IB DP Psychology: Option: Abnormal psychology – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions. They use Paper 2’s 22-mark extended-response format, but not the paper’s exact wording or selection – the IB holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or the IB store.

Related: Abnormal psychology revision notes and the abnormal psychology study guide.

IB DP Psychology Paper 2 (first assessment 2019) sets three 22-mark essays on each option. The six questions below span the option’s three topics – diagnosis, etiology and treatment – with a model plan for each. Allow one hour per essay, including planning.

How the essays are marked

Criterion	Marks	What earns the top band
A Focus on the question	2	Explains the problem or issue posed by the question
B Knowledge and understanding	6	Accurate, detailed knowledge; well-explained terminology
C Use of research	6	Relevant research, explained and explicitly linked to the question
D Critical thinking	6	Well-developed evaluation of research and theories; consideration of alternative explanations
E Clarity and organisation	2	Clear, organised and coherent throughout

Questions

1. Evaluate the validity and reliability of diagnosis. [22]

2. Discuss the role of clinical biases in diagnosis. [22]

3. Contrast two explanations for one disorder. [22]

4. Discuss prevalence rates of one disorder. [22]

5. Evaluate the effectiveness of one biological treatment of one disorder. [22]

6. Discuss the role of culture in the treatment of disorders. [22]

Model essay plans

1. Validity and reliability of diagnosis.

• A/B: define validity (diagnosis identifies a real, distinct disorder) and reliability (consistency between clinicians and over time); classification systems DSM-5 and ICD-11.
• C: Rosenhan (1973) – pseudopatients admitted and diagnosed, challenging validity; Cooper et al. (1972) – different diagnoses by US and UK psychiatrists from the same interviews, challenging reliability; Regier et al. (2013) – low kappa (about 0.28) for major depressive disorder in DSM-5 field trials.
• D: Rosenhan’s study is dated, involved deception of hospital staff and tested the admission of patients who lied about symptoms; later revisions of the DSM added explicit criteria to improve reliability; field-trial conditions differ from real clinics; cultural expression of symptoms may lower both validity and reliability.

2. Clinical biases.

• B: confirmation bias, cultural bias, gender bias, and patient-side bias such as under-reporting or somatisation.
• C: Cooper et al. (1972) on national differences; Kleinman (1982) on neurasthenia and somatic presentation of depression in China; research on differences in diagnosis rates between men and women.
• D: difficulty separating bias from genuine differences in prevalence; structured interviews reduce bias; cultural concepts of distress in DSM-5 respond to criticism.

3. Two explanations for depression.

• B/C: biological – Kendler et al. (2006) twin study, heritability about 38%; Caspi et al. (2003) gene-environment interaction. Cognitive – Beck’s cognitive triad and negative schemas; Alloy et al. (1999) negative cognitive style predicting later episodes.
• D (contrast): biological explanations stress inherited vulnerability and neurochemistry, cognitive ones stress learned thinking patterns; biological evidence is largely correlational or genetic-epidemiological, cognitive evidence relies on self-report; the diathesis-stress view combines both; implications for treatment (medication versus CBT).

4. Prevalence rates.

• B: prevalence – the proportion of a population with a disorder at a time or over a lifetime; factors include gender, culture, socio-economic status and diagnostic practice.
• C: women diagnosed with depression roughly twice as often as men in many countries; Brown and Harris (1978) social vulnerability factors; Kleinman (1982) on cultural presentation affecting recorded rates.
• D: differences may reflect help-seeking and diagnosis rather than true rates; problems comparing rates across cultures with different classification and stigma.

5. Biological treatment.

• B: SSRIs increase serotonin availability by blocking reuptake.
• C: Kirsch et al. (2008) meta-analysis showing small advantage over placebo except in severe depression; Elkin et al. (1989) showing imipramine effective, especially for more severe depression; DeRubeis et al. (2005) comparing medication with CBT.
• D: methodological issues (publication bias, placebo response, short trials); side effects and relapse; biological treatment may not address cognitive or social causes; combined treatment as an alternative.

6. Culture in treatment.

• B: culture affects how distress is expressed, whether help is sought and which treatments are acceptable; culturally adapted therapy and therapist-client matching.
• C: research on culturally adapted CBT; Kleinman’s work on cultural explanations of illness affecting treatment expectations.
• D: small and varied studies; “culture” is broad; risk of stereotyping clients; ethical importance of respecting clients’ explanatory models.

Worked example: one fully developed paragraph (Question 1)

One challenge to the validity of diagnosis comes from Rosenhan (1973). Eight mentally healthy pseudopatients sought admission to twelve psychiatric hospitals in the USA, each reporting that they heard a voice saying words such as “empty” and “thud”. All were admitted, and most were diagnosed with schizophrenia; once on the ward they behaved normally, yet they were discharged with schizophrenia “in remission”. This suggests that clinicians could not distinguish the sane from the insane, so the diagnosis did not identify a real disorder. However, the study has limitations as evidence about diagnosis today. The pseudopatients lied about a symptom, and a psychiatrist may reasonably act on a reported hallucination; the hospitals were deceived, raising ethical concerns; and diagnostic criteria have since become far more explicit. Rosenhan’s study therefore shows how labels can persist once applied, but it is weaker evidence that modern diagnosis lacks validity.

This paragraph earns credit in four criteria at once: knowledge (B), research described accurately (C), evaluation of method and ethics (D) and a final sentence that returns to the question (A).

Frequently asked questions

Must I name a disorder in every essay? Whenever the question says “one disorder” or asks about etiology, prevalence or treatment, yes. Diagnosis questions can draw on several disorders.

How many studies should an essay use? Usually two or three, each explained and evaluated, rather than a long list.

Is “contrast” the same as “compare”? No. In IB command terms, contrast means giving an account of the differences between the two explanations, referring to both throughout; a compare question also expects similarities.