal validity beyond the present cohort. Temporal validity differs from longitudinal duration, test-retest reliability and whether a result lasts within one participant.
Key studies require specified detail; example studies require relevant evidence use
| Syllabus signal | What must be learned/used |
|---|---|
| Named key study with listed aspects | Detailed summary covering every listed aim, method/sample/procedure/result/conclusion/application/evaluation aspect |
| 'Including a study, e.g. …' | Know the concept and use an appropriate study/example; the named example itself is not compulsory specific recall |
| Alternative example | Allowed if it sufficiently demonstrates the content with appropriate research methodology |
| Reference list | Locate full citation; it does not replace the syllabus-listed knowledge boundary |
Use study evidence as: claim → exact method/sample/procedure/result → explanation of how it supports/challenges the concept → limitation/alternative → application or judgement. A name/date alone is not evidence; irrelevant detail does not improve an answer.
| For each key study | Minimum teaching check |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Background/aim linked to specialist concept |
| Evidence production | Method, design, sample, operational variables/materials, procedure/controls/ethics |
| Evidence | Quantitative/qualitative results with correct comparison |
| Meaning | Conclusion bounded by design, application and issues/debates |
| Evaluation | Context-specific strengths/weaknesses and alternatives |
Candidates need not read every original article, but teaching summaries must cover all listed key-study aspects. Named examples are not automatically key studies. Replacing an example is permitted only when the alternative genuinely covers the same content and method.