| Date | November 2021 | Marks available | 22 | Reference code | 21N.Paper 2.HL.TZ0.1 |
| Level | HL only | Paper | Paper 2 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Discuss | Question number | 1 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
Discuss validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.
Markscheme
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 that addresses various aspects of validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.
Relevant classification systems in the discussion of validity and reliability of diagnosis include, but are not limited to:
- Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM)
- Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD)
- International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
Examples of research that could be used include, but are not limited to:
- Nicholls et al.’s (2000) studies of inter-rater reliability
- Seeman’s (2007) literature review on the reliability of diagnosis
- Wakefield et al.’s (2007) study on the validity of diagnosis
- Silverman et al.’s (2001) study on test-retest of anxiety symptoms and diagnosis
- Rosenhan’s studies of diagnostic validity.
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- methodological difficulties of conducting research on validity and/or reliability of diagnosis
- cultural, gender and/or ethical considerations related to research into validity and/or reliability of diagnosis
- biases related to diagnosis
- how the findings of the research have been interpreted and applied
- implications of the findings.
Examiners report
This was a rather popular choice and was addressed with a wide range of different responses. Some responses provided some knowledge but limited understanding of validity and/or reliability. On the other hand, high quality responses provided a focused appraisal of biases related to diagnosis. Unfortunately, some candidates failed to address the question set and decided to discuss the issue of normality versus abnormality in a general manner. Critical thinking was also a bit uneven, with some candidates using theory or studies to foster a logical argument, while others seemed to focus on heavy criticism of diagnosis and psychiatry in general but failed to support their arguments with relevant knowledge.
