Slides

PsychExchange.co.uk Shared Resource

Description
1. Clinical topic test mark scheme<br />1.<br /><ul><li>Define what is meant by primary and secondary data. 2. Primary data 3. Gathered first hand…
Categories
Published
of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  • 1. Clinical topic test mark scheme<br />1.<br /><ul><li>Define what is meant by primary and secondary data.
  • 2. Primary data
  • 3. Gathered first hand from source, directly by the researcher(s).
  • 4. E.g. Milgram (1963) p’s level of obedience, Bandura et al (1961) p’s aggressive behaviour.
  • 5. Can be gathered from questionnaires, observations, content analysis and experiments.
  • 6. Secondary data
  • 7. Have already been gathered by someone and are used by someone else for further research.
  • 8. E.g. in meta-analyses researchers pool data on a particular topic is secondary data.
  • 9. Goldstein’s study used secondary data in her analysis of gender differences in schizophrenia.
  • 10. Compare primary and secondary data in terms of their usefulness.
  • 11. Primary data are expensive to obtain because each researcher on research team has to start from the beginning of a study and follow the whole study through, whereas secondary data are cheaper because they already exist.
  • 12. Primary data should be valid because the study is designed and carried out for the main purpose of the research, whereas studies using secondary data has to make use of data which already exists.
  • 13. Secondary data have often already been analysed which can bring an element of subjectivity making it less valid than primary data.
  • 14. Secondary data can be in good quantity giving more detail.
  • 15. Secondary data often combines information from different sources so there is a possibility of comparing data to check for reliability and validity whereas primary data is limited to the time, place and number of participants.
  • 16. Secondary data may have been gathered some time before so not in the relevant time period whereas primary data is gathered at the time of the research.</li></ul>2.<br /><ul><li>Sarah has been referred to you, a cognitive therapist, for treatment. She is nervous about what the treatment entails, and asks you to explain it to her. Explain to Sarah what is involved in a cognitive therapy that you have studied.
  • 17. Sarah should understand that the aim of cognitive behaviour therapy is to alter the faulty thinking which leads to mental health problems.
  • 18. The CBT session tends to last about 50 minutes.
  • 19. The therapist would enter a contract with the client for about six sessions followed by a review.
  • 20. In each session an agenda is set with the client so that they decide what issues they would like to raise.
  • 21. At first Sarah would be asked to talk about herself so that her frame of reference can be understood by the therapist.
  • 22. The aim is to help the client uncover their core beliefs and thinking patterns.
  • 23. The therapist will challenge negative thinking with vigorous argument to convince the patient they are engaging in faulty thinking.
  • 24. The therapist may also employ reality testing, in which the patient may be encouraged to engage in activities which will demonstrate their thinking is wrong.
  • 25. Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Psychodynamic and Learning Approaches to treatment/therapy.
  • 26. A strength of psychodynamic therapy is that it treats each person as an individual (idiographic), whereas in the learning approach, therapies such as TEPs apply a standard format that could be considered impersonal (nomothetic). 2 marks as elaborated.
  • 27. A strength of the learning approach is it believes once symptoms have been removed the person is cured. This means the decisions about the effectiveness of the therapy are easy to make, whereas a weakness of the Psychodynamic Approach is it is unable to give a clear point when it can be said a cure has been effected.
  • 28. An advantage of Learning Approach treatments such as TEPs are that they are relatively cheap and easy to implement whereas Psychodynamic therapies can be very expensive as they last for such a long time...
  • 29. One weakness of both the Learning Approach and the Psychodynamic Approach is that they are not effective at treating disorders such as schizophrenia though in the case of the learning approach it can be used to reduce overt symptoms. (2 marks for elaboration as above).
  • 30. There is evidence supporting the effectiveness of therapies from both the Learning and Psychodynamic Approaches, e.g. Mumford et al (1975) demonstrated the effectiveness of TEPs with Sz patients. Freud’s case study of Little Hans demonstrates the effectiveness of dream analysis. (2 marks if elaborated).</li></ul>3.<br /><ul><li>Describe the procedure and findings of Rosenhan’s (1973) study ‘On being sane in insane places’.
  • 31. In study one the procedure involved 8 pseudo-patients, one 20 year old graduate and seven older participants from various professions. All used pseudonyms to avoid any diagnosis causing later embarrassment.
  • 32. Rosenhan was one of the participants, a fact known only to the hospital administrator and chief psychologist where he carried out the research.
  • 33. The 12 hospitals targeted were located in five different states in the USA and were varied in character, old/new, private/state funded…)
  • 34. Each pseudo-patient called a hospital for an appointment and when they arrived they said they were hearing voices, these voices were unclear but appeared to be saying ‘empty’, ‘hollow’ or ‘thud’.
  • 35. On admission, the pseudo-patients stopped stimulating symptoms of abnormality in any way. They were given medication which they did not swallow, responded to instructions from staff and chatted with other patients.
  • 36. The pseudo-patients made every effort to behave ‘sanely’ and to cooperate with all instructions as they were desperate to be released as soon as possible.
  • 37. In study 2 Rosenhan told staff at teaching hospitals who doubted the findings of the first study that in the next 3 months, one or more pseudo-patients would attempt to be admitted.
  • 38. Staff members in these hospitals were asked to rate patients presenting themselves on a scale of 1 to 10 to reflect the likelihood of them being a pseudo-patient.
  • 39. The pseudo-patients in study 1 were all admitted to hospital and never detected.
  • 40. The average stay was 19 days, (the range being 7-52 days).
  • 41. In each case they were released with a diagnosis of Schizophrenia in remission.
  • 42. In 30% of the cases, real patients commented that there was nothing wrong with the pseudo-patients.
  • 43. 71% of doctors and 88% of nurses paid no attention to the pseudo-patients when they tried to talk to them.
  • 44. In study 2 193 genuine patients presented themselves over 3 months, in 41 of these cases at least one member of staff was confident they were a pseudo-patient. In fact there were no pseudo-patients.
  • 45. Evaluate Rosenhan’s study in terms of strengths and weaknesses and what it tells us about reliability and validity.
  • 46. The varied nature of the hospitals used allows for generalisation of findings. If just one hospital had been involved it may have been a feature of that hospital to ‘label’ mental illness in this way.
  • 47. The pseudo-patients simply had to be themselves; there were no complicated back stories or behaviour to remember so this adds to the validity of the findings. This is supported by the fact that the real patients realised the patients were not mentally ill, suggesting the label of the diagnosis was preventing the medical staff from ‘seeing’ the pseudo-patients. (2 marks)
  • 48. Using 8 people in 12 hospitals means the findings were replicated contributing to the reliability of the findings.
  • 49. The findings are credible in that labelling influencing the perception of people’s behaviour is clear.
  • 50. The claim of the pseudo-patients that they heard voices is a standard symptom of Sz so it is not surprising that this is the conclusion drawn by the admissions staff. Hospital staff would not expect patients to lie about their symptoms.
  • 51. However, this does not account for why the patients were not recognised as sane once behaving normally on the ward.
  • 52. The study demonstrates that DSMII would appear to be highly reliable, as all patients presenting with the same symptoms received the same diagnosis.
  • 53. However, the diagnosis is clearly not valid, the patients were lying about their symptoms and the diagnosis was not able to pick this up.
  • 54. The validity of the findings is compromised by the medical staff’s inability to do other than interpret the pseudo-patients’ behaviour in the light of the label they had been given.
  • 55. Describe and evaluate your production of a leaflet for a key issue in clinical psychology. In your answer remember to explain the key issue that was the subject of the leaflet.</li></ul>Description points could include;<br />Key issue must be identified effectively with explanation as to why this issue is considered important. Should be phrased as a question.<br />It must be evident that secondary data has been used in the construction of the leaflet.<br />Description should contain information about the decisions taken regarding an appropriate audience and the aim of the leaflet<br />Ways in which that audience would be expected to access this leaflet (Doctor’s surgery, PSHE class, University medical centre…)<br />Design decisions about the type of material included in the leaflet should be made explicit along with decisions about level of technical language, complexity of content etc.<br />Some explanation as to the process of evaluating the leaflet could also be included, e.g. peer review, review by family…<br />Evaluation points could include;<br />Limitations of the leaflet, use of language, design, pictures, level of complexity of information.<br />Evaluation of the amount of information given, was it too little or too much?<br />Evaluation of the identification of the target audience, is this audience in need of this information, in what way will information in this format help them?<br />Were the aims of the leaflet met? <br />Identification and evaluation of the secondary data used.<br />Justification of the choice of audience.<br />Awareness of the needs of the target audience. <br />LevelMarkDescriptor0No rewardable materialLevel 11-3 marksCandidates will make brief answers, making simple statements showing some relevance to the question.Description includes some reference to the key issue and design of the leafletLittle or no attempt at the analytical/evaluation demands of the questionLevel 24-6 marksDescription OR evaluation OR limited attempt at each OR one is in less details than the other.Description includes some reference to key issue, aim of leaflet, target audience, design.Evaluation includes appropriate discussion of whether the leaflet’s aims were metLevel 37-9 marksCandidate has attempted and answered both of the two injunctions in the question well.Description must include good coverage of the key issue, aim, target audience, design of the leaflet.Evaluation includes appropriate analysis of limitations with reference to means of evaluating the leaflet.Level 410-12 marksCandidate has attempted and answered both of the two injunctions in the question very well.Description must include excellent coverage of the key issue, aim, target audience, strategies and designEvaluation includes effective explanation of the use of secondary data, the reasons for choosing the target audience, the limitations/strengths of the design.<br />
  • We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks