Evaluate one or more studies investigating the validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.

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

The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more studies investigating the validity and/or reliability of diagnosis by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the selected study/studies. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not on the validity and/or reliability of diagnosis. Studies related to diagnosis of any disorders (e.g. OCD, anorexia, depression) are acceptable and can achieve maximum marks as long as the focus is on reliability and/or diagnosis of those disorders. Responses may use studies referring to gender and cultural bias of diagnosis and can be awarded marks for these as long as the bias explicitly relates to issues of validity and/or reliability of diagnosis. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:

• Nicholls et al.’s (2000) studies of inter-rater reliability
• 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
• Kleinman’s (1982) study of differences in interpretation of somatic symptoms in Chinese culture and the United States
• Lipton and Simon’s (1985) study on reliability of diagnosis of randomly selected 131 patients in a hospital in New York
• Lobbestael, Leurgans and Arntz’s (2011) study of reliability of diagnosis using the DSM IV
• Bolton’s (2002) cross-cultural validity of the western key concept of PTSD
• Li-Repac’s (1980) study on the effect of cultural stereotyping on diagnosis.

Evaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:

• methodological and ethical considerations
• cultural and gender considerations
• supporting and/or contradictory findings
• the applications of the empirical findings
• how the findings of the research have been interpreted
• implications of the findings.

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.

In questions that ask for evaluation of studies, in criterion A we assess to what extent is the response focused on the question. Responses that are generic, lack a focus on the specific question and seem as pre-prepared essays of relevance to the general topic (but not to evaluation of one or more studies) should be awarded [0]. If the response identifies which studies will be evaluated but there is also extra information that is not relevant or necessary for the specific question then [1] should be awarded. Responses that are clearly focused on evaluating one or more studies should gain [2].

Marks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relating to research studies. Overall this could include some knowledge of topic but more specifically knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics of chosen studies 

Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of a study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question – this doesn't have to be very sophisticated or long for these questions but still the aim or the conclusion should be linked to the topic of the specific question.

Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.

Generally responses to this question were not very well done, as candidates tended to talk about factors influencing validity and/or reliability of diagnosis. Many candidates also treated this as a potential "Evaluate Rosenhan's study" question, and this resulted in an essay detailing the procedure of the study, but often with little focus on findings, implications of the study or evaluation. Well-written responses reflected rather detailed knowledge of studies —popular choices were Lipton and Simon's (1985) study on reliability of diagnosis of randomly selected patients in a hospital in New York, and Bolton's (2002) cross-cultural study on the validity of the Western key concept of PTSD.