IB Psychology HL 2.4 Research Methodology Question Bank
Practise IB Psychology HL 2.4 by designing and critiquing complex studies, statistics, ethics and cultural-validity claims.
- Syllabus
- First assessment 2027
- Course
- Psychology HL
- Level
- HL
Exam points
- Choose and justify designs, sampling, operationalisation, controls and analysis for complex research questions.
- Evaluate reliability, validity, ethics, bias, replication and cultural generalisability across studies.
- Interpret quantitative and qualitative evidence with uncertainty and avoid causal or statistical overclaims.
Covered syllabus points
2.4 Research methodology question 1
[Maximum number: 10]
The stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses the possible physical, social and psychological benefits of dog ownership for the elderly in the UK.
As the number of elderly people is expected to rise in the near future, it is important to ensure that they stay healthy as they get older. One way in which this can be done is through exercise. According to the researchers of this study, dog ownership may be a good way of encouraging the elderly to walk and stay fit.
The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate how elderly dog owners believe their physical and mental health is affected by having a dog. A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit 24 dog owners from popular dog-walking sites in the south of England. Seventy-five percent of the participants were female and the mean age was 60. They all signed informed consent before joining the study. The researchers conducted four focus group interviews, each with six different participants. The facilitator used an interview protocol with some prepared questions to encourage discussions. Examples of these questions are: “What does your dog mean to you?” and “What are you looking for in a walk?” Each interview lasted around 1.5 hours and did not end until participants agreed that all important topics had been discussed. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to prepare for inductive content analysis (thematic analysis). The analysis of the transcripts revealed three higher-order themes related to participants’ beliefs of dog ownership:
• Physical benefits: participants saw walking the dog as good for their health. They were motivated to walk, even when in ill health, or when the weather was bad and they did not really feel like it.
• Psychological benefits: participants found that the dog gave them comfort and companionship. Some said the dog helped them when they felt depressed or lonely – especially after the death of a partner.
• Social benefits: participants found that socializing with other dog walkers helped participants feel that they were part of a group.
The researchers concluded that owning a dog may increase physical and psychological health for the elderly and therefore lead to them having a better quality of life. However, more research is needed, as this is a new research area. [Source: Based on Knight, S. and Edwards, V. (2008) In the Company of Wolves: The Physical, Social, and Psychological Benefits of Dog Ownership. Journal of Aging and Health, 20, 437–455]
Describe how researchers in this study used inductive content analysis (thematic analysis) on the interview transcripts.
Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account of how inductive content analysis was applied to the interview transcripts in the study.
Responses that use the term "experiment" as a generic term for "study" should not be penalized.
Candidates should describe characteristics or features of the procedure of inductive content analysis on the transcript in the context of this study. Relevant parts of the procedure of inductive content analysis in this study include, but are not limited to:
- Reading and rereading the transcripts of the focus group interviews to identify possible categories or themes (coding the raw data) that relate to how participants believe they benefit from having a dog.
- After a systematic analysis of the transcript and coding of data in terms of emerging themes (for example, "walking the dog is good for my health" or "socializing with other dog walkers helps me feel part of a group", the researcher could try to connect emerging themes in meaningful ways to establish low-level and higher-level themes and connect them in meaningful ways to establish possible hierarchies of themes.
- Constructing a summary table of the three higher-order themes mentioned in the stimulus material (physical benefits, psychological benefits, and social benefits) and connecting them to lower-level themes.
- Adding relevant quotations from participants in the study to support the choice of each theme. For example, for physical benefits some participants said "they were motivated to walk, even when in ill health". When discussing psychological benefits some participants said "the dog gave them comfort and companionship."
- Analysis of the transcripts will continue until saturation of the data.
- The final task is to make interpretations based on the summary table in order to find a relationship between the different themes and support this with relevant quotations from the participants.
- Finally, the researcher could attempt formulation of theory based on the analysis.
- Credibility checks can take place during the whole process of inductive content analysis, for example checking themes with other coders or researchers as well as participants to have them confirm the interpretation of data. Credibility checks could also include reflexivity, that is, the researcher controls for own biases.
Responses that merely identify themes but do not describe the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded up to a maximum of up to [3].
Responses that merely quote themes mentioned in the stimulus material but fail to describe any elements of the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded [0].
Responses that merely state that inductive content analysis is concerned with finding themes in the transcripts but fail to describe any elements of the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded [0].
2.4 Research methodology question 2
[Maximum number: 9]
The stimulus material below is based on a qualitative study that investigates adolescents’ experiences of a school-based mental health programme. Supporting positive mental health development in adolescents is a major public health focus worldwide. Preventing adolescent depression is important because it is associated with a diminished quality of life. The need for early prevention of depression in adolescence is the background for the development of a specific school-based programme targeting 13 to 15 year olds. The aim of this study was to explore adolescents’ subjective opinions of this specific school-based mental health programme. Two researchers recruited participants from eight schools offering the programme. The researchers used a purposive sample of sixty-four adolescents aged 13 to 15 years old (25 % males) who had completed the programme. The study was approved by an ethics committee. The participants and their parents were fully informed about the study and signed consent forms. They were also told that their data would be kept confidential. The researchers decided to meet with adolescents in the groups that had completed the programme together. Males and females were in separate groups of eight on average. The group interviews took place in the school and lasted between 30 to 50 minutes. One researcher facilitated the discussions. Each session was recorded and the other researcher made a verbatim transcription. Both researchers analysed, coded and interpreted transcripts and notes. A third researcher checked the results. The analysis of the transcripts revealed the following themes related to perceived benefits of the programme:
• learning to identify negative thoughts and turning them into positive thoughts
• realizing that thoughts, emotions and behaviour can be linked together and help change behaviour and reduce stress.
• discovering that others also have negative thoughts and doubts about themselves makes it easier to manage negative thoughts. The findings of this study suggested that participation in the school-based mental health programme was generally perceived as beneficial. However, participants did not like that the programme focused more on problems than opportunities. This was perceived as negative expectations. The researchers concluded that this programme would be more widely accepted by adolescents if it focused less on problems and more on promoting positive mental health. – 2 – 8823 – 5705
Discuss how a researcher in this study could ensure that the results of the study are credible.
Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
Marks should be awarded according to the descriptors in the markbands.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of how the researcher in this study could ensure that the results of the study in the stimulus material are credible.
Candidates may refer to measures that were taken in the study or suggest measures that could have been taken, or a combination of the two. Each of these approaches are equally acceptable.
Credibility refers to the degree to which the research gives a true picture of what is being investigated and that the results represent the perceptions and opinions of the research participants. Credibility is a factor in establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research. (A definition of credibility is not necessary to reach the top markband.)
Discussions related to how the researchers in this study could ensure that the results of the study are credible could include, but are not limited to:
- Collecting rich data: Qualitative research uses an idiographic approach where the focus is on subjective data representing participants' own opinions and experiences with the phenomenon under study. In qualitative research, rich data can encompass the complexity of adolescents' perceptions of the mental health programme they have completed. Rich data and thick description can help in establishing the meaning that these adolescents' place on action and words as they see it themselves.
- Using triangulation: If similar results can be arrived at and validated using multiple sources of data, multiple methods or different researchers, then the result of the study will have greater credibility. There were two researchers in this study and both of them participated in the research process as one conducted the focus group interviews, and the other made the transcriptions from the recordings. Both of them took part in coding of the transcripts, and interpretation of the data, which could help to protect against researcher bias. The researchers in this study also invited a third researcher to check their findings. This measure could increase credibility as an external review could illuminate blind spots and overall make the findings more robust and well-documented.
- Having reflexivity: the researcher should use critical self-awareness with regard to personal interests (personal reflexivity) as well as methodological choices (epistemological reflexivity).
- Using a "decision trail" (or audit trail). For example, the researchers could develop a reflective journal where they make regular entries, with regard to methodological decisions and reasons for them, and/or how the researchers' own values, beliefs, and interests may have come into play during the research process. It would also be appropriate to walk through every step of the research process to determine if there are examples of researcher bias.
- Participant verification / member checking: This means asking participants in a study to check the results and the statements chosen to support the conclusions. Have the participants themselves judge whether or not the findings actually represent their experiences and opinions. This was not done in this study, but had it been implemented, the findings would increase in credibility.
- Examination of previous research findings on the same topic: Assessing the degree to which the findings of this qualitative research are congruent with previous studies.
2.4 Research methodology question 3
[Maximum number: 9]
Question (a)
(a)
The stimulus material below describes a study in which the aim was to understand the experiences of European adults who have received mental healthcare. An increasing number of people need treatment for mental health conditions. Examples of treatments include medication and talking therapies, such as counselling. It is important that mental healthcare providers consider the experiences of the people receiving care. The researchers employed interview facilitators in seven European countries. These facilitators were all mental healthcare workers, such as psychologists and mental health nurses. Each facilitator only carried out an interview in their own country. They were all known by their participants. There were 73 participants specifically chosen to take part. They all had experiences with different forms of treatment for a mental health problem. Some participants had paid for care, while others had received it for free, either from a charitable organization or as government- funded care. The length of their treatment had varied from six months to five years. One interview was carried out in each country. Each interview involved between 6 and 12 participants and was carried out in the native language of the country. Every effort was made to create a safe and friendly environment for the interview. The participants were informed about the aims of the study. They all gave permission for the interview to be audio-recorded and signed a consent form. The participants provided information about their age, gender and ethnicity. They also gave details about their mental health condition and the treatment they had received. The researchers wrote an interview guide in English. This was translated into the languages of the non-English speaking countries. The interviews began with general questions about the participants’ experiences. Once everyone felt comfortable sharing, the questions began to focus on the participants’ personal experiences of access to mental healthcare. They were also asked to share their views on the effectiveness and quality of their treatment. Each interview facilitator transcribed their audio-recorded interview and carried out an initial analysis of the transcript. They identified each participant with a unique code. The transcripts and initial analyses were then translated into English and sent to the researchers, who carried out further inductive content analysis. Several themes were identified by the researchers. These included “not knowing where to get help from” and “the importance of receiving help quickly.”
– 3 – 2225 – 5803 Disclaimer: Content used in IB assessments is taken from authentic, third-party sources. The views expressed within them belong to their individual authors and/or publishers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IB. References: Axelsson, M., Schønning, V., Bockting, C. et al. Lived experiences: a focus group pilot study within the MentALLY project of mental healthcare among European users. BMC Health Serv Res 20, 605 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05454-5. Source adapted. Licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license: http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/deed.en.
Identify the research method used and outline two characteristics of the method.
[ 3 ]
Marking guidance:
Award [1] for identification of correct research method: Focus group interview (also accept focus group, group interview).
Award [0] for interview, structured interview, unstructured interview or semi-structured interview.
Answers related to an outline of characteristics of the method may include two of the following characteristics: [1] per relevant point. Maximum of [2].
The characteristic marks are specific to the research method (Focus group interview) rather than the described study.
- A focus group interview is carried out with a small group of participants who all take part in the interview at the same time/together.
- The interviewer acts as a facilitator and encourages the participants to talk openly about topics that are relevant to the research being carried out. The facilitator keeps the conversation focused and brings the group back to the topic if need be.
- Participants usually have something in common and this helps to create a more open and relevant discussion. They can develop their own ideas based on what they hear others sharing.
- The group participants are encouraged to talk amongst themselves rather than to the facilitator.
- A focus group interview provides a natural setting for interactions between participants because participants can use their own language, and it is less artificial than other forms of interview.
- Because of aspects such as the development of ideas and the expression of multiple perspectives, a focus group interview is likely to generate rich data.
- A focus group interview can experience issues related to group dynamics. These include conformity/social desirability bias, some participants sharing less and an unwillingness to share personal information in front of other participants.
Question (b)
(b)
The stimulus material below describes a study in which the aim was to understand the experiences of European adults who have received mental healthcare. An increasing number of people need treatment for mental health conditions. Examples of treatments include medication and talking therapies, such as counselling. It is important that mental healthcare providers consider the experiences of the people receiving care. The researchers employed interview facilitators in seven European countries. These facilitators were all mental healthcare workers, such as psychologists and mental health nurses. Each facilitator only carried out an interview in their own country. They were all known by their participants. There were 73 participants specifically chosen to take part. They all had experiences with different forms of treatment for a mental health problem. Some participants had paid for care, while others had received it for free, either from a charitable organization or as government- funded care. The length of their treatment had varied from six months to five years. One interview was carried out in each country. Each interview involved between 6 and 12 participants and was carried out in the native language of the country. Every effort was made to create a safe and friendly environment for the interview. The participants were informed about the aims of the study. They all gave permission for the interview to be audio-recorded and signed a consent form. The participants provided information about their age, gender and ethnicity. They also gave details about their mental health condition and the treatment they had received. The researchers wrote an interview guide in English. This was translated into the languages of the non-English speaking countries. The interviews began with general questions about the participants’ experiences. Once everyone felt comfortable sharing, the questions began to focus on the participants’ personal experiences of access to mental healthcare. They were also asked to share their views on the effectiveness and quality of their treatment. Each interview facilitator transcribed their audio-recorded interview and carried out an initial analysis of the transcript. They identified each participant with a unique code. The transcripts and initial analyses were then translated into English and sent to the researchers, who carried out further inductive content analysis. Several themes were identified by the researchers. These included “not knowing where to get help from” and “the importance of receiving help quickly.”
– 3 – 2225 – 5803 Disclaimer: Content used in IB assessments is taken from authentic, third-party sources. The views expressed within them belong to their individual authors and/or publishers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IB. References: Axelsson, M., Schønning, V., Bockting, C. et al. Lived experiences: a focus group pilot study within the MentALLY project of mental healthcare among European users. BMC Health Serv Res 20, 605 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05454-5. Source adapted. Licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license: http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/deed.en.
Describe the sampling method used in the study.
[ 3 ]
Marking guidance:
Award [1] for naming the correct sampling method: Purposive sampling (also accept quota sampling, judgmental sampling or selective sampling).
Description of the sampling method used in the study may include two of the following characteristics:
[1] per relevant point. Maximum of [2].
Award [0] for description of the sample rather than the sampling method.
- Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling method, which means that participants are not chosen randomly from a target population.
- A purposive sample is based on specific selection criteria / salient characteristics.
- This is used when researchers have a clear idea of the characteristics they want to study.
- Using the participants who are most relevant to the research question can increase the validity and reliability of the results. It also allows for a more efficient use of resources and time.
- Purposive sampling gives researchers the ability to focus on using the participants who are most likely to provide relevant data, potentially leading to faster data saturation.
- Because the participants are chosen based on characteristics that the researcher judges to be salient, there is a higher likelihood of the sample being affected by bias. This will decrease the likelihood of the sample being be representative of the population.
- However, researchers can also use purposive sampling to make sure that their sample includes a range of participants that reflect the diversity present within the population of interest.
Question (c)
(c)
The stimulus material below describes a study in which the aim was to understand the experiences of European adults who have received mental healthcare. An increasing number of people need treatment for mental health conditions. Examples of treatments include medication and talking therapies, such as counselling. It is important that mental healthcare providers consider the experiences of the people receiving care. The researchers employed interview facilitators in seven European countries. These facilitators were all mental healthcare workers, such as psychologists and mental health nurses. Each facilitator only carried out an interview in their own country. They were all known by their participants. There were 73 participants specifically chosen to take part. They all had experiences with different forms of treatment for a mental health problem. Some participants had paid for care, while others had received it for free, either from a charitable organization or as government- funded care. The length of their treatment had varied from six months to five years. One interview was carried out in each country. Each interview involved between 6 and 12 participants and was carried out in the native language of the country. Every effort was made to create a safe and friendly environment for the interview. The participants were informed about the aims of the study. They all gave permission for the interview to be audio-recorded and signed a consent form. The participants provided information about their age, gender and ethnicity. They also gave details about their mental health condition and the treatment they had received. The researchers wrote an interview guide in English. This was translated into the languages of the non-English speaking countries. The interviews began with general questions about the participants’ experiences. Once everyone felt comfortable sharing, the questions began to focus on the participants’ personal experiences of access to mental healthcare. They were also asked to share their views on the effectiveness and quality of their treatment. Each interview facilitator transcribed their audio-recorded interview and carried out an initial analysis of the transcript. They identified each participant with a unique code. The transcripts and initial analyses were then translated into English and sent to the researchers, who carried out further inductive content analysis. Several themes were identified by the researchers. These included “not knowing where to get help from” and “the importance of receiving help quickly.”
– 3 – 2225 – 5803 Disclaimer: Content used in IB assessments is taken from authentic, third-party sources. The views expressed within them belong to their individual authors and/or publishers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IB. References: Axelsson, M., Schønning, V., Bockting, C. et al. Lived experiences: a focus group pilot study within the MentALLY project of mental healthcare among European users. BMC Health Serv Res 20, 605 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05454-5. Source adapted. Licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license: http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/deed.en.
Suggest one alternative or one additional research method that could be used to investigate the aim of the original study, giving one reason for your choice.
[ 3 ]
Marking guidance:
Award [1] for naming an alternative or additional research method and up to [2] for reason with rationale.
The candidate may choose to write about an alternative or an additional method. Either approach to answering the question is acceptable. The rationale may differ depending on which is chosen.
If more than one method is suggested, only the first method can be considered for credit.
Suitable alternative or additional research methods and reasons (with rationale) could be, but are not limited to:
Semi-structured interviews
- The aim of this research was to understand the participants experiences of mental healthcare. To get valid information, participants need to be allowed enough freedom to share their subjective experience.
- Although a semi-structured interview is based on an interview guide, it is flexible, and the interviewer can ask participants to elaborate on their answers in follow up questions which could potentially lead to a better understanding of each individual participant's subjective understanding of this topic.
- The semi-structured interview as an additional research method would allow triangulation and could compensate for the limitations of the focus group - such as issues around group dynamics.
Unstructured interviews
- Unstructured interviews do not have a set pattern and questions are not planned in advance. Instead, the questions are based on the participant's previous answers. This allows them to be very informal and flexible.
- Similar to the focus group, an unstructured interview is much like an everyday conversation, creating a relaxed environment where new topics and ideas can flow. It would therefore act as a suitable alternative.
- Unlike the focus group, an unstructured interview is carried out one to one which may avoid issues around group dynamics, for example quieter participants not being given a chance to share.
Surveys
- A survey with closed questions could collect quantitative data on participants' experiences of mental healthcare. This could function as an additional method and provide method triangulation.
- Data from a large-scale survey could add data to the investigation. This would allow for statistical comparisons (between countries or across time).
- Surveys generally allow researchers to collect a large amount of data in a relatively short period and they are less expensive than qualitative methods.
- With a survey it is easy to analyse the data statistically. If the sample is randomized, then the findings can be generalized to a target population.
All question bank results loaded