Evaluate one or more studies investigating prevalence rates of one or more psychological disorders.

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 the candidate to make an appraisal of one or more studies investigating prevalence rates of one or more psychological disorders by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the selected study or studies. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not on the prevalence rates of psychological disorders. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

The disorder(s) chosen is/are likely to come from the list in the guide:

• anxiety disorders
• depressive disorders
• obsessive compulsive disorders
• trauma and stress related disorders
• eating disorders.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Brown and Harris’s (1977) study of gender vulnerability to depression
• Makino et al.’s (2004) study regarding the prevalence of eating disorders in Western and non-Western countries
• Weisman et al.’s (1995) study regarding the cross-cultural variation in data on depression rates
• Garrison et al. (1995) investigating the incidence of PTSD in adolescents after Hurricane Andrew
• Dutton’s (2009) study of cultural variation in the prevalence of major depression
• Nolen-Hoeksema’s (2001) study of gender rates in depression
• Piccinelli and Wilkinson’s (2000) study of gender differences in depression.

Evaluation of the selected study/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 findings 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 as 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.

With some exceptions responses to this question were done rather poorly, as responses often failed to address the question. A large number of responses provided full essays explaining factors that influence the prevalence rate of one or more psychological disorder. In their responses candidates provided minimal reference to studies. In addition, critical thinking was usually not linked to the question.

In high quality responses candidates chose one specific disorder (usually depression or PTSD) and clearly selected one or more studies and evaluated them in detail. Popular choices were: Garrison et al. (1995) investigating the incidence of PTSD in adolescents after Hurricane Andrew; Brown and Harris's (1977) study of gender vulnerability to depression, and Nolen-Hoeksema's (2001) study of gender rates in depression.