Psychology (A) old spec 2017 1/10

1 A random sample is a subset of a population in which all members of that population stand an equal chance of being selected. Two reasons why the researcher chose to use a random sample to select participants is that it avoids any bias when selecting the sample. Furthermore it allows the researcher to achieve a full representative sample of the target population allow for generalisation of results to similar populations

2 Using internally valid tests meant that the researchers could be more certain that they were actually measuring intelligence and creativity, This would give greater credibility to their results.

3 The drawings would have been rated separately by each researcher. The researchers’ rating would have been compared with each others. (to check for inter-rater reliability) Reliability would have been shown by a consensus between the researchers ratings.

4 There is a correlation (relationship is acceptable) between intelligence test scores and creativity test scores.

5 The following points would have been awarded a mark: the aim – to investigate the relationship between intelligence and creativity in students thanking the students for taking part asking students if they have any questions ethical considerations such as student discomfort, confidentiality – not disclosing individuals’ test scores in the report, or right to withdraw use of data. You can also be awarded marks for the process: taking each student individually to a private room, having a face-to-face conversation. A generic debrief/debriefing process that does not clearly refer to this investigation cannot achieve a mark above the basic band.

6 Spearman;s rho is a test of correlation/relationship. Data are capable of being ranked (being treated at an ordinal level of measurement).

7 As it was a two tailed test this means that a non-directional hypothesis was used. The findings for the two-tailed test were shown to be significant meaning that they were unlikely to have occurred by chance. As the findings were significant the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative/experimental hypothesis accepted. p≤0.05 shows that the likelihood of the results occurring by chance is 5% or less.

8 A type 1 error occurs when a null hypothesis is rejected when it should have been retained. In this case the researchers are unlikely to have made a type 1 error as their results were statistically significant. The chances of making a type 1 error were (equal to or) less than 5% OR A type 1 error occurs when a null hypothesis is rejected when it should have been retained. The researchers may have made a type 1 error. Despite having significant results as there is still up to a 5% chance of a type 1 error

9 The purpose of the abstract is to summarise a research study concisely. It is used by the reader to make a quick judgment regarding the purpose and outcome of the study concerned. It contains a summary of at least the aims and outcomes (findings) of the investigation and usually some detail of the method.

10 One strength of peer review is to help prevent poor quality work from being published. The use of experts in the same field help to identify errors before they appear in the public domain. Further by having experts look over research it helps to ensure work is methodologically sound and valid and helps to prevent unjustified claims being made. However, the peer review process can be slow, expensive and time consuming. Furthermore, one of the biggest issues is publication bias where the prestige and reputation of a university influences the decision to publish the work Other strengths: helps to prevent plagiarism helps to ensure that published work is original, relevant interesting and will add to our body of scientific knowledge helps university departments to be rated and funded. Weaknesses: can be bias against research that fails to reject null hypotheses (file drawer effect) bias against replications reviewers in the same field may be tempted to delay/prevent publication of a rival’s research despite much success, the system may fail to prevent scientific fraud.

11 The investigation used correlational analysis so cause and effect cannot be inferred. Although the study showed that intelligence and creativity are related it cannot be assumed that higher intelligence causes higher creativity.