Discuss two research methods used in the investigation of the etiology of abnormal psychology.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two research methods used in the investigation of the etiology of abnormal psychology.

Relevant research methods could include, but are not limited to:

• interviews (e.g. focus group, semi-structured)
• naturalistic observations
• correlational studies (e.g. surveys)
• case study
• experiments.

Research that can be used to support the response includes, but is not limited to:

• Becker et al.’s (2002) study investigating the influence of television on the prevalence of eating disorder symptoms, using questionnaire data and semi-structured interviews
• Cohn and Adler’s (1987) questionnaire and quasi-experiment investigating body shape preferences
• Kendler et al.’s (2006) correlational study investigating the heritability of depression
• Kendler et al.’s (1991) correlational study into genetic vulnerability in bulimia nervosa
• Brown and Harris’s (1986) longitudinal survey investigating the relationship between life events and depression.

Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:

• why the method(s) was/were selected and the appropriateness of the method(s), including strengths and weaknesses of the method(s)
• possible theoretical assumptions and/or biases in relation to the chosen method
• the issues of validity and reliability
• the use of alternative/additional methods (triangulation).

If a candidate discusses more than two research methods, credit should be given only to the first two discussions. Candidates may address other research methods and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to discuss one or both of the two main methods addressed in the response.

If a candidate discusses only one research method, 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.

Responses may refer to brain imaging techniques (MRI, PET scans) and be awarded marks for these as long as this is clearly used as part of a description/evaluation of the research method but not as a method by itself.

Responses may also refer to any of the following: twin studies, adoption studies, family studies, longitudinal/cross-sectional studies, cross-cultural studies and be awarded marks for these as long as this is used as part of a chosen research method (not as a method by itself).

Responses referring to meta-analysis are not acceptable and should not gain marks.

Responses referring to different types of experiment are not acceptable as two separate methods, as well as other similar examples (e.g. semi-structured interviews and focus groups cannot be considered as two different research methods).

Responses describing and discussing studies but not focusing on research methods should be awarded up to a maximum of [2] for criteria B and D. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.

With some exceptions responses to this question were done rather poorly, as selected research methods were not valid.

In high quality responses candidates chose appropriate research methods including:

• interviews (e.g. focus group, semi-structured)
• naturalistic observations
• correlational studies (e.g. surveys)
• case study
• experiments.

Strengths were discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of various research methods. Weaknesses included incorrectly identifying research methods, using studies that were not acceptable (e.g. longitudinal studies, scanning methods, twin studies or meta-analysis), and discussing and evaluating studies rather than methods. In addition, at times candidates chose subtypes of one research method which was not acceptable (for example choosing laboratory and natural experiments).