SubjectScout
ENAR
Sign inGet matched
Get matched

Yokley: community-intervention 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)
  • Yokley: family allocation and the analysed sample
  • Yokley: attendance is not the number of injections
  • Yokley: cheap per outcome versus largest effect

3 of 3 questions shown

Loading saved responses

Question 1Yokley and Glenwick (1984) identified 1,133 preschool children from clinic records but assigned families, rather than individual siblings, to six conditions. They excluded 354 children after returned mail and 64 after record-update responses, analysing 715. (a) Explain family allocation. (b) Reconcile the numerical flow. (c) Evaluate whether random allocation guarantees an unbiased final analysis. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1307948/ Resource and read sections: Full primary page scans: pp315-318 Method (Children, Procedure, Experimental Treatments, Dependent Measures, Measure Integrity); pp318-322 Results (Measure Integrity, Participant Attrition, Dependent Variable Examination, tables 1-2, Cost Outcome); pp322-324 Discussion. HTML abstract alone was not used as full text. Coverage boundary: Selected community-intervention design, attrition, outcomes and cost evaluation only; no current vaccination advice, implementation plan or complete adherence section. Historical costs omit researcher time. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator

Yokley and Glenwick (1984) identified 1,133 preschool children from clinic records but assigned families, rather than individual siblings, to six conditions. They excluded 354 children after returned mail and 64 after record-update responses, analysing 715. (a) Explain family allocation. (b) Reconcile the numerical flow. (c) Evaluate whether random allocation guarantees an unbiased final analysis. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1307948/ Resource and read sections: Full primary page scans: pp315-318 Method (Children, Procedure, Experimental Treatments, Dependent Measures, Measure Integrity); pp318-322 Results (Measure Integrity, Participant Attrition, Dependent Variable Examination, tables 1-2, Cost Outcome); pp322-324 Discussion. HTML abstract alone was not used as full text. Coverage boundary: Selected community-intervention design, attrition, outcomes and cost evaluation only; no current vaccination advice, implementation plan or complete adherence section. Historical costs omit researcher time. Teacher approval pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Yokley: family allocation and the analysed sample: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected community-intervention design, attrition, outcomes and cost evaluation only; no current vaccination advice, implementation plan or complete adherence section. Historical costs omit researcher time. Teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Siblings could otherwise expose one parent to conflicting mailings, contaminating the intended comparison. Assigning families keeps the household's intervention coherent. The 1,133 and 715 counts describe children, not 1,133 or 715 independent family assignments; sibling outcomes may share household influences. The paper reports family allocation but presents child-based outcomes, a distinction worth retaining in evaluation.
  2. Subtracting 354 and then 64 from 1,133 gives 715 analysed children. Returned mail prevented intended exposure, while record updates identified children reported already up to date. These are different exclusion reasons, not one undocumented refusal category. The final child counts across conditions were 124, 119, 125, 120, 108 and 119; their sum is 715. An initial sample label must not be attached to every results denominator.
  3. Exclusion after allocation can weaken the comparability allocation was meant to create. The authors report differences in returned-mail frequencies, with conclusions depending on the comparison procedure, and compare measured characteristics of retained groups. Lack of significant retained-group demographic differences does not establish equivalence on every unmeasured determinant. This exercise critiques historical records only; it does not ask learners to access families' records or contact children.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Explain avoidance of conflicting prompts within a family.
  2. Calculate 1,133 - 354 - 64 = 715 and distinguish children from families.
  3. Identify exclusions after allocation and possible differential attrition.
  4. Evaluate measured baseline comparisons without claiming all selection bias was eliminated.

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 2Yokley and Glenwick's table 1 separates children receiving at least one inoculation (DV1), children attending for any reason (DV2), and total inoculations (DV3). At two weeks the specific-prompt-plus-monetary-incentive group has N=120, DV1=27, DV2=32 and DV3=46. A specific-prompt-only arm provides a common comparator; increased access also included special hours and child-care facilities. (a) Interpret each count. (b) Distinguish the incremental addition contrasts from unsupported cash-only or opening-hours-only claims. (c) Evaluate what later cumulative outcomes show. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1307948/ Resource and read sections: Full primary page scans: pp315-318 Method (Children, Procedure, Experimental Treatments, Dependent Measures, Measure Integrity); pp318-322 Results (Measure Integrity, Participant Attrition, Dependent Variable Examination, tables 1-2, Cost Outcome); pp322-324 Discussion. HTML abstract alone was not used as full text. Coverage boundary: Selected community-intervention design, attrition, outcomes and cost evaluation only; no current vaccination advice, implementation plan or complete adherence section. Historical costs omit researcher time. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator

Yokley and Glenwick's table 1 separates children receiving at least one inoculation (DV1), children attending for any reason (DV2), and total inoculations (DV3). At two weeks the specific-prompt-plus-monetary-incentive group has N=120, DV1=27, DV2=32 and DV3=46. A specific-prompt-only arm provides a common comparator; increased access also included special hours and child-care facilities. (a) Interpret each count. (b) Distinguish the incremental addition contrasts from unsupported cash-only or opening-hours-only claims. (c) Evaluate what later cumulative outcomes show. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1307948/ Resource and read sections: Full primary page scans: pp315-318 Method (Children, Procedure, Experimental Treatments, Dependent Measures, Measure Integrity); pp318-322 Results (Measure Integrity, Participant Attrition, Dependent Variable Examination, tables 1-2, Cost Outcome); pp322-324 Discussion. HTML abstract alone was not used as full text. Coverage boundary: Selected community-intervention design, attrition, outcomes and cost evaluation only; no current vaccination advice, implementation plan or complete adherence section. Historical costs omit researcher time. Teacher approval pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Yokley: attendance is not the number of injections: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected community-intervention design, attrition, outcomes and cost evaluation only; no current vaccination advice, implementation plan or complete adherence section. Historical costs omit researcher time. Teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Of 120 analysed target children in this arm, 27 received one or more inoculations within two weeks, giving 22.5%. Thirty-two attended for any reason, so attendance and inoculation receipt were not identical. Forty-six counts inoculations rather than distinct children and can exceed the number inoculated because a child may receive more than one. Table 1's separate pooled-control comparison column must not be mistaken for the raw group's receipt percentage.
  2. The monetary condition paired a specific prompt with a lottery opportunity, not a guaranteed cash payment to every family. Against a no-prompt control, the contrast includes the prompt and addition together; against the specific-prompt-only arm, it can estimate the incremental addition. The article reports more total inoculations for the monetary arm than the specific-prompt arm during intervention; this is not a claim that every outcome differed. The access addition combines opening times and child care, so those ingredients remain inseparable. Neither comparison identifies an unmeasured psychological mechanism or a guaranteed-cash effect.
  3. Cumulative curves show additional children recorded as receiving inoculations over time, not repeated proof that every child's motivation remained high. The authors caution about later follow-up because subsequent clinic advice or record-card prompts may accompany repeat visits. Three-month outcomes cannot establish durable behaviour change over years or disease prevention rates. This is interpretation of a historical experiment, not an invitation to alter vaccination decisions or reproduce incentives.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Distinguish 27 children inoculated, 32 attendees and 46 inoculations.
  2. Calculate 27/120 = 22.5% without treating 46 as a child count.
  3. Use the specific-prompt-only comparator for an incremental addition, while distinguishing a lottery from guaranteed cash and combined access from opening hours alone.
  4. Distinguish cumulative receipt from persistent motivation after intervention.

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 3Yokley and Glenwick's table 2 reports three-month cost per target child receiving inoculation: general prompt $3.64, specific prompt $2.27, specific prompt plus access $6.28, and specific prompt plus monetary incentive $6.91. Researcher time was not recorded. (a) Distinguish these ratios from effect size. (b) Explain the authors' short-run versus longer-run cost discussion. (c) Evaluate applying the figures to a present-day service. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1307948/ Resource and read sections: Full primary page scans: pp315-318 Method (Children, Procedure, Experimental Treatments, Dependent Measures, Measure Integrity); pp318-322 Results (Measure Integrity, Participant Attrition, Dependent Variable Examination, tables 1-2, Cost Outcome); pp322-324 Discussion. HTML abstract alone was not used as full text. Coverage boundary: Selected community-intervention design, attrition, outcomes and cost evaluation only; no current vaccination advice, implementation plan or complete adherence section. Historical costs omit researcher time. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator

Yokley and Glenwick's table 2 reports three-month cost per target child receiving inoculation: general prompt $3.64, specific prompt $2.27, specific prompt plus access $6.28, and specific prompt plus monetary incentive $6.91. Researcher time was not recorded. (a) Distinguish these ratios from effect size. (b) Explain the authors' short-run versus longer-run cost discussion. (c) Evaluate applying the figures to a present-day service. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1307948/ Resource and read sections: Full primary page scans: pp315-318 Method (Children, Procedure, Experimental Treatments, Dependent Measures, Measure Integrity); pp318-322 Results (Measure Integrity, Participant Attrition, Dependent Variable Examination, tables 1-2, Cost Outcome); pp322-324 Discussion. HTML abstract alone was not used as full text. Coverage boundary: Selected community-intervention design, attrition, outcomes and cost evaluation only; no current vaccination advice, implementation plan or complete adherence section. Historical costs omit researcher time. Teacher approval pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Yokley: cheap per outcome versus largest effect: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected community-intervention design, attrition, outcomes and cost evaluation only; no current vaccination advice, implementation plan or complete adherence section. Historical costs omit researcher time. Teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. The specific prompt has the lowest listed three-month average cost per inoculated target child, $2.27. A lower ratio does not itself mean the largest number of children attended or that it produced the fastest impact. Conversely, the incentive package's stronger immediate impact does not make its three-month average ratio the lowest. These ratios are not a complete incremental cost-effectiveness analysis against a common baseline.
  2. The authors distinguish cost per recipient from cost when considering evidence of statistically detectable impact. A package can have a low early ratio yet weak early evidence of an effect beyond controls. Over a longer interval the specific prompt's outcomes accumulate, improving its practical comparison; the access package's relative cost position also changes. Ranking depends on the question and follow-up interval, not a single timeless meaning of 'best'.
  3. The listed costs belong to a historical local programme. Researcher time was unrecorded, so even the paper's contemporary totals were not comprehensive social costs. Current wages, postage, service organisation, acceptability and population needs would require independent evidence. Neither ratios nor significance alone settle fairness or feasibility. The exercise evaluates published costs without proposing a programme, selecting medical care or treating families as available research participants.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Identify the specific prompt as lowest reported three-month cost per recipient.
  2. Distinguish absolute impact, average cost and statistically supported impact.
  3. Explain why time horizon can change practical comparisons.
  4. Identify omitted labour and historical/contextual costs as transfer limits.

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