Fahim is planning an interview study to investigate the types of dreams people have. He wants to collect a range of data using different types of questions.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Oct/Nov 2019). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [10] Three major omissions for a semi-structured interview study are:
2. ∞ What: content of questions asked (i.e. topics, examples: check these really are related to 'types of dreams' and not just sleep/frequency)
3. ∞ How: interview structure detail (inclusion of both structured and unstructured elements, i.e. some fixed questions)
4. ∞ How: style of questions asked (e.g. open/closed, quantitative/qualitative, use of Likert)
5. The minor omissions are: ∞ Where: location of participants when being interviewed
6. ∞ Who: participants (people who recall their dreams)
7. lie questions
8. filler questions
9. sampling technique
10. sample size
11. description of how closed questions will be scored
12. description of how quantitative data from closed questions will analysed
13. description of how open questions will be interpreted
14. ethical issues
15. Other appropriate responses should also be credited.
16. Mark according to the levels of response criteria below:
17. Level 3 (8-10 marks) ∞ Response is described in sufficient detail to be replicable (i.e. what and how) ∞ Response may have a minor omission (i.e. who or where) Use of psychological terminology is accurate and comprehensive
18. Level 2 (5-7 marks) ∞ Response is in some detail ∞ Response has minor omission(s) (i.e. who and/or where) Use of psychological terminology is accurate
19. Level 1 (1-4 marks) ∞ Response is basic in detail ∞ Response has major omission(s) ∞ If response is impossible to conduct max. 2 Use of psychological terminology is mainly accurate
20. Level 0 (0 marks) No response worthy of credit
21. [4] Answer will depend on problem identified. If the problem was an obvious omission in (a), fewer marks will have been awarded in (a), so they can be awarded here.
22. Problems may, for example, be matters of: Validity operationalisation difficulty with lying/social desirability/forgetting difficulty with response biases
23. Reliability standardisation intra-rater consistency (e.g. due to subjectivity of interpretation – may also be validity)
24. This list is not exhaustive and other appropriate responses should also be credited.
25. Marks Comment 3-4 Appropriate problem identified Appropriate solution is clearly described
26. 2 Appropriate problem identified plus EITHER Explanation of why it is a problem OR Ineffectual but possible solution described
27. 1 Appropriate problem identified Little or no justification
28. 0 No response worthy of credit