Build precise IB Psychology SL reasoning by applying ethics, bias, causality, measurement and perspective to research and diagnosis questions across the course.
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.
Contrast the biological approach and the sociocultural approach to understanding the etiology of abnormal psychology.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "contrast" requires candidates to give an account of the differences between the biological approach and the sociocultural approach to understanding the etiology of abnormal psychology, referring to both of them throughout.
Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:
- Kendler et al.'s (1991) study on genetic factors and bulimia nervosa
- Strober's (2000) study on genetic factors and bulimia nervosa
- Sanders and Bazalgette's (1993) study on media and body image
- Sharen and Sundar's (2015) study on eating disorders in women
- Caspi's (2003) study on genetic factors and stressful life events on depression
- Delgado and Moreno's (2000) study on neurotransmitters and depression
- Marsala's (1979) study on cultural conceptions of mental health
- Kleinman's (1982) study on culture and depression
- Brown and Harris's (1978) study on social origins of depression in women.
Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into the biological approach and sociocultural approach to understanding etiology
- the issue of reductionism versus holism
- how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied
- the accuracy and clarity of the concepts
- assumptions and biases
- areas of uncertainty (including research methods used and data uncertainties)
- supporting and/or contradictory evidence.
If the candidate provides only an implicit contrast, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [2] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
If the candidate provides only a discussion of one approach to understanding the etiology of abnormal psychology, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B and. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.