Paper 3: data analysis and interpretation

Answer the four HL Paper 3 questions on a resource booklet: explain an issue limiting a source, analyse findings and conclude, judge qualitative research and weigh several sources against a claim.

IB Psychology
Exam skills
HL only

27 min readLast reviewed 15 Oct 2026

Paper 3 gives you a resource booklet of several sources about one claim and asks four questions about them. The claim concerns the role of culture, motivation or technology in shaping behaviour within one of the four contexts, for example the effect of technology on students’ mental health or the role of culture in group behaviour. The sources include quantitative and qualitative research, which may be experimental or non-experimental, and the data may be real or created for the examination.

Nothing in the booklet has been seen before, so the paper tests how well knowledge and skills are applied to new material: reading graphs and tables, analysing results, judging qualitative research and weighing evidence for and against a claim. Those skills can be practised on any set of sources, and the four question types are the same in every session.

The four questions

Question	What it asks	Skill	What the top mark needs
Q1 [3]	Explain one issue that limits the interpretation of the information in a given source	Interpretation of graphs	The issue is explained, not only identified or described
Q2 [6]	Analyse the findings from a given source and state a conclusion	Data analysis	Detailed analysis of the data and a conclusion explicitly linked to the findings
Q3 [6]	One of three fixed questions about a qualitative source: improving credibility, avoiding bias, or how far findings are transferable	Research considerations	Detailed understanding of the consideration, with explicit reference to the source
Q4 [15]	To what extent the claim is valid, using at least three sources and your own knowledge	Synthesis	At least three sources interpreted effectively, different points of view evaluated, and a reasoned conclusion

The first three questions each focus on one source; the last brings them together. Marks rise steeply through the paper, so time should follow the marks: Q4 alone is worth half the paper.

Themantic Education (Travis Dixon): a review of Paper 3, with advice on approaching each of the four questions.

Reading the resource booklet

The booklet opens with the claim, usually in a sentence such as “The sources in this examination have been collated to assess the claim that …”. Every source was chosen because it bears on that claim, and every answer is judged partly by how well it connects the source to it. The claim should therefore be underlined and read first, and its key terms noted: what is the behaviour, what is supposed to shape it, and in whom.

Each source then needs a quick classification before any question is attempted. The same few features decide what a source can and cannot show.

Feature	What to note	Why it matters
Type of data	Quantitative (numbers, graphs, statistics) or qualitative (themes, quotations)	Q1 and Q2 usually use quantitative sources, Q3 a qualitative one
Design	Experiment (random allocation?), quasi-experiment, correlational study, survey, interview, observation	Only a true experiment supports a causal conclusion
Sample	Who, how many, from where, how recruited	Generalisability and transferability; small or unusual samples limit conclusions
Measures	How the variables in the claim were operationalised; self-report or behaviour	Whether the source actually measures what the claim is about
Key results	The two or three numbers or themes that matter most	The raw material for analysis and synthesis
Direction	Does the source support the claim, challenge it, or both?	Q4 needs different points of view

A practice resource booklet

The four sources are invented for practice and all data are hypothetical. They are used in every worked example that follows.

The sources in this booklet have been collated to assess the claim that culture shapes young people’s willingness to seek professional help for psychological distress.

Source 1

An international online survey asked university students aged 18–24 in four countries whether they would see a counsellor or psychologist “if you felt very low for two weeks or more”. The graph shows the percentage in each country who answered “probably” or “definitely”. The countries are ordered by their national individualism score.

Hypothetical column chart: percentage of university students who would see a counsellor or psychologist if very low for two weeks. Country A 64, B 51, C 38, D 29, ordered from highest to lowest individualism score. No sample sizes shown. — Source 1 (hypothetical data). Percentage of students in each country who said they would see a counsellor or psychologist if they felt very low for two weeks or more.

Source 2

All students at one university in Country A were invited by email to complete an anonymous questionnaire; 420 did so. They were grouped by where they had grown up. Help-seeking attitudes were measured on a 10-item scale (0–30; higher scores mean more positive attitudes to professional help) and self-stigma on a 10-item scale (10–50; higher scores mean stronger feelings that seeking help would make a person feel weak or ashamed). Students also reported whether they had used the university counselling service in the past year and whether they knew it existed.

	Grew up in Country A (n = 240)	International students from East Asia (n = 110)	International students from South Asia (n = 70)
Help-seeking attitudes, mean (SD)	19.8 (5.1)	15.2 (6.0)	16.9 (5.7)
Self-stigma, mean (SD)	24.1 (6.2)	29.5 (7.0)	27.3 (6.8)
Used counselling service in past year	18%	7%	10%
Knew the counselling service existed	91%	58%	66%

Across all 420 students, self-stigma correlated with help-seeking attitudes, r = −0.41 (p < 0.001). Group differences in help-seeking attitudes were statistically significant (p < 0.01).

Source 3

A university counselling service introduced a culturally adapted service for international students in January: a counsellor who speaks Mandarin and Hindi, and drop-in sessions advertised as “study and well-being support” rather than counselling. The graph shows the number of first appointments made by international students in each month of that academic year.

Hypothetical line graph of monthly first counselling appointments by international students: Sep 6, Oct 9, Nov 11, Dec 5, Jan 14, Feb 17, Mar 19, Apr 22, May 25, Jun 8. A shaded band from January marks the adapted service. — Source 3 (hypothetical data). First appointments by international students at one university counselling service, September to June. The shaded period shows when the adapted service was running.

Source 4

A counsellor at the same university carried out semi-structured interviews in English with nine international students from China and India (five women, four men, aged 19–23) who had experienced a period of low mood but had not used the counselling service. Participants were recruited through a poster in the international students’ lounge. The counsellor transcribed and coded the interviews alone using thematic analysis and reported three themes.

“Keeping it in the family”: problems were to be discussed with family or solved privately. “At home, if you are sad, you talk to your mother, not a stranger. Going to a counsellor would mean my family has failed me.” (Participant 3)
“The body speaks first”: distress was experienced as tiredness, headaches or poor sleep, and taken to a doctor rather than a counsellor. “I didn’t think I was depressed. I thought I was sick, so I went to the clinic for my sleep.” (Participant 7)
“Someone who would understand”: participants said they might use a service if the counsellor shared or understood their background, and several did not know the service was free. “I would go if I knew they understand how it is for us. And I thought it costs money.” (Participant 1)

Question 1: an issue that limits interpretation

Question 1 asks you to explain one issue that limits the interpretation of the information in a given source, usually a graph or table. It is worth 3 marks, awarded in three steps: 1 for identifying a relevant issue, 2 for describing it clearly, and 3 for explaining it. The step from 2 to 3 is the one most answers miss.

A three-step ladder for Paper 3 Question 1: 1 mark for identifying an issue (no sample size given), 2 marks for describing it in the source (percentages for four countries, no number of students), 3 marks for explaining what it prevents (whether 64% and 29% are stable). — Each step builds on the one before: naming the issue, showing exactly where it appears in the source, and then explaining what conclusion it prevents a reader from drawing.

Issues worth looking for

The full range of issues with graphs and tables (a truncated axis, missing spread, outliers, percentages without bases and others) is part of the HL data analysis course. In Paper 3 the most valuable issues are those that connect the source to the claim, because they explain why the source cannot fully test it.

Issue	What it looks like in a source	What it prevents
The measure does not match the claim	The claim is about behaviour, the source measures intentions or attitudes; the claim is about culture, the source compares countries	Concluding that the source shows the claimed effect on the claimed variable
Aggregated data	National or group averages	Concluding anything about individuals (ecological fallacy) or about culture rather than other national differences
No sample size or spread	Percentages or means with no n, no standard deviation, no error bars	Judging whether differences are stable or meaningful
Correlational or cross-sectional data	Groups compared without random allocation; a single correlation	Concluding that one variable causes the other
No comparison	A trend after a change, with no control group or earlier period	Attributing the change to the intervention
Uncontrolled confounding variables	Groups that differ in more than the variable of interest (cost, access, language)	Attributing differences to the variable in the claim

Question 1 [3 marks]. Explain one issue that limits the interpretation of the data in Source 1.

Show answers at each mark

A 1-mark answer. “The graph does not show how many students took part.” This identifies an issue but does not describe or explain it.

A 2-mark answer. “The graph gives percentages for four countries, from 64% in Country A to 29% in Country D, but there is no sample size for any country, so it is not clear how many students these percentages are based on.” The issue is now clearly described in the source, but its consequence is not explained.

A 3-mark answer. “The graph compares countries, not cultures: each bar is a national average, and the countries are simply ordered by a national individualism score. The fall from 64% in Country A to 29% in Country D could therefore be due to any other difference between the countries, such as the cost or availability of counsellors, rather than to cultural values. Because individual students’ cultural values were not measured, the graph cannot show that culture shapes willingness to seek help, only that willingness differs between countries that also differ in individualism; assuming each student holds their country’s average values would be an ecological fallacy.”

Why the last answer earns 3. It identifies the issue (country used as a proxy for culture), describes it with details from the source (national averages, ordered by individualism score, 64% to 29%) and explains what it prevents: a conclusion about culture as the cause, in relation to the claim.

Several other issues would also earn full marks on Source 1, as long as each is explained. The measure is an intention (“would see a counsellor”), not actual help-seeking, so the graph cannot show what students do when they are distressed. No sample sizes are given, so the stability of the percentages is unknown. The survey was online and in one wording, so the phrase “counsellor or psychologist” may not mean the same in every country.

Question 1 [3 marks]. Explain one issue that limits the interpretation of the data in Source 3.

Show a model answer

Step 1: identify. There is no comparison: no previous year and no group without the adapted service.

Step 2: describe. First appointments rose from 5 in December to 14 in January, when the adapted service began, kept rising to a peak of 25 in May, then fell to 8 in June. The graph shows only one academic year, and only international students.

Step 3: explain. Demand for counselling often falls during the December holidays and rises towards exams, and here appointments climbed steadily to May, the exam season, then dropped sharply in June when exams end. Without the same months in a previous year, or domestic students’ appointments over the same period, the rise cannot be attributed to the culturally adapted service rather than to the normal pattern of the academic year, so the source gives only weak evidence that adapting a service to culture increases help-seeking.

Question 2: analyse the findings and state a conclusion

Question 2 names a source and asks you to analyse its findings and state a conclusion, usually linked to the claim. The markband has two parts: the analysis must be detailed, and the conclusion must be explicitly linked to the findings. A correct but brief summary of the numbers reaches the middle band; a conclusion that is stated without showing which findings support it does the same.

A routine for the analysis

Describe the main pattern with numbers. Quote the key values and say which way they go.
Compare. Calculate or state the size of the differences (in points, percentages or as a proportion), and compare groups or conditions with each other.
Use the spread, sample and statistics. Standard deviations show how much individuals vary and how far groups overlap; sample sizes show how much weight a result can carry; a p-value or significance statement shows whether a difference is likely to be due to chance; a correlation’s size and sign show the strength and direction of a relationship.
Look for what complicates the pattern. Subgroups, a variable that might explain the difference, a measure that does not quite match the claim.
State the conclusion, with the findings it rests on and appropriate caution (“suggests”, “is consistent with”, “provides partial support”).

Question 2 [6 marks]. Analyse the findings from Source 2 and state a conclusion linked to the claim that culture shapes young people’s willingness to seek professional help for psychological distress.

Show a model answer

Model answer. Students who grew up in Country A had the most positive attitudes to seeking professional help (mean 19.8 out of 30), compared with 16.9 for South Asian and 15.2 for East Asian international students. The difference between Country A and East Asian students, 4.6 points, is close to one standard deviation (5.1–6.0), so it is a substantial difference, and group differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). The pattern for self-stigma is the reverse: East Asian students scored highest (29.5) and Country A students lowest (24.1).

The correlation of r = −0.41 across all 420 students shows a moderate negative relationship: students who feel more shame about seeking help tend to have less positive attitudes to it. Behaviour follows the same order, with 18% of Country A students using counselling compared with 7% of East Asian students.

However, the standard deviations are large (5.1–7.0), so the groups overlap a great deal and many international students had more positive attitudes than many Country A students. The table also shows a large difference in awareness: 91% of Country A students knew the service existed, but only 58% of East Asian students. Lower use of counselling by international students may therefore partly reflect not knowing about the service, rather than cultural values. The groups are defined by where students grew up, which is only a rough indicator of culture, and the international students are a specific group who chose to study abroad.

Conclusion. Source 2 provides partial support for the claim. Students from different cultural backgrounds differed significantly in help-seeking attitudes and self-stigma, and higher self-stigma went with less positive attitudes, which is consistent with cultural norms about shame shaping willingness to seek help. But the large overlap between groups, the correlational design and the large gap in awareness of the service mean that culture is unlikely to be the only explanation for the differences in use.

The model answer describes, compares (in points and in relation to the standard deviation), uses the p-value and the correlation, finds the complication in the awareness row, and only then concludes. The conclusion names the findings it rests on and states how far they support the claim.

Question 3: credibility, bias or transferability

Question 3 is about a qualitative source and is always one of three fixed questions: how the researcher could improve the credibility of the findings, how the researcher could avoid bias, or to what extent the findings are transferable to other populations or contexts. Because the three questions are known in advance, the ideas can be prepared; the marks depend on applying them explicitly to the source.

Question	Meaning of the consideration	Ideas to apply to the source
Improve the credibility of the findings	How far the findings give a true picture of participants’ experiences and perceptions	Triangulation (methods, data, researchers); member checking; reflexivity; a second coder and an audit trail; prolonged engagement; thick description; data saturation
Avoid bias	Preventing the researcher, the participants or the sample from distorting the findings	Researcher bias and confirmation bias in questions and coding; participant bias, social desirability bias and the effect of who the interviewer is; sampling bias in recruitment; reflexivity, open non-leading questions, independent coders, an interviewer without a stake in the result
To what extent are the findings transferable	How far the findings apply to other settings or groups, judged by the reader using a detailed description of the original context	Who the participants were and how they were recruited; the setting; the language and the interviewer; thick description of context; whether similar themes appear elsewhere; a judgement on where they would and would not transfer

Question 3 [6 marks]. Discuss how the researcher could improve the credibility of the findings in Source 4.

Show a model answer

Model answer. Credibility is how far the findings give a true picture of the participants’ own experiences. In Source 4 it is limited in several ways that the researcher could address. First, the counsellor transcribed and coded all nine interviews alone, so the three themes reflect one person’s reading of the data. Researcher triangulation would improve this: a second researcher, ideally from the participants’ own backgrounds, could code the transcripts independently, and the two could compare and discuss differences. An audit trail showing how codes became themes would let others check the analysis.

Second, the interviews were conducted in English, which is not the first language of students from China and India. Participants may have found it hard to express feelings precisely, so phrases such as “the body speaks first” may partly reflect limited vocabulary for emotions rather than how they experience distress. Offering interviews in Mandarin or Hindi, with careful translation of transcripts, would make the data a truer picture of their experiences. Member checking would also help: the counsellor could return the three themes to the nine participants and ask whether they recognise their experiences in them, for example whether “keeping it in the family” describes their views or exaggerates them.

Third, the interviewer works for the service that participants had not used, and some said they did not know it was free. Participants may have softened criticisms of the service when speaking to one of its counsellors. A reflexive statement in which the counsellor describes their own position and expectations, together with method triangulation, such as comparing the interview themes with anonymous questionnaire data like Source 2, would show whether the themes hold across methods. Together, these steps would make it more likely that the themes are the students’ perceptions, not the researcher’s.

The bias and transferability questions draw on the same details of Source 4, but organised differently.

Question 3 [6 marks]. (a) Discuss how the researcher could avoid bias in Source 4. (b) To what extent are the findings of Source 4 transferable to other populations or contexts? Write a plan for each.

Show both plans

(a) Avoiding bias.

Researcher bias: the interviewer is a counsellor at the service and may expect cultural barriers to explain low use, which could shape probes and coding (confirmation bias). Use an interviewer independent of the service, a schedule of open, non-leading questions, and a reflexive journal of expectations before coding.
Participant bias: students talking to a counsellor from the service may give socially desirable answers or avoid criticising it. An independent interviewer from a similar background and a guarantee of confidentiality would reduce this.
Sampling bias: a poster in the international students’ lounge recruits students who use the lounge and are willing to talk about low mood. Recruit through several channels (classes, societies, residences) and use purposive sampling to include different genders, subjects and years.
Analysis: a second coder and member checking reduce the chance that one person’s expectations decide the themes.

(b) Transferability.

Define: how far findings apply to other settings or groups, judged using a thick description of the original context.
Limits: nine students from two countries, studying abroad at one university in Country A, interviewed in English by a counsellor; international students who chose to study abroad may differ from young people who stay in China or India, and the service-specific theme (not knowing it was free) belongs to this university.
What may transfer: the themes of family privacy and of distress experienced through the body are consistent with wider research on cultural differences in how distress is expressed, so they may apply to other international students from similar backgrounds.
Judgement: the findings are likely to transfer to international students from similar backgrounds in similar universities, but not to young people in China and India generally, or to students from other cultures, without further research; a fuller description of the participants and setting would let readers judge.

Question 4: synthesis

Question 4 restates the claim and asks to what extent it is valid, using your own knowledge and at least three of the sources. It is worth half the paper and is marked with a single markband for the whole answer. The top band needs detailed knowledge relevant to the claim, at least three sources interpreted (not just mentioned) to support the discussion, different points of view identified and evaluated, and a reasoned conclusion.

Synthesis means combining the sources into one argument about the claim. Each source is used for what it can show, weighed against its limitations, and set against the others: where sources agree, the evidence is stronger; where they disagree, the answer must explain why. Own knowledge adds theory, research and methodological understanding from the course that helps interpret the sources.

Weighing the sources

Before writing, it helps to place each source on two dimensions: whether it supports or challenges the claim, and how strong it is as evidence. Strength depends on design, sample and how well the measures match the claim.

Grid placing four hypothetical sources by direction (challenges or supports the claim) and strength of evidence: Source 2 stronger and supporting; Source 4 fairly strong and mixed, on the dividing line; Sources 1 and 3 weaker and supporting. — Most sources support the claim, but the strongest supporting source (Source 2) also contains the main alternative explanation, and the qualitative source shows culture and access working together.

Source	What it shows about the claim	Main limitation	Direction
1	Willingness to see a counsellor falls from 64% to 29% across countries ordered by individualism	Countries, not cultures; intentions, not behaviour; no sample sizes	Supports, weakly
2	Significant group differences in attitudes and self-stigma; self-stigma correlates −0.41 with attitudes	Correlational; large overlap; large gap in awareness of the service	Supports, with an alternative explanation
3	Appointments rise after a culturally adapted service begins	No comparison year or group; exam-season pattern	Supports, weakly
4	Family privacy and bodily experience of distress, but also lack of information and the wish for an understanding counsellor	Nine students, one interviewer from the service, interviews in English	Mixed: culture and access interact

Using your own knowledge

Own knowledge can come from the culture extension (and its research challenges), from the health and well-being context, and from research methodology. It is most effective when it interprets a source, not when it is added as a separate paragraph.

Methodological challenges of culture research: the ecological fallacy (Source 1), imposed etic measures that may not mean the same in every culture (a Western “help-seeking attitudes” scale in Source 2), and the difficulty of separating culture from confounding variables such as cost, language and access (Sources 1–3).
Research on cultural expression of distress: Ryder et al. (2008) found that Chinese outpatients with depression reported more somatic symptoms when speaking to a clinician, while Euro-Canadian outpatients reported more psychological symptoms on every method used. Findings like this help interpret the theme “the body speaks first” in Source 4: if distress is experienced physically, people may seek a doctor rather than a psychologist.
Research on stigma and help-seeking: a systematic review of 144 studies by Clement et al. (2015) found that stigma had a small-to-moderate negative effect on help-seeking and that ethnic minorities and young people were among the groups most deterred by it. This supports the interpretation of the negative correlation in Source 2, but it also suggests that stigma is one barrier among several.
Concepts: causality (no source is a true experiment), measurement (intentions versus behaviour; country versus culture) and perspective (emic accounts in Source 4 against etic scales in Source 2).

A structure for the answer

Introduction: restate the claim, define the key terms (what “culture” and “willingness to seek help” mean and how the sources measure them) and state the line of argument.
Evidence supporting the claim: the strongest supporting sources first, each interpreted and evaluated, with own knowledge to explain the pattern.
Evidence that challenges or qualifies the claim: alternative explanations (access, awareness, cost, language), counter-evidence in the sources, and methodological limits.
Evaluation of the evidence as a whole: where sources agree, what kinds of design are missing (no true experiment, no measure of individuals’ cultural values), how far the sources match the claim.
Conclusion: a reasoned judgement on the extent to which the claim is valid, ideally refining it into a more precise claim the evidence does support.

Question 4 [15 marks]. To what extent can it be concluded that culture shapes young people’s willingness to seek professional help for psychological distress? In your answer, use your own knowledge and at least three of the sources.

Show an essay plan

Essay plan.

Introduction. Culture as shared values, norms and beliefs; willingness to seek help as attitudes, intentions and actual use of services. The sources measure these in different ways. Line of argument: the sources consistently show cultural differences in help-seeking, but they cannot separate culture from access and awareness, so the claim is supported only in a qualified form.
Source 2 (strongest support). Significant differences in attitudes (19.8, 16.9, 15.2) and self-stigma (24.1 to 29.5); r = −0.41 between self-stigma and attitudes. Own knowledge: Clement et al. (2015) on stigma as a barrier, especially for ethnic minorities and young people, supports the interpretation that cultural norms about shame reduce willingness. Limits: correlational, large overlap (SD 5–7), grouping by where students grew up, possibly an imposed etic scale.
Source 4 (explains how). Themes of family privacy and of distress “speaking through the body” suggest cultural mechanisms; own knowledge: Ryder et al. (2008) on somatic expression of depression in Chinese patients, which would lead people to seek medical rather than psychological help. Limits: nine students, a counsellor-interviewer, English-language interviews, single coder.
Sources 1 and 3 (weaker support). Source 1’s fall from 64% to 29% is in the predicted direction, but compares countries (ecological fallacy, national confounds) and measures intentions. Source 3’s rise after the adapted service is consistent with culture-sensitive services increasing help-seeking, but has no comparison year and coincides with exam season.
Alternative explanation and counter-evidence. Awareness and access: Source 2 (58% of East Asian students knew of the service, against 91%) and Source 4 (“I thought it costs money”) show that practical barriers also reduce help-seeking. Part of the apparent cultural difference may be a difference in information and access that international students face as newcomers, not cultural values. Source 4’s third theme also shows that willingness rises when the service is culturally understanding, which suggests that the barrier lies partly in the fit between culture and service, not in culture alone.
Evaluation of the evidence as a whole. No source is a true experiment; none measures individuals’ cultural values directly; the sources do agree in direction across different methods (method triangulation), which strengthens the case for some cultural influence.
Conclusion. The claim is partly valid. The sources consistently show differences in help-seeking between cultural groups, and the qualitative and stigma evidence suggests cultural norms of privacy, shame and bodily expression of distress are part of the reason. But culture is entangled with awareness, cost, language and the cultural fit of services, and the evidence cannot show how much of the difference is due to culture itself. A more precise claim is better supported: cultural norms, together with the way services are offered, shape young people’s willingness to seek professional help.

A plan becomes a top-band answer when each point is written out as interpretation: the numbers or themes from the source, what they suggest about the claim, why that suggestion is limited, and how own knowledge helps decide. The opening of the second paragraph shows the level of development needed.

Model paragraph for the second point of the plan (Source 2).

Show the model paragraph

The strongest support for the claim comes from Source 2. Students who grew up in Country A had significantly more positive attitudes to professional help than East Asian international students (19.8 compared with 15.2, p < 0.01), and higher self-stigma went with less positive attitudes (r = −0.41). This fits research on stigma as a barrier to help-seeking: a review of 144 studies by Clement et al. (2015) found that stigma reduced help-seeking and that ethnic minorities were among the groups most deterred by it.

If cultural norms make seeking help a source of shame for the family, as Source 4’s theme “keeping it in the family” suggests, this would explain both the higher self-stigma and the lower willingness of East Asian students. However, Source 2 is correlational, and its own data contain an alternative explanation: only 58% of East Asian students knew the counselling service existed, compared with 91% of students from Country A.

Own knowledge is the second common weakness in synthesis answers.

Summary

Paper 3 is built around one claim about culture, motivation or technology in one context, tested by several quantitative and qualitative sources.
Reading the claim first and classifying every source (data type, design, sample, measures, key results, direction) prepares all four questions.
Question 1 rewards one issue that is identified, described with details from the source and explained in terms of what it prevents the reader concluding.
Question 2 rewards detailed analysis (numbers compared, spread, sample and statistics used, complications found) and a conclusion explicitly linked to the findings.
Question 3 is always about credibility, avoiding bias or transferability in a qualitative source, and needs explicit reference to that source.
Question 4 is a synthesis: at least three sources interpreted and weighed, own knowledge used to interpret them, different points of view evaluated and a reasoned conclusion.
In culture research, comparing countries, measuring intentions and confounds such as access and language are the issues that most often limit the evidence.
A conclusion that refines the claim into a more precise one the evidence supports is usually more convincing than a simple yes or no.

Self-check

To do:
I can describe the resource booklet, the claim and the four Paper 3 questions with their marks.
To do:
I can classify each source by data type, design, sample, measures and direction.
To do:
I can explain one issue that limits the interpretation of a graph or table, to the full 3 marks.
To do:
I can analyse a table of descriptive and inferential statistics and state a conclusion linked to the claim.
To do:
I can discuss credibility, bias or transferability with explicit reference to a qualitative source.
To do:
I can plan a synthesis answer that weighs at least three sources and uses my own knowledge.
To do:
I can reach a reasoned judgement on a claim, including a refined version of it.

Carry on with Psychology in Augment

With a free account, Augment remembers where you stopped in the notes and which questions you have marked.

Start free