SubjectScout
ENAR
Sign inGet matched
Get matched

Clinical and Health: written investigation plans

Start questions

AI-assisted English content review; independent teacher approval pending.

Practice scope and review

Original, AI-authored English practice with worked guidance. Selected topics only; independent teacher review is pending. This is not a complete syllabus, official past-paper collection or predicted exam score. Check your own exam-board specification: these concepts are not certified against a particular board or exam year.

192 original questions across 31 selected topic areas. No account or payment required to practise.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990), examination year 2027: AI-assisted conceptual alignment to official sources, not teacher or exam-board certification. Syllabus mapping and remaining coverage.

2 questions in this topic

This is a limited practice preview and is not submitted for search indexing.

All topics

Original multipart written practice. Partial support, teacher approval pending. Educational analysis, not diagnosis, treatment instructions, a complete study text or practical certification.

Subtopics in this topic (2)
  • Clinical-grounded written plan: rating agreement
  • Health-grounded written plan: prompts and routine action

2 of 2 questions shown

Loading saved responses

Question 1Paper-only fictional plan, approval needed before any recruitment. Motivated by the difference between observable acts and private experience in OCD measurement, plan a neutral adult analogue: agreement between observers coding desk-sorting actions. No symptoms are induced and nobody is screened or diagnosed. (a) Give an operational question and prediction. (b) Specify sample, procedure, coding, reliability check and display. (c) Evaluate validity and ethics, including why this cannot test OCD diagnosis. Primary reading: https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/symptoms/ Resource and boundary: NHS public clinical summary: obsessions, overt/mental compulsions and temporary relief; not a licensed assessment instrument. Coverage boundary: Written option-grounded analogue only, not practical completion or validation of an OCD measure; teacher approval and task-specific Paper 4 marking review remain pending.6 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan6 indicative marksNo calculator

Paper-only fictional plan, approval needed before any recruitment. Motivated by the difference between observable acts and private experience in OCD measurement, plan a neutral adult analogue: agreement between observers coding desk-sorting actions. No symptoms are induced and nobody is screened or diagnosed. (a) Give an operational question and prediction. (b) Specify sample, procedure, coding, reliability check and display. (c) Evaluate validity and ethics, including why this cannot test OCD diagnosis. Primary reading: https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/symptoms/ Resource and boundary: NHS public clinical summary: obsessions, overt/mental compulsions and temporary relief; not a licensed assessment instrument. Coverage boundary: Written option-grounded analogue only, not practical completion or validation of an OCD measure; teacher approval and task-specific Paper 4 marking review remain pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Clinical-grounded written plan: rating agreement: selected aspects are explicitly practised, not whole section or whole study coverage. Written option-grounded analogue only, not practical completion or validation of an OCD measure; teacher approval and task-specific Paper 4 marking review remain pending. Independent teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. One proposed question is whether two observers agree on counts of placing a card into a labelled tray during a two-minute neutral desk-sorting task. Predict greater agreement after both learn a precise coding definition than with an ambiguous definition; this is a fictional prediction, not a result or a symptom measure.
  2. Propose 20 adult volunteers recruited through a neutral notice, with no student/staff pressure. A consented set of neutral task clips could be coded before and after a manual is clarified, using different equivalent clips and counterbalanced clip sets. Keep camera framing on cards and hands, omit faces/names, standardise duration, and have observers code independently before discussion. Approval is required before recording or recruitment.
  3. Predefine an event boundary and how simultaneous actions are counted. Compare matched observer counts and event-level agreement, displaying paired counts or agreement summaries with clear denominators; report missing/uncodable clips separately. Improvement may reflect practice as well as the manual, so an independently trained comparison pair would strengthen the design. No inferential calculation is required.
  4. Explain consent for recording and reuse, restricted access, deletion date and withdrawal deadline before anonymisation. No distress, checking ritual, clinical history or medical material is involved. Even excellent agreement measures observable sorting only; it cannot reveal intrusive thoughts, establish OCD or validate a diagnostic instrument. The option link is the measurement problem, not a clinical replication.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Specify a neutral operational behaviour and agreement prediction.
  2. Give adult volunteer recruitment with selection limitations.
  3. Specify independent coding, standardised events and a replicable sequence.
  4. Explain agreement comparison and suitable descriptive display.
  5. Address consent, privacy, withdrawal and prior approval.
  6. Limit construct validity and refuse clinical generalisation.

Examiner tip

Use the cited evidence for the stated aspect only. Distinguish observed findings, proposed explanations and unsupported clinical conclusions.

Question 2Paper-only fictional plan, approval needed before any recruitment. Inspired by the prompt/access distinction in community adherence research, design an adult analogue about returning a library reading card, not attending healthcare or taking medicine. (a) State a directional hypothesis and operational variables. (b) Justify allocation, controls, procedure and analysis. (c) Evaluate privacy, missing data and generalisation to medical adherence. No live clinical work or incentives tied to care. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1307948/ Resource and boundary: Primary article abstract: families of 1,133 children, six conditions, attendance effects and relative cost-effectiveness; full procedural details not inferred. Primary reading: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg76/chapter/Introduction Resource and boundary: NICE clinical guideline introduction: overlapping intentional/unintentional barriers and non-blaming, patient-centred understanding. Coverage boundary: Written planning only; no recruitment approval, practical performance, clinical efficacy or complete Paper 4 answer is certified.6 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan6 indicative marksNo calculator

Paper-only fictional plan, approval needed before any recruitment. Inspired by the prompt/access distinction in community adherence research, design an adult analogue about returning a library reading card, not attending healthcare or taking medicine. (a) State a directional hypothesis and operational variables. (b) Justify allocation, controls, procedure and analysis. (c) Evaluate privacy, missing data and generalisation to medical adherence. No live clinical work or incentives tied to care. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1307948/ Resource and boundary: Primary article abstract: families of 1,133 children, six conditions, attendance effects and relative cost-effectiveness; full procedural details not inferred. Primary reading: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg76/chapter/Introduction Resource and boundary: NICE clinical guideline introduction: overlapping intentional/unintentional barriers and non-blaming, patient-centred understanding. Coverage boundary: Written planning only; no recruitment approval, practical performance, clinical efficacy or complete Paper 4 answer is certified.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Health-grounded written plan: prompts and routine action: selected aspects are explicitly practised, not whole section or whole study coverage. Written planning only; no recruitment approval, practical performance, clinical efficacy or complete Paper 4 answer is certified. Independent teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Propose that a neutral reminder increases the proportion of consenting adult volunteers returning a reading card through a simulated library form within 24 hours, compared with no reminder. Define a return as one valid pseudonymous submission in the window; duplicate submissions do not increase the count. No outcome has been collected.
  2. Propose 40 adult volunteers from a public notice, not a random population sample. After approval and informed consent, randomly allocate 20 to each condition using a pre-generated list. Provide identical card content, instructions, access and deadline; vary only a single reminder at a fixed interval. Pilot the non-clinical wording and accessibility with approved volunteers before the main study. Do not claim that these proposed numbers ensure statistical power.
  3. Record assignment separately from actual reminder receipt. Predefine how delivery failures, withdrawals and unmatched submissions are recorded; distinguish a known non-return within the window from loss of outcome information. Display returned/not returned/unknown counts by allocated group with denominators, rather than dropping inconvenient records. No p-value exercise is required.
  4. Separate contact details from coded return data, obtain consent for one message, specify deletion and withdrawal deadlines and avoid penalties for non-return. Expectancy, device access and volunteer motivation can affect findings. A controlled neutral task can investigate prompting, but lacks medical beliefs, costs and stakes, so it cannot establish vaccine or medicine adherence. Yokley's clinical study remains distinct from this original analogue.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Operationalise reminder exposure and a timed neutral return outcome.
  2. Specify directional hypothesis, adult recruitment and random allocation.
  3. Control access and content with a replicable procedure.
  4. Predefine outcome denominators, missingness and descriptive display.
  5. Address consent, contact privacy, withdrawal and prior approval.
  6. Explain expectancy and limits of transfer to healthcare.

Examiner tip

Use the cited evidence for the stated aspect only. Distinguish observed findings, proposed explanations and unsupported clinical conclusions.

All AS & A Level subjects