Practise IB Psychology SL 1.1.1 by evaluating clinical, researcher and participant bias in psychological studies and diagnosis.
To what extent do two or more clinical biases influence diagnosis?
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "to what extent" requires candidates to consider the contribution of two or more clinical biases as factors in diagnosis.
Examples of clinical bias may include, but are not limited to:
- confirmation bias
- racial/ethnic/cultural/gender considerations and bias
- observer expectancy effect (e.g. reporting bias)
- sick note bias
- anchoring bias
- illusory correlation bias.
Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:
- Hartung and Widiger's (1998) study of gender differences bias in diagnosis
- Rutjes's (2005) study about sources of bias and variation in diagnosis
- Elstein's (1999) study of heuristics and biases
- Kendall and Cooper's (1971) study of cultural bias in clinical diagnosis
- Cwik et al.'s (2016) study on diagnostic accuracy and gender biases
- Ransohoff and Feinstein's (1978) study on bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests
- Davis-Coelho et al.'s (2000) study on bias in diagnosing obese clients.
Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
- Degree of empirical support
- Contradictory explanations or findings
- Methodological considerations
- Issues of validity and reliability
- Generalizability of findings.
If a candidate addresses only one clinical bias the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
Candidates may address two clinical biases in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of clinical biases in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.