SubjectScout
ENAR
Sign inGet matched
Get matched

Lovell: delivery-trial evidence

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.

3 questions in this topic

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

All topics

Original written methods, results and evaluation exercises; partial coverage, teacher approval pending. No practical research, clinical advice or complete syllabus claim.

Subtopics in this topic (3)
  • Lovell: allocation, delivery and masking
  • Lovell: non-inferiority is not exact identity
  • Lovell: incomplete follow-up and time-saving claims

3 of 3 questions shown

Loading saved responses

Question 1Lovell et al. (2006) randomised 72 patients, 36 per arm, after two baseline assessments four weeks apart. Allocation used blocks of four and a call to the principal investigator. The telephone arm included face-to-face first and final sessions with eight shorter telephone contacts between them. (a) Explain what was compared. (b) Evaluate allocation and baseline measurements. (c) Explain what researcher masking could and could not protect against. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1626332/ Resource and read sections: Full primary article HTML: Methods (Design, Participants, Outcomes, Procedure, Interventions, Sample size and statistical methods); Results (Flow, Clinical outcome, table 2, Satisfaction, Blindness); Discussion (Implications, Limitations). Coverage boundary: Selected delivery-comparison methods and results only; not a complete OCD topic, instrument validation or an ERP manual. Table 2 and the Clinical outcome prose give different adjusted estimates; they are not silently reconciled. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator

Lovell et al. (2006) randomised 72 patients, 36 per arm, after two baseline assessments four weeks apart. Allocation used blocks of four and a call to the principal investigator. The telephone arm included face-to-face first and final sessions with eight shorter telephone contacts between them. (a) Explain what was compared. (b) Evaluate allocation and baseline measurements. (c) Explain what researcher masking could and could not protect against. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1626332/ Resource and read sections: Full primary article HTML: Methods (Design, Participants, Outcomes, Procedure, Interventions, Sample size and statistical methods); Results (Flow, Clinical outcome, table 2, Satisfaction, Blindness); Discussion (Implications, Limitations). Coverage boundary: Selected delivery-comparison methods and results only; not a complete OCD topic, instrument validation or an ERP manual. Table 2 and the Clinical outcome prose give different adjusted estimates; they are not silently reconciled. Teacher approval pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Lovell: allocation, delivery and masking: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected delivery-comparison methods and results only; not a complete OCD topic, instrument validation or an ERP manual. Table 2 and the Clinical outcome prose give different adjusted estimates; they are not silently reconciled. Teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Both arms received the same broad CBT approach from experienced therapists. The comparison concerns format and contact time together, not a pure telephone-medium effect with duration held constant. Face-to-face endpoints also mean that the telephone arm was not wholly remote. Neither arm supplies an untreated counterfactual.
  2. Random allocation aims to balance competing patient characteristics between arms; blocks help maintain allocation balance during recruitment. Calling for allocation after baseline separates assessment from assignment, but the description alone does not prove every possible allocation leak was impossible. The two baselines help examine stability before treatment, without replacing a parallel untreated group or demonstrating random population sampling.
  3. Researchers assessing outcomes were intended to be unaware of assignment. This can reduce differential assessment, but patients and therapists knew how sessions occurred and expectations could affect self-report. The paper checks masking rather than simply assuming success: nine patients revealed assignment; assessors guessed 35 of the remaining 63 correctly. A masking check does not turn this into a double-blind trial. These are historical design observations, not instructions to deliver therapy.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Identify a delivery-package comparison, not remote-only treatment versus no treatment.
  2. Distinguish random allocation from representative recruitment.
  3. Explain the value and limits of repeated baseline measurement.
  4. Distinguish masked assessors from unmasked patients and therapists.

Examiner tip

Identify the actual sample, endpoint, denominator and source section. Distinguish a result from an interpretation and a group average from an individual claim.

Question 2Lovell et al.'s statistical methods prespecify a non-inferiority margin of 5 Yale Brown units. Table 2 reports the six-month adjusted contrast as -0.55, with 95% interval -4.26 to 3.15. The Clinical outcome prose instead reports 0.70 (-2.71 to 4.11). (a) Apply the paper's upper-bound rule separately to these reported intervals. (b) Explain why an interval containing zero does not alone establish non-inferiority. (c) Evaluate a claim that treatment outcomes are exactly identical for everyone. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1626332/ Resource and read sections: Full primary article HTML: Methods (Design, Participants, Outcomes, Procedure, Interventions, Sample size and statistical methods); Results (Flow, Clinical outcome, table 2, Satisfaction, Blindness); Discussion (Implications, Limitations). Coverage boundary: Selected delivery-comparison methods and results only; not a complete OCD topic, instrument validation or an ERP manual. Table 2 and the Clinical outcome prose give different adjusted estimates; they are not silently reconciled. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator

Lovell et al.'s statistical methods prespecify a non-inferiority margin of 5 Yale Brown units. Table 2 reports the six-month adjusted contrast as -0.55, with 95% interval -4.26 to 3.15. The Clinical outcome prose instead reports 0.70 (-2.71 to 4.11). (a) Apply the paper's upper-bound rule separately to these reported intervals. (b) Explain why an interval containing zero does not alone establish non-inferiority. (c) Evaluate a claim that treatment outcomes are exactly identical for everyone. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1626332/ Resource and read sections: Full primary article HTML: Methods (Design, Participants, Outcomes, Procedure, Interventions, Sample size and statistical methods); Results (Flow, Clinical outcome, table 2, Satisfaction, Blindness); Discussion (Implications, Limitations). Coverage boundary: Selected delivery-comparison methods and results only; not a complete OCD topic, instrument validation or an ERP manual. Table 2 and the Clinical outcome prose give different adjusted estimates; they are not silently reconciled. Teacher approval pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Lovell: non-inferiority is not exact identity: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected delivery-comparison methods and results only; not a complete OCD topic, instrument validation or an ERP manual. Table 2 and the Clinical outcome prose give different adjusted estimates; they are not silently reconciled. Teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Under the upper-bound criterion stated in the Methods, 3.15 is below 5 and 4.11 is also below 5. Both reported intervals therefore satisfy that numerical rule when considered separately. This does not make the two estimates interchangeable: the table and prose disagree and the inspected paper does not establish a reconciliation. A learner should name the source location rather than present either as an uncontested single estimate.
  2. An interval including zero permits no group difference, but can also permit differences large enough to matter. Non-inferiority needs a justified margin set before examining the result and an interval narrow enough to meet the directional criterion. A nonsignificant superiority test is not sufficient. The five-unit choice is part of this paper's design, not a threshold for personal clinical decisions.
  3. The analysis concerns uncertainty about an average contrast, not equality of every participant's outcome. The chosen tolerance, exclusions, missing outcomes and specialist setting all condition interpretation. Six months does not establish lifelong equivalence. Numerical interpretation is supplied for written critique; no scale items, scoring exercise for individuals or treatment-selection advice is supplied.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Compare upper bounds 3.15 and 4.11 separately with the prespecified 5-unit margin.
  2. Distinguish a non-inferiority decision from failure to detect superiority.
  3. Preserve the table/prose discrepancy rather than inventing a reconciliation.
  4. Bound inference to group outcomes, chosen margin and six-month observation.

Examiner tip

Identify the actual sample, endpoint, denominator and source section. Distinguish a result from an interpretation and a group average from an individual claim.

Question 3Lovell et al.'s table 2 contains six-month Yale Brown observations for 35/36 telephone patients and 30/36 face-to-face patients. The methods assume missing-at-random data and do not carry the last observation forward. Non-followed patients had worse immediate post-treatment scores in the reported comparison. The discussion reports a therapist-time saving of more than 40%. (a) Explain the missing-data concern. (b) Evaluate carrying forward scores. (c) Bound the economic and generalisation claims. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1626332/ Resource and read sections: Full primary article HTML: Methods (Design, Participants, Outcomes, Procedure, Interventions, Sample size and statistical methods); Results (Flow, Clinical outcome, table 2, Satisfaction, Blindness); Discussion (Implications, Limitations). Coverage boundary: Selected delivery-comparison methods and results only; not a complete OCD topic, instrument validation or an ERP manual. Table 2 and the Clinical outcome prose give different adjusted estimates; they are not silently reconciled. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator

Lovell et al.'s table 2 contains six-month Yale Brown observations for 35/36 telephone patients and 30/36 face-to-face patients. The methods assume missing-at-random data and do not carry the last observation forward. Non-followed patients had worse immediate post-treatment scores in the reported comparison. The discussion reports a therapist-time saving of more than 40%. (a) Explain the missing-data concern. (b) Evaluate carrying forward scores. (c) Bound the economic and generalisation claims. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1626332/ Resource and read sections: Full primary article HTML: Methods (Design, Participants, Outcomes, Procedure, Interventions, Sample size and statistical methods); Results (Flow, Clinical outcome, table 2, Satisfaction, Blindness); Discussion (Implications, Limitations). Coverage boundary: Selected delivery-comparison methods and results only; not a complete OCD topic, instrument validation or an ERP manual. Table 2 and the Clinical outcome prose give different adjusted estimates; they are not silently reconciled. Teacher approval pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Lovell: incomplete follow-up and time-saving claims: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected delivery-comparison methods and results only; not a complete OCD topic, instrument validation or an ERP manual. Table 2 and the Clinical outcome prose give different adjusted estimates; they are not silently reconciled. Teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. The assigned groups each contained 36 people, but that does not mean every outcome was observed at every follow-up. Table 2 denominators must accompany its means; treatment withdrawal and a missing six-month measurement are not automatically the same event. Worse earlier scores among those not followed raise the possibility that missing later outcomes were less favourable than observed ones, especially in the less complete face-to-face arm.
  2. Missing-at-random is an analytical assumption, not something established merely by calling an analysis intention-to-treat. If unobserved outcome severity still predicts missingness after accounting for relevant observed data, bias may remain. Carrying the last score forward would impose no further change for missing patients, despite expected change over time, and would not cure informative loss. The paper's small earlier-score comparison is a warning, not proof of a particular missing outcome.
  3. Shorter contacts support a therapist-time argument, but saved contact time is not a full calculation of all costs, resources or benefits. Two trained therapists in specialist departments do not establish performance in every service. The paper itself limits follow-up to six months and discusses specialist expertise. The conclusion should therefore concern this delivery comparison under these conditions, not permission to replace individual care with telephone sessions.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Distinguish observed outcome counts from treatment completion and assigned sample size.
  2. Explain possible outcome-related missingness and why carrying forward assumes away subsequent change.
  3. Separate therapist contact savings from a complete economic evaluation.
  4. Bound generalisation by the specialist setting, two trained therapists and six-month follow-up.

Examiner tip

Identify the actual sample, endpoint, denominator and source section. Distinguish a result from an interpretation and a group average from an individual claim.

All AS & A Level subjects