SubjectScout
ENAR
Sign inGet matched
Get matched

Psychology: shared research methods and written planning

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.

95 original questions across 15 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.

10 questions in this topic

Exact English revisions checked in an AI-assisted academic review; independent teacher approval is still pending.

All topics

Original multipart written practice with indicative marking and worked reasoning. Partial conceptual support only; teacher approval pending. Not an official paper, complete study text or practical assessment.

Subtopics in this topic (10)
  • Case studies: triangulation without causal certainty
  • Types of data: origin, form and operational meaning
  • AS planning: a low-risk controlled memory task
  • Randomised controlled trials: fair comparisons
  • Postal questionnaires and response formats
  • Psychometric tests: consistency is not validity
  • Operational hypotheses and non-causal association
  • Temporal validity: checking transfer across time
  • Core, key and example studies: an honest evidence ledger
  • A Level planning: reminders, self-reports and limitations

10 of 10 questions shown

Loading saved responses

Question 1This is a fictional proposal, not a published study. A consenting adult keeps a diary about a persistent fear of lifts; a researcher also interviews them and reviews an agreed subset of past records. (a) Explain why this is a case study rather than an experiment. (b) Explain how the sources can be triangulated, including disagreement. (c) Evaluate causal claims and specify confidentiality and withdrawal safeguards. Do not propose exposure or treatment.5 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan5 indicative marksNo calculator

This is a fictional proposal, not a published study. A consenting adult keeps a diary about a persistent fear of lifts; a researcher also interviews them and reviews an agreed subset of past records. (a) Explain why this is a case study rather than an experiment. (b) Explain how the sources can be triangulated, including disagreement. (c) Evaluate causal claims and specify confidentiality and withdrawal safeguards. Do not propose exposure or treatment.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Case studies: triangulation without causal certainty: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. The unit is one adult, examined in depth over a personal history. Using several methods does not turn the case into a controlled experiment.
  2. Compare dated diary episodes, interview accounts and authorised records. Agreement increases confidence in a particular description; disagreement may reflect recall or different contexts and should be investigated, not discarded.
  3. The evidence can suggest explanations, but cannot separate a cause from all co-occurring events or estimate population prevalence. The participant chooses which records are shared; remove identifying details and explain when anonymisation prevents later deletion. Avoid intervention, diagnosis or promises of benefit.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Identify an intensive investigation of one case using several sources.
  2. Explain the absence of controlled manipulation or allocation.
  3. Use agreement and disagreement to investigate alternative accounts.
  4. Distinguish depth from representative or causal evidence.
  5. Specify consent for records, de-identification and a withdrawal deadline.

Examiner tip

Triangulation strengthens interpretation; it does not manufacture an experimental control.

Question 2A fictional researcher directly collects minutes waited and open interview comments about a campus queue, and reuses an existing institution's spreadsheet of earlier queue counts. (a) Classify quantitative versus qualitative and primary versus secondary data, explaining why these are different distinctions. (b) Explain how comments could be coded without losing the original accounts. (c) Evaluate the claim that numerical data are automatically objective and reliable.5 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan5 indicative marksNo calculator

A fictional researcher directly collects minutes waited and open interview comments about a campus queue, and reuses an existing institution's spreadsheet of earlier queue counts. (a) Classify quantitative versus qualitative and primary versus secondary data, explaining why these are different distinctions. (b) Explain how comments could be coded without losing the original accounts. (c) Evaluate the claim that numerical data are automatically objective and reliable.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Types of data: origin, form and operational meaning: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Minutes and counts are numerical quantities; comments convey accounts in words. Primary versus secondary asks who collected the material for this investigation, not whether it contains numbers.
  2. Develop explicit themes, retain anonymised quotations and record how ambiguous cases are handled. A second coder can independently code a subset; revise unclear definitions rather than conceal disagreements.
  3. A timer needs a fixed start and end definition; an existing spreadsheet may use different definitions or contain recording errors. Numerical format alone guarantees neither validity nor consistent measurement. These are fictional data sources, not evidence of an actual queue effect.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Classify directly collected minutes as quantitative primary data.
  2. Classify new comments as qualitative primary data and reused counts as quantitative secondary data.
  3. Distinguish data form from collection provenance.
  4. Describe a transparent coding scheme with independent checks.
  5. Explain operational or recording errors in numerical measures.

Examiner tip

Qualitative does not mean secondary, and quantitative does not mean unbiased.

Question 3Plan, on paper only, an original experiment asking whether neutral background conversation changes adults' immediate recall of a short neutral word list. (a) Operationalise the variables and hypothesis. (b) Justify sampling, design, allocation and controls. (c) Give a replicable procedure and descriptive presentation. (d) Explain ethics and one limitation. Assume ethics approval and safe audio equipment are prerequisites, not already obtained.6 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan6 indicative marksNo calculator

Plan, on paper only, an original experiment asking whether neutral background conversation changes adults' immediate recall of a short neutral word list. (a) Operationalise the variables and hypothesis. (b) Justify sampling, design, allocation and controls. (c) Give a replicable procedure and descriptive presentation. (d) Explain ethics and one limitation. Assume ethics approval and safe audio equipment are prerequisites, not already obtained.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

AS planning: a low-risk controlled memory task: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. For example, predict fewer correct words with recorded neutral conversation than silence. Count each target word once; predefine treatment of spelling variations. No actual results are available.
  2. Recruit consenting adult volunteers, acknowledging selection bias. Randomly allocate to independent groups to avoid remembering the same list twice. Use the same list, presentation and recall durations in both groups; only the background condition changes.
  3. Obtain consent, check comfortable audibility, present the list, collect immediate written recall, code anonymously and debrief. Present group recall summaries on labelled axes; do not invent a difference or compute an inferential test.
  4. Allow stopping without penalty and explain data deletion limits. Exclude avoidable discomfort and follow approved safety procedures. A short artificial list does not represent all learning; an apparent effect also need not transfer to noisy workplaces.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Define conversation versus silence and number of correctly recalled list words.
  2. State a testable directional or non-directional hypothesis.
  3. Specify consenting adult recruitment, allocation and a justified design.
  4. Standardise list, timing, audio and scoring with a replicable sequence.
  5. Propose a labelled group display without invented findings.
  6. Provide withdrawal, privacy, hearing-comfort protection and a generalisation limit.

Examiner tip

A plan specifies how evidence would be collected; it does not supply the result.

Question 4In a fictional, unperformed study, adult volunteers would be randomly allocated to a neutral break-reminder app or an otherwise identical app without reminders. Anonymous weekly reports would record whether planned breaks were taken. (a) Explain the roles of random allocation and a control group. (b) Distinguish allocation from random sampling. (c) Evaluate non-adherence, missing reports and expectancy, and propose safeguards without withholding care.5 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan5 indicative marksNo calculator

In a fictional, unperformed study, adult volunteers would be randomly allocated to a neutral break-reminder app or an otherwise identical app without reminders. Anonymous weekly reports would record whether planned breaks were taken. (a) Explain the roles of random allocation and a control group. (b) Distinguish allocation from random sampling. (c) Evaluate non-adherence, missing reports and expectancy, and propose safeguards without withholding care.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Randomised controlled trials: fair comparisons: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Chance determines which app each volunteer receives; it is not a guarantee of identical groups. The control helps distinguish reminders from attention, app use and passage of time.
  2. The volunteers are not a random sample of all adults. Random allocation supports a fairer condition comparison but does not remove recruitment bias.
  3. Record allocation and adherence separately, retain reasons for missing reports when voluntarily given, and explain which records the analysis includes. Comparing only enthusiastic completers could create bias. Use neutral instructions and equivalent follow-up; self-reported breaks may still reflect expectancy or reporting error. No clinical treatment is being tested.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Explain allocation reducing systematic baseline imbalance.
  2. Explain the matched control holding non-reminder features constant.
  3. Distinguish volunteer recruitment from assignment to conditions.
  4. Recognise non-adherence and attrition as threats to interpretation.
  5. Specify transparent reporting, comparable follow-up and privacy.

Examiner tip

Random allocation improves the comparison, not the representativeness of recruitment.

Question 5Design part of a fictional postal questionnaire about adults' experience of routine appointment reminders. (a) Write a balanced Likert item and a bipolar rating item, with labelled response options. (b) Explain how an open question adds different evidence. (c) Evaluate postal non-response and propose a privacy-preserving improvement. Do not ask for diagnoses, addresses on the response sheet or actual medical records.5 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan5 indicative marksNo calculator

Design part of a fictional postal questionnaire about adults' experience of routine appointment reminders. (a) Write a balanced Likert item and a bipolar rating item, with labelled response options. (b) Explain how an open question adds different evidence. (c) Evaluate postal non-response and propose a privacy-preserving improvement. Do not ask for diagnoses, addresses on the response sheet or actual medical records.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Postal questionnaires and response formats: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Example Likert statement: 'The reminder was easy to understand': strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree. Permit not applicable separately rather than treating it as neutral.
  2. Example bipolar scale: reminder wording 'unclear / somewhat unclear / neither / somewhat clear / clear'. An open question such as 'What, if anything, affected your experience of the reminder?' allows unanticipated explanations. These are newly written items, not validated instruments.
  3. People with literacy difficulties or especially strong experiences may return forms at different rates. Clear print and a prepaid return envelope can reduce barriers, not guarantee representativeness. Separate recruitment contact details from anonymous responses, avoid pressure, and explain that care is unaffected by participation.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Provide a single-focus statement with balanced agreement categories.
  2. Provide opposing endpoints on a labelled bipolar continuum.
  3. Use a neutral open question without assuming reminders help.
  4. Recognise unequal return propensity and avoid assuming respondents represent non-respondents.
  5. Propose accessible formatting, a return envelope and voluntary completion.

Examiner tip

A neutral midpoint and 'not applicable' mean different things.

Question 6A fictional new 'appointment confidence' scale gives similar scores when the same volunteers complete it twice, but its items mainly ask whether they like the clinic's furniture. (a) Explain what repeated scores suggest and what they do not establish. (b) Propose a construct-validity check and a standardisation procedure. (c) Explain why using the score to diagnose a disorder would be unjustified.5 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan5 indicative marksNo calculator

A fictional new 'appointment confidence' scale gives similar scores when the same volunteers complete it twice, but its items mainly ask whether they like the clinic's furniture. (a) Explain what repeated scores suggest and what they do not establish. (b) Propose a construct-validity check and a standardisation procedure. (c) Explain why using the score to diagnose a disorder would be unjustified.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Psychometric tests: consistency is not validity: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Stable scores may indicate consistency, assuming no major intervening change or memory effect. They could consistently measure furniture preference instead of confidence.
  2. Define appointment confidence first, review whether items cover it, and compare scores with relevant independently assessed behaviour while considering alternative explanations. A relationship would add evidence, not settle validity permanently.
  3. Use the same instructions and scoring, accessible wording and an appropriate comparison sample before interpreting differences. No norms, cut-offs or diagnostic accuracy have been established for this invented scale. Avoid labelling respondents or making health decisions from it.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Identify evidence relevant to test-retest reliability.
  2. Separate consistent measurement from measuring appointment confidence.
  3. Propose an appropriate independent indicator or content review.
  4. Specify consistent instructions, scoring and suitable reference samples.
  5. Reject clinical diagnosis without appropriate validation and professional assessment.

Examiner tip

A reliable score can be a reliable measure of the wrong thing.

Question 7For a fictional adult study, waiting time means minutes from scheduled appointment to being called; confidence means a pre-specified questionnaire score obtained just before the appointment. (a) Write a directional hypothesis predicting an association and a matching null. (b) Write a non-directional alternative. (c) Explain why these hypotheses do not establish that waiting causes confidence, and identify a plausible confound. Do not invent questionnaire validity.5 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan5 indicative marksNo calculator

For a fictional adult study, waiting time means minutes from scheduled appointment to being called; confidence means a pre-specified questionnaire score obtained just before the appointment. (a) Write a directional hypothesis predicting an association and a matching null. (b) Write a non-directional alternative. (c) Explain why these hypotheses do not establish that waiting causes confidence, and identify a plausible confound. Do not invent questionnaire validity.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Operational hypotheses and non-causal association: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Directional: longer waits, measured as the defined minutes, will be associated with lower pre-appointment questionnaire scores. Null: there will be no association between these two measures in the target population.
  2. Non-directional: waiting minutes and questionnaire scores will be associated, without specifying whether the association is positive or negative. A hypothesis is written before seeing results; none are supplied here.
  3. Appointments involving more complex concerns might both run late and affect confidence. An observed association therefore would not isolate waiting time's effect. The scale would also need evidence that its score measures the intended construct. Negative waits for early calls should be handled by a rule set before analysis.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Predict a negative association using both operational measures.
  2. Write a null of no association, not no difference between unspecified groups.
  3. Write a non-directional association without predicting its sign.
  4. Distinguish prediction from observed evidence and causation.
  5. Identify a linked alternative such as appointment complexity.

Examiner tip

Use an association hypothesis for a correlational design, not a causal conclusion.

Question 8A fictional report from an earlier decade found favourable responses to mailed appointment letters. A current service now uses app notifications and concludes the same response pattern must occur. (a) Explain the temporal-validity problem. (b) Distinguish changing communication media from a proven change in psychological processes. (c) Propose a careful contemporary comparison and explain what an unchanged result would and would not show.5 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan5 indicative marksNo calculator

A fictional report from an earlier decade found favourable responses to mailed appointment letters. A current service now uses app notifications and concludes the same response pattern must occur. (a) Explain the temporal-validity problem. (b) Distinguish changing communication media from a proven change in psychological processes. (c) Propose a careful contemporary comparison and explain what an unchanged result would and would not show.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Temporal validity: checking transfer across time: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Media, access and expectations may have changed, so the older result is not an automatic prediction for app users. These are candidate explanations, not established causes.
  2. The original psychological relationship may persist despite the new medium. Conversely, identical-looking response categories could mean different things today; review wording and recruitment before comparing scores.
  3. Use an approved contemporary study with comparable outcomes, document differences in delivery and sample, and test whether respondents understand items similarly. A similar pattern would support transfer under those documented conditions, not universal stability across all times or proof that communication technology has no effect.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Explain why a historical finding may not generalise to the present context.
  2. Identify access, expectations and participant composition as possible changes.
  3. Avoid treating calendar age alone as evidence of invalidity.
  4. Propose comparable operational measures with contemporary sampling.
  5. Limit conclusions even if the pattern is reproduced.

Examiner tip

Old evidence is not automatically invalid, and new technology is not proof of a changed mechanism.

Question 9A fictional revision team labels three resources: a named AS core study, an A Level key-study summary and an optional example study. It proposes replacing all three with one generic essay about wellbeing. (a) Explain why these study categories must not be conflated. (b) Explain when a detailed key-study summary is an acceptable resource. (c) Design an honest evidence ledger when only a paper's abstract has been read.5 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan5 indicative marksNo calculator

A fictional revision team labels three resources: a named AS core study, an A Level key-study summary and an optional example study. It proposes replacing all three with one generic essay about wellbeing. (a) Explain why these study categories must not be conflated. (b) Explain when a detailed key-study summary is an acceptable resource. (c) Design an honest evidence ledger when only a paper's abstract has been read.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Core, key and example studies: an honest evidence ledger: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. A generic essay cannot replace knowledge of a named core study's methods and findings. Core, key and example labels have different roles in the official reference list.
  2. For an A Level key study, a sufficiently detailed summary can provide the specified information; example studies illustrate relevant content and suitable alternatives may be used. This does not relax the AS requirement to study the prescribed originals.
  3. Record the exact resource and inspected sections, supported aspects, unanswered questions and review status. If only an abstract is available, leave detailed methodological and numerical claims held. Free access is not permission to copy the paper or a certificate of complete coverage.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Identify all 12 AS core studies as requiring detailed study-specific knowledge.
  2. Distinguish prescribed key-study aspects from illustrative example material.
  3. Recognise an adequate detailed summary without demanding purchase of every A Level original.
  4. Hold methods/results claims not supported by inspected material.
  5. Separate source access, authoring, mapping breadth and teacher approval.

Examiner tip

A source being available is not the same as an outcome being taught or verified.

Question 10On paper only, plan an original low-risk adult study on neutral reminders and adherence to a self-chosen reading break. This rehearses A Level planning methods, not a prescribed Health key study. (a) Specify a hypothesis, variables and justified design. (b) Describe recruitment, allocation, controls, replicable procedure and data display. (c) Explain self-report limitations, ethics and a design improvement. Assume approval is required before any recruitment.6 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate / Plan6 indicative marksNo calculator

On paper only, plan an original low-risk adult study on neutral reminders and adherence to a self-chosen reading break. This rehearses A Level planning methods, not a prescribed Health key study. (a) Specify a hypothesis, variables and justified design. (b) Describe recruitment, allocation, controls, replicable procedure and data display. (c) Explain self-report limitations, ethics and a design improvement. Assume approval is required before any recruitment.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

A Level planning: reminders, self-reports and limitations: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval. This generic methods scaffold still requires integration with the selected option and task-specific Paper 4 requirements.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. For example, predict that adults receiving one neutral reminder more often report completing their agreed reading break than controls receiving none. Define the reporting window and what counts as completion before data collection; no results exist.
  2. Recruit consenting adult volunteers, acknowledge self-selection, randomly allocate, standardise instructions and follow-up, and vary only the reminder. Record planned break times privately; collect an anonymous completion response after the same interval and debrief.
  3. Display completion categories separately by group and report missing responses separately rather than counting them as failures without explanation. Expectancy and inaccurate self-report limit validity. A consented, minimally intrusive corroborating record could improve measurement but introduces privacy costs.
  4. Allow withdrawal without penalty, minimise contact details and explain the deletion deadline. This written model does not demonstrate practical competence, treatment adherence or the knowledge of a prescribed specialist option.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Operationalise reminder exposure and reported completion of the planned break.
  2. State a testable hypothesis and justify an independent-groups control design.
  3. Specify volunteer recruitment and random allocation without claiming random sampling.
  4. Provide a feasible sequence with comparable follow-up and pre-specified outcome coding.
  5. Describe labelled summaries and handle missing responses transparently.
  6. Address demand, privacy, withdrawal and an appropriate improvement.

Examiner tip

A plausible methods plan cannot stand in for missing specialist study knowledge.

All AS & A Level subjects