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.
5 questions in this topic
Exact English revisions checked in an AI-assisted academic review; independent teacher approval is still pending.
All topics
Original source-led practice with worked reasoning and explicit evidence boundaries. This is not full specialist-option teaching or independent teacher approval.
Subtopics in this topic (5)
Follow-up: improvement is not a cure rate
Assessment: converging evidence and shared bias
Maintenance: negative reinforcement is not punishment
Components: a package does not isolate a mechanism
Extended evaluation: case depth and transfer
5 of 5 questions shown
Loading saved responses
Question 1The published case reports a Beck Anxiety Inventory total changing from 41 at baseline to 7 at approximately 12 months after treatment. (a) Calculate the absolute and percentage reduction, using baseline as the denominator. (b) Explain why the percentage is not a percentage of people cured. (c) Compare what a returned questionnaire and an independently assessed behavioural outcome could establish. Do not apply a diagnostic cut-off or administer a test.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
The published case reports a Beck Anxiety Inventory total changing from 41 at baseline to 7 at approximately 12 months after treatment. (a) Calculate the absolute and percentage reduction, using baseline as the denominator. (b) Explain why the percentage is not a percentage of people cured. (c) Compare what a returned questionnaire and an independently assessed behavioural outcome could establish. Do not apply a diagnostic cut-off or administer a test.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Follow-up: improvement is not a cure rate: directly exercises the stated analysis/evaluation aspects using inspected source sections; not whole study, full section or practical attainment. Independent teacher approval pending.
Work on the measurement scale actually supplied: subtract the later score from baseline to obtain 34 points. Divide by 41, not 7, because the question specifies a baseline-relative change. Rounding 3400 / 41 gives 82.9%. Preserve the unit: points and percentage change are different ways to describe the same pair of scores.
The denominator is an initial score, not a sample of people. Calling 82.9% a cure rate would change both the unit of analysis and the meaning of the result. A lower total also does not, by itself, establish that every relevant fear, avoidance behaviour or difficulty disappeared.
A returned self-report can provide information that is difficult for an observer to see, but it can be affected by recollection, expectations and willingness to report difficulties. Independent assessment of an appropriate behavioural outcome could offer a different perspective; it would still need reliable measurement and cannot automatically identify what caused change.
A balanced conclusion is that the reported follow-up is encouraging for this individual, not that a controlled treatment effect or population recovery probability has been calculated. Nothing here authorises a learner to test someone, provoke symptoms or conduct a medical procedure.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Absolute reduction is 41 - 7 = 34 score points.
Percentage reduction is (34 / 41) * 100, approximately 82.9% of the baseline score.
One person's score change is not a proportion of patients cured or proof of permanent recovery.
Self-report describes reported symptoms; an independently assessed outcome could add evidence about functioning, with consent and suitable safeguards.
Examiner tip
Distinguish an observed result, your interpretation and a proposed improvement. Indicative points are not an official Cambridge mark scheme.
Question 2The case combines a diagnostic interview and several self-report measures, while also reporting changes in everyday medical attendance. (a) Explain why anxiety symptoms, phobic avoidance and functioning are not interchangeable outcomes. (b) Evaluate the claim that five questionnaires automatically provide five independent confirmations. (c) Propose, on paper only, a safer and more informative assessment record without copying an instrument or collecting anyone's health data.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Analyse / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator
The case combines a diagnostic interview and several self-report measures, while also reporting changes in everyday medical attendance. (a) Explain why anxiety symptoms, phobic avoidance and functioning are not interchangeable outcomes. (b) Evaluate the claim that five questionnaires automatically provide five independent confirmations. (c) Propose, on paper only, a safer and more informative assessment record without copying an instrument or collecting anyone's health data.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Assessment: converging evidence and shared bias: directly exercises the stated analysis/evaluation aspects using inspected source sections; not whole study, full section or practical attainment. Independent teacher approval pending.
Begin with the construct, not the name of a questionnaire. Someone could report less anxiety yet continue avoiding an important setting, or resume an activity while still experiencing discomfort. A broad anxiety total cannot stand in for every phobia-specific or functional outcome.
Multiple instruments may broaden coverage, but shared informant, setting and expectations can make their errors related. Convergence is more informative when methods contribute genuinely different evidence. Disagreement should prompt examination of what each method measures, rather than deletion of the less convenient result.
A paper assessment record could identify the outcome, method, occasion, assessor and whether information is self-reported or independently observed. It should distinguish a missed follow-up from a zero symptom score. An assessment schedule improves comparability but does not manufacture an untreated counterfactual.
Use an invented record layout, not protected test items, cut-offs or a real person's details. Qualified reviewers must decide whether measures and observations are suitable. The educational purpose is to evaluate evidence, not to train learners to diagnose or recreate the case.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Distinguish general symptom severity, avoidance and everyday functioning as related but different constructs.
Several reports from the same person can share response biases; instrument count is not independent replication.
Specify consistent assessment occasions and distinguish interview, questionnaire and reported/observed functioning.
Require consent, privacy, qualified interpretation and an explicit record of missing observations rather than invented values.
Examiner tip
Distinguish an observed result, your interpretation and a proposed improvement. Indicative points are not an official Cambridge mark scheme.
Question 3A fictional person cancels an appointment, feels immediate relief and becomes more likely to cancel similar appointments. (a) Identify the behaviour, consequence and change in future behaviour. (b) Explain why this pattern illustrates negative reinforcement rather than punishment or proof of how the fear first began. (c) Evaluate the limits of using a retrospective case account to establish that maintenance mechanism. This is an analysis task, not an activity to perform.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Analyse / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator
A fictional person cancels an appointment, feels immediate relief and becomes more likely to cancel similar appointments. (a) Identify the behaviour, consequence and change in future behaviour. (b) Explain why this pattern illustrates negative reinforcement rather than punishment or proof of how the fear first began. (c) Evaluate the limits of using a retrospective case account to establish that maintenance mechanism. This is an analysis task, not an activity to perform.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Maintenance: negative reinforcement is not punishment: directly exercises the stated analysis/evaluation aspects using inspected source sections; not whole study, full section or practical attainment. Independent teacher approval pending.
Set out the sequence explicitly: cancellation is the action; immediate relief is its reported consequence; increased later cancellation is the change needed to call it reinforcement. Relief alone would not establish that the behaviour had become more likely.
Negative reinforcement removes or reduces something aversive while increasing a behaviour. Punishment instead reduces the future likelihood of the behaviour. These terms do not describe whether an observer approves of the person or the decision.
The fictional sequence fits a maintenance account. It does not show why the original fear appeared: learning from experience, information and other influences would require their own evidence. The published formulation in section 6 offers a case interpretation, not a randomised test of every suggested pathway.
Retrospective accounts may be selective, and cancellations can have more than one cause. A strong essay separates a useful explanatory model from a uniquely established causal history. It does not prescribe exposure, ask learners to cancel care or collect symptoms from others.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Identify cancellation, removal/reduction of distress and an increased subsequent likelihood of cancellation.
Negative means an aversive condition is reduced; reinforcement means behaviour increases, not that a reward is morally bad.
Distinguish maintenance of avoidance from the original acquisition of fear.
Explain retrospective-report and alternative-explanation limitations without denying the pattern's conceptual fit.
Examiner tip
Distinguish an observed result, your interpretation and a proposed improvement. Indicative points are not an official Cambridge mark scheme.
Question 4The case used several cognitive and behavioural components. A fictional review says that improvement proves one particular component was both necessary and sufficient. (a) Evaluate necessary versus sufficient. (b) Explain the missing comparison. (c) Outline the logic, not the treatment protocol, of a qualified, ethically approved component comparison and identify a remaining limitation.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Analyse / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator
The case used several cognitive and behavioural components. A fictional review says that improvement proves one particular component was both necessary and sufficient. (a) Evaluate necessary versus sufficient. (b) Explain the missing comparison. (c) Outline the logic, not the treatment protocol, of a qualified, ethically approved component comparison and identify a remaining limitation.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Components: a package does not isolate a mechanism: directly exercises the stated analysis/evaluation aspects using inspected source sections; not whole study, full section or practical attainment. Independent teacher approval pending.
Improvement after a package cannot logically show that each ingredient is necessary, sufficient or independently effective. Components might interact, some might be redundant, and factors outside the package could contribute. The case authors themselves identify the inability to isolate a sole active component.
Necessity requires evidence about what happens when the ingredient is absent under an appropriate comparison. Sufficiency requires evidence about the ingredient without the rest of the package. Neither condition follows just because the ingredient appeared somewhere in a successful sequence.
A research proposal can describe the logic of comparing ethically acceptable conditions under qualified oversight, with consent, suitable allocation, consistent outcomes and independent assessment. It must not turn an examination answer into instructions to withhold necessary care or administer exposure or medical interventions.
Even a well-designed comparison estimates an effect in a particular population and implementation. Adherence, therapist effects, interactions and follow-up matter. The defensible case conclusion remains promising individual improvement with a mechanism question still open.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Necessary means improvement would not occur without the component; sufficient means the component alone could produce it under the stated conditions.
A multi-component case provides neither a component-only group nor an otherwise comparable group without it.
Describe an independently assessed, consented comparison of appropriate conditions, with suitable allocation and safety oversight.
Recognise interaction, delivery/context and transfer limits even if a controlled comparison supported an effect.
Examiner tip
Distinguish an observed result, your interpretation and a proposed improvement. Indicative points are not an official Cambridge mark scheme.
Question 5Write a balanced evaluation of the claim that a detailed successful clinical case establishes an effective intervention for every person with a similar difficulty. Integrate (a) what within-person evidence contributes, (b) causal and generalisation limits and (c) the evidence needed before broader adoption. Separate published observations from your own proposed improvements. Do not diagnose or advise an individual.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.6 indicative marks
Analyse / Evaluate6 indicative marksNo calculator
Write a balanced evaluation of the claim that a detailed successful clinical case establishes an effective intervention for every person with a similar difficulty. Integrate (a) what within-person evidence contributes, (b) causal and generalisation limits and (c) the evidence needed before broader adoption. Separate published observations from your own proposed improvements. Do not diagnose or advise an individual.
Primary reading: https://www.drkevinchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChapmanDeLapp_BII-Phobia-preprint.pdf
Resource and boundary: Chapman and DeLapp: author-hosted OnlineFirst Version of Record, 30 October 2013; sections 5-12 inspected. Filename notwithstanding, this is not labelled a preprint on its title page. A published individual case, not a controlled component trial or learner treatment manual. No questionnaire items, exposure instructions or medical procedures are reproduced.
Coverage boundary: Selected methods and evaluation only; independent teacher approval pending.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Extended evaluation: case depth and transfer: directly exercises the stated analysis/evaluation aspects using inspected source sections; not whole study, full section or practical attainment. Independent teacher approval pending.
Thesis: a detailed case can show how an intervention was implemented and how one person's reports changed, while being insufficient to establish universal effectiveness. The strength and limit arise from the same feature: detailed access to one course of care is not a representative comparison across people.
Supporting argument: assessment over time can connect symptom reports with reported functioning and later contacts. Such detail can reveal feasibility questions or hypotheses that a single before-and-after average would hide. However, the quality and independence of each observation still need evaluation.
Causal qualification: the case lacks an appropriate untreated or alternative-condition counterfactual. Expectations, other changes and measurement effects cannot be excluded merely because improvement followed the sessions. Several components were delivered together, so the result also cannot isolate one mechanism.
Transfer qualification: a self-referred person's motivation and access to this particular service need not resemble those of everyone who might receive care. The paper notes access barriers. Long-term contacts help examine persistence in the observed case; they do not establish a population-level probability or eliminate all future relapse.
Evidence proposal: independent, ethically reviewed replication with suitable comparisons, transparent missing-data reporting and meaningful outcomes would strengthen a broader claim. A proposed study is not a finding, and an examination response should not reproduce a treatment protocol or instruct learners to intervene.
Conclusion: the case is useful for a cautious evidence-informed hypothesis and for understanding assessment, but not for an all-patients guarantee. A strong extended answer makes each evaluation alter the scope of that conclusion rather than attaching an unrelated generic criticism.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Use case depth and change over time to support a bounded evidential strength.
Identify the missing comparison and distinguish temporal order from a controlled causal effect.
Address individual selection, context and the uncertainty of transfer to other people.
Distinguish follow-up evidence from proof of permanent benefit.
Propose an appropriate independent replication/comparison without presenting it as evidence already obtained.
Reach a qualified conclusion tied to the claim rather than a generic list of strengths and weaknesses.
Examiner tip
Distinguish an observed result, your interpretation and a proposed improvement. Indicative points are not an official Cambridge mark scheme.
