1. Answering Question 6 Source Questions

2. 2009

3. General Points Candidates should define validity and reliability Award up to 3 marks for a point that is specific and in detail If no expression of ‘to what extent’ award maximum 6 marks.

4. Lack of validity and reliability suggested by: Absence of detail regarding sample size, location, date collected, method of sample selection. Source of sample: no information on who carried this out. Missing data (N/A) Questions asked too vague: % very/fairly confident in England/Wale

5. Factors that do suggest validity and reliability: Questions are relevant and linked to public confidence in CJS Trends and time: 2001 and 2005 – lead to analysis

6. 2008

7. General Points Credit candidates who clearly define valid and reliable. Valid: true knowledge. Accurately measuring the concept. Reliable: concerned with the question of whether the results of the study are repeatable and consistent.

8. Evidence that suggests that the information does allow us to make valid and reliable conclusions: recent – January 2007. Evidence of deaths 5th + 15th January non-governmental organisation – independent of government so less bias INQUEST conducts research, policy – reliable source and reputable statistics over 5 year period so valid.

9. Evidence that suggests that the information does not allow us to make valid and reliable conclusions: NGO – so potentially biased statistics – unclear what some of the categories mean e.g. “other nonnatural causes” biased statements throughout e.g. “ prisons as dumping grounds figures for 2007? only 17th January - already 2 deaths cannot compare with previous years.

10. 2007

11. does allow us to make valid and reliable conclusions the survey has been carried out by an independent body (MORI) carried out on behalf of a reputable foundation the sample size was fairly large (c 2000) asks a wide range of perception questions that gauge public opinion well the survey was carried out over 3 years, so trends can be identified fairly recent research.

12. does NOT allow us to make valid and reliable conclusions “representative sample of British residents” – no information about sample other than that percentages – some add up to over 100, some to less, with no explanation offered to explain these anomalies no information on the details of the survey eg location, social background of the respondents, etc the unclear instruction about how many to choose from.