Evaluate the Saavedra and Silverman study (button phobia) in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about ethics.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Feb/Mar 2018). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. Example of an evaluation in context: As the study focused on just one child, the psychologist could collect rich, in-depth data making the findings more valid. For example, he was assessed using DSM, he was monitored on disgust levels with the buttons in therapy etc. As a result of this in-depth data it helped us understand the boy's button phobia and the best way to treat it. Therefore, the findings should have good validity. Other aspects that can be used for evaluation include: use of quantitative data, ethics (positive and negative), usefulness, use of qualitative data etc. These can be used as one strength and/or one weakness. There are other points that are creditworthy. [Level 4 (8-10 marks) Evaluation is comprehensive. Answer demonstrates evidence of careful planning, organisation and selection of material. Analysis (valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and arguments) is evident throughout. Answer demonstrates an excellent understanding of the material. Level 3 (6-7 marks) Evaluation is good. Answer demonstrates some planning and is well organised. Analysis is often evident but may not be consistently applied. Answer demonstrates a good understanding of the material. Level 2 (4-5 marks) Evaluation is mostly appropriate but limited. Answer demonstrates limited organisation or lacks clarity. Analysis is limited. Answer lacks consistent levels of detail and demonstrates a limited understanding of the material. Level 1 (1-3 marks) Evaluation is basic. Answer demonstrates little organisation. There is little or no evidence of analysis. Answer does not demonstrate understanding of the material. Level 0 (0 marks) No response worthy of credit.