Outline how Fox et al. (1987) used a token economy in worksites to promote health.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Feb/Mar 2020). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [1-2] (a) Award 1 mark for a basic outline of the term/concept. Award 2 marks for a detailed outline of the term/concept. For example: Fox et al. gave stamps for no lost-time injury (1). Stamps could be exchanged for items at redemption stores (1) Other appropriate responses should also be credited.
2. [1-4] (b) Award 1-2 marks for a basic answer with some understanding of the topic area. Award 3-4 marks for a detailed answer with clear understanding of the topic area. For example: Children aged 4-11 watched the Food Dudes programme in lessons (1). They received rewards such as a Food Dudes sticker if they ate fruit and vegetables put out in front of them (1). They receive a Food Dude sticker for tasting a food (1), or a sticker and a small prize for eating a whole portion (1). The intervention phase was followed by a maintenance phase during which there are no videos and the letters and rewards became more intermittent (1). Additional content: Self reports were done with some of the parents to evaluate how many fruit and vegetables were consumed at home (1). Also credit the control group used during the later phases of the study where they just monitored consumption of fruit and vegetables when given extra fruit and vegetables that were delivered to the school during the duration of the study (1). Qualitative data was collected from both parents and teachers (1). Other appropriate responses should also be credited.
3. [6] (c) Likely strengths include: Wide age range of children studied (5–6 years, 2–4 years, 4-11 years); Different types of studies done (e.g. some at home and some at school - nursery and primary school); Both qualitative (e.g. enjoyment of the programme, enthusiasm for curriculum work, etc. and quantitative (number of fruit and vegetables eaten both at home and at school) data collected. Increases validity as can make comparisons as well as having detailed information on how the children responded to the programme; Collected data from the teachers and parents which helps improve validity; Highly ethical study as consent obtained from the parents and the school (and improved fruit and vegetable consumption which is a very good outcome for the children involved); Provided training and all of the necessary equipment including the food to the schools; Good practical applications to be used in other schools; Schools from a variety of locations in the UK (e.g. North Wales, Manchester, Oxfordshire, London) which improves generalisability.
4. [6] (c) Likely weaknesses include: Generalisability (UK); Just based in primary schools so not sure if this would work with secondary school children or adults; Could be an expensive programme to introduce in all schools so is less practical; Social desirability and demand characteristics were possible as the participants may have told the researchers that the fruit and vegetable consumption increased when in fact either it had not or the participant/teacher/parent was not sure about the actual consumption.
5. [5-6] (c) Level 3 (5–6 marks): Candidates will show a clear understanding of the question and will explain one strength and one weakness. Candidates will provide a good explanation with clear detail.
6. [3-4] (c) Level 2 (3-4 marks): Candidates will show an understanding of the question and will explain one appropriate weakness in detail or one appropriate strength in detail. OR one weakness and one strength in less detail.
7. [1-2] (c) Level 1 (1-2 marks): Candidates will show a basic understanding of the question and will attempt an explanation of either a strength or a weakness. They could include both but just as an attempt. Candidates will provide a limited explanation.
8. [0] (c) Level 0 (0 marks): No response worthy of credit. Other appropriate responses should also be credited.