Practise IB Psychology SL 1.1 by distinguishing behaviour, cognition, emotion, biological and sociocultural explanations with evidence-based evaluation.
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.
Discuss one or more effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.
Examples of how the environment may affect physiological processes include, but are not limited to the effects of:
- daylight hours on levels of melatonin
- poverty on neuroplasticity
- environmental stressors on physiological stress response
- interaction with the environment and brain development.
Examples of studies include, but are not limited to:
- Maguire et al.'s (2000) study on neuroplasticity in the hippocampus of taxi drivers
- Marmot et al.'s (1997) Whitehall study on perceived control of workplace stress and cardiovascular health
- Meaney's (1988) study on how environmental stressors lead to hippocampal cell loss in rats
- Rosenzweig and Bennett's (1972) study on stimulating environments and dendritic branching
- Bremner et al.'s (2003) study on environmental stressors and the reduction of hippocampal volume.
Discussion of the effects may include, but is not limited to:
- methodological and/or ethical issues
- supporting and contrary findings
- application of the findings
- contributing factors other than the environment affecting physiological processes.
Candidates may discuss one effect of the environment or one physiological process in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of effects of the environment or physiological processes in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Discuss the validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review that addresses various aspects of validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.
Examples of research that could be used include, but are not limited to:
- Nicholls et al.'s (2000) studies of inter-rater reliability
- Silverman et al.'s (2001) study on test-retest of anxiety symptoms and diagnosis
- Rosenhan's studies (eg 1973) of diagnostic validity in Schizophrenia
- Cwik et al.'s (2016) study on diagnostic accuracy and gender biases
- Lobbestael et al.'s (2011) study on the reliability of diagnosis
- Di Nardo et al.'s (1993) study on reliability in OCD and anxiety disorders using the DSM
- Cooper et al.'s (1972) study on cultural variation in diagnosis between the US and UK.
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- methodological and/or ethical considerations
- cultural and/or gender considerations
- biases related to diagnosis
- interpretation and application of the findings
- implications of the findings
- comparative analysis of validity and reliability
- operationalization of terms
- strengths and limitations of the use of classification systems.
Candidates may discuss either validity or reliability in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may discuss both validity and reliability in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.