2023 Cambridge IAS-Level Psychology (9990) Practice Paper with Answers

According to Milgram's instructions, if the learner gave no answer within a reasonable time, the teacher had to treat it as an incorrect response (1 mark). The teacher was then instructed to administer the shock at the appropriate voltage level (1 mark).

1 mark for stating that a non-response was treated as an incorrect answer. 1 mark for stating that a shock was to be administered.

Andrade instructed participants to shade the printed shapes (circles and squares) (1 mark). They were specifically told that it did not matter how neat or how quickly they did it, as the activity was just to relieve boredom / pass the time (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying the shapes to shade (circles and squares). 1 mark for mentioning the instruction to not worry about neatness, speed, or that it was just to pass the time.

The 'feelings thermometer' ranged from 0 (no distress) to 8 (maximum distress) (1 mark). Examples of stimuli and their ratings include: large denim buttons which were rated as a 2 (1 mark), and small plastic colored buttons (or clear plastic buttons) which were rated as an 8 (1 mark).

1 mark for stating the range of the scale (0 to 8). 1 mark for a correct low-distress stimulus and its rating (e.g., large denim buttons = 2). 1 mark for a correct high-distress stimulus and its rating (e.g., small plastic buttons = 8).

Participants were asked to avoid drinking alcohol (1 mark) and caffeine-containing beverages, such as coffee, tea, or cola (1 mark), on the day of the experiment.

1 mark for alcohol. 1 mark for caffeine (or specific caffeinated drinks like coffee/tea/cola). Reject general 'drugs' or 'food' unless specified.

The observers recorded qualitative data such as: 1) Comments made by passengers sitting nearby (1 mark), and 2) Actions or movements of passengers, such as people moving away from the victim (1 mark).

1 mark for comments/remarks made by passengers. 1 mark for physical behaviors/movements of passengers (e.g., moving away, crowding).

The physical aggressive acts modeled included: 1) Sitting on the Bobo doll and punching it repeatedly on the nose (1 mark). 2) Striking the doll on the head with a wooden mallet (1 mark). 3) Tossing the doll up in the air and kicking it around the room (1 mark). Any two correct descriptions earn 1 mark each.

1 mark per correct description of a physical aggressive act (max 2). Accept: sitting on it/punching nose, hitting with mallet, tossing/kicking. Reject general 'hitting' without specific detail.

Group 1 (AS/HFA) scored significantly lower on the Eyes Test than Group 2 (general population) (1 mark). To validate the Eyes Test, participants also completed the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) questionnaire (1 mark), and the researchers found a significant negative correlation between Eyes Test scores and AQ scores (1 mark).

1 mark for stating Group 1 scored lower than Group 2. 1 mark for identifying the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). 1 mark for stating there was a negative correlation between the two measures.

The participant was represented by a figure/avatar in the center of the screen (1 mark). Another figure representing either a 'friend' or a 'stranger' (labeled with a name/description) approached them from the perimeter, and the participant had to press a button to stop the figure when they felt uncomfortable (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying that the participant was represented in the center of the screen. 1 mark for describing that the approaching figure was labeled as a friend or stranger and stopped by the participant when uncomfortable.

To wake the participants, an electric doorbell/buzzer sound was used which was loud enough to wake them from any stage of sleep immediately. Upon waking, they were required to state immediately into a recording device whether they had been dreaming and what the dream was about.

1 mark for identifying the auditory stimulus (doorbell/loud electric buzzer).
1 mark for describing the immediate requirement (speaking into a tape recorder/recording device to state if they were dreaming or describe the dream).

The participant watched as the learner was strapped into a chair. Straps were used to prevent him from escaping or moving excessively during the shocks. An electrode paste was applied to his wrist to prevent blisters, and the electrode itself was attached to this wrist.

1 mark: Strapped to a chair with straps/bands to prevent excessive movement/prevent him escaping.
1 mark: Electrode attached to his wrist (with paste/to prevent blisters/connected to the shock generator).

The researchers used a Feelings Thermometer, which was a 9-point scale (0–8). On this scale, 0 represented the lowest level of distress (no distress at all) and 8 represented the highest level of distress. The boy used it to rate his subjective fear and disgust towards different types of buttons during exposure sessions.

1 mark: Identifies the scale range (0 to 8 / 9-point scale).
1 mark: Describes the anchors of the scale (0 is no distress/fear, 8 is maximum distress/fear).
1 mark: Explains its application (to rate the level of distress/disgust triggered by different types of buttons).

To ensure that all children experienced a similar level of frustration/aggression arousal, they were initially allowed to play with highly appealing toys. After 2 minutes, the experimenter stopped them, explaining that these toys were special and saved for other children, which successfully provoked frustration.

1 mark: Description of the action (allowed to play with attractive toys for a short time, then told they cannot play with them anymore as they are reserved for other children).
1 mark: Explanation of the purpose (to initiate frustration/aggression arousal so all children experienced a similar baseline state).

The sheet provided to the doodling group was designed with alternating rows of circles and squares. It also had a margin on the side for writing down the names of people attending the party. This repetitive, structured layout meant participants shaded the shapes instead of using their imagination to draw freehand pictures.

1 mark: Mention of the specific shapes (alternating rows of squares and circles).
1 mark: Explanation of the design purpose (to allow passive shading/doodling and prevent them from engaging in creative/elaborate drawing).

In the pilot stage, the target words and distractors (foils) were presented to a panel of 8 judges consisting of 4 males and 4 females. For a target word to be deemed correct and kept in the final test, a consensus of at least 5 out of the 8 judges was required.

1 mark: Mention of the panel of eight judges (or equal split of 4 males and 4 females).
1 mark: Explanation of the consensus requirement (at least 5 judges out of 8 had to agree on the target word/foil selection).

The Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) paradigm was adapted as a computerized task. Participants imagined themselves in the center of a room/circle. An avatar/figure (friend, acquaintance, stranger, or control non-human object like a ball) approached them from 8 different directions. Participants pressed a button to stop the approaching figure when they began to feel uncomfortable. The distance remaining was recorded as a percentage of the total radius. Strength: Standardization. By using a computerized setup, factors like facial expressions, body language, and physical scent of the approaching person are eliminated, ensuring highly reliable measurement of distance preferences across participants. Weakness: Low ecological validity. A digital simulation lacks the real-life pressure of having an actual person enter one's physical space, which may lead to different distance decisions compared to actual real-world social encounters.

Marking Scheme: [Total: 6.66 marks] Describe CID paradigm (Up to 3 marks): 1 mark for mentioning the circular/room representation with the participant at the center. 1 mark for identifying the types of figures (friend, acquaintance, stranger, ball). 1 mark for explaining the task mechanics (pressing a key to stop the approaching figure when uncomfortable, measuring percentage distance). Evaluate strength (Up to 1.83 marks): 1 mark for identifying a valid strength (e.g., standardization, control). Up to 0.83 marks for contextualizing it to the Perry et al. study (e.g., removing confounding physical cues). Evaluate weakness (Up to 1.83 marks): 1 mark for identifying a valid weakness (e.g., low ecological validity, hypothetical scenario). Up to 0.83 marks for contextualizing it to how distance is experienced differently in real-life encounters.

Part (a): Hypothesized brain regions include the Hippocampus, Temporoparietal Junction (TPJ), Posterior Cingulate Cortex (PCC), or Cerebellum. Part (b): Reliability: The study used a highly standardized procedure, including a consistent 8-week MBSR curriculum and objective MRI measurements using a 3 Tesla Magnetom Allegra MRI scanner with specific voxel-based morphometry parameters. This standard protocol ensures that the experiment can be easily replicated to check for consistency. Practical Applications: The findings demonstrate that mindfulness practice physically alters brain structure in areas associated with learning, memory, and emotion regulation. This can be directly applied to design rehabilitation programs, educational curriculums, and workplace stress-reduction schemes, offering a scientifically validated, non-pharmacological method to enhance cognitive function and emotional well-being.

Marking Scheme: [Total: 6.66 marks] Part (a) [2 marks]: 1 mark per correct brain region identified (e.g., hippocampus, temporoparietal junction, posterior cingulate cortex, cerebellum) up to a maximum of 2 marks. Part (b) [4.66 marks]: Up to 2.33 marks for evaluation of reliability: 1 mark for identifying a reliability point (high standardization/replicability), 1.33 marks for specific study detail (e.g., MRI parameters, 8-week structured curriculum). Up to 2.33 marks for evaluation of practical applications: 1 mark for a general application point, 1.33 marks for contextualizing it to mindfulness training or clinical/non-clinical stress reduction.

Training Procedure: Handlers trained five juvenile Asian elephants using positive reinforcement. They utilized secondary reinforcers (whistles) paired with primary rewards (bananas, sugarcane) to shape the complex sequence of actions required for a trunk wash. Handlers broke down the sequence into smaller, manageable behavioral steps (shaping). Connection to Learning Approach: This directly demonstrates operant conditioning. The elephants learned to associate specific voluntary behaviors (e.g., holding still, inserting the trunk) with positive consequences (rewards), increasing the likelihood of these behaviors being repeated. Ethical Strength: The study avoided the traditional, abusive 'crush' training methods (phajaan) which rely on physical restraint and punishment. Instead, the elephants participated voluntarily; if they did not wish to cooperate, they could walk away, and the training session would simply end without any negative reinforcement or physical harm.

Marking Scheme: [Total: 6.66 marks] Training Procedure (Up to 3 marks): 1 mark for mentioning positive reinforcement / primary rewards (bananas, sugarcane). 1 mark for secondary reinforcers (whistles/clicks). 1 mark for shaping/breaking the trunk wash into smaller steps. Connection to Learning Approach (Up to 1.83 marks): 1 mark for linking the procedure to operant conditioning/positive reinforcement mechanisms. 0.83 marks for explaining how this shapes voluntary behavior. Ethical Strength (Up to 1.83 marks): 1 mark for identifying a valid ethical strength (voluntary participation, avoidance of physical abuse/crush). 0.83 marks for contextualizing it directly to the veterinary care benefits or the contrast with traditional training.

### Example Essay Response:

**Introduction**
The study by Dement and Kleitman (1957) investigated the relationship between rapid eye movements (REM) and dreaming using biological measurements (EEG and EOG) alongside self-reports.

**Strength 1: High levels of control (Standardisation)**
One major strength of the study is its highly controlled laboratory environment. Dement and Kleitman standardised several aspects of the procedure: participants were requested to avoid alcohol and caffeine on the day of the study, slept in a quiet, dark room, and were awakened by a loud doorbell. This level of control minimised extraneous variables, such as participant fatigue or external noise, ensuring that the findings regarding sleep stages and dream recall were highly reliable and that the study could be easily replicated to check for consistency.

**Strength 2: The use of self-reports (Named Issue)**
The use of self-report measures (where participants spoke into a tape recorder to describe their dreams) is a strength because it provided rich, qualitative data about the actual content of the dreams. This allowed the researchers to investigate the relationship between eye movement patterns and the spatial imagery of the dream (e.g., vertical eye movements corresponding to looking up and down a cliff). Without self-reports, researchers could only infer dreaming from physiological state; the subjective descriptions provided direct access to the participants' inner experiences, increasing the construct validity of what was being measured.

**Weakness 1: Ecological validity (Artificial environment)**
A key weakness is the low ecological validity of the study. Sleeping in an artificial laboratory environment with electrodes attached to the scalp and face is highly unnatural. This invasive setup, coupled with being repeatedly woken up by a loud doorbell throughout the night, likely disrupted the participants' normal sleep patterns. Therefore, the dreaming and sleep behaviour observed in this study may not represent how people sleep and dream in the comfort of their own homes.

**Weakness 2: Generalisability (Sample size and characteristics)**
Another weakness is the small and unrepresentative sample size. Only nine participants in total were studied (five of whom were studied in detail, while the other four were used to confirm results). This very small sample, containing more men than women, makes it difficult to generalise the findings to the wider population. Individual differences in sleep patterns, dream frequency, and physiological responses vary widely, and a sample of this size is insufficient to represent these global differences.

**Marking Scheme (10 marks total):**

* **Level 4 (8-10 marks):**
* Evaluation is comprehensive, balanced, and demonstrates excellent psychological knowledge.
* Both strengths and weaknesses are discussed in detail, with explicit and accurate application to Dement and Kleitman's study.
* The named issue (use of self-report measures) is thoroughly evaluated and integrated.
* Structuring of arguments is clear and coherent.

* **Level 3 (5-7 marks):**
* Evaluation is reasonably broad but may lack depth or balance (e.g., three strong points, one weak point).
* Good application to Dement and Kleitman's study, though some points may be generic.
* The named issue (use of self-report measures) is discussed, but may lack detail or explicit linkage to the study's strengths/weaknesses.

* **Level 2 (3-4 marks):**
* The answer shows some understanding of strengths/weaknesses but is limited in depth.
* The application to the study is weak, or the student only evaluates general aspects without referencing specifics of Dement and Kleitman.
* The named issue may be omitted or only mentioned briefly.

* **Level 1 (1-2 marks):**
* The answer shows very basic or confused knowledge.
* Points are extremely brief, list-like, or irrelevant.

* **Level 0 (0 marks):**
* No creditable response.

Strength: Participants behave naturally because they do not know they are being observed, leading to higher ecological validity and reduced demand characteristics (1 mark). Weakness: It raises major ethical issues because participants cannot give informed consent to be observed (1 mark). Comparison/contextual detail: Unlike overt observation, where participants are aware they are being watched and may alter their behavior due to social desirability, covert observation avoids this, but fails to allow for prior consent (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying/explaining a strength of covert observation.
1 mark for identifying/explaining a weakness of covert observation.
1 mark for comparison or elaboration of either point in the context of research methods.

Benefit: Provides depth and detail, allowing participants to explain the reasons behind their behaviors and opinions (1 mark). Drawback: Difficult to summarize, analyze statistically, or replicate, with a higher potential for researcher bias in interpretation (1 mark). Context: Explicitly linking either the benefit or drawback to the recycling study (e.g., getting detailed descriptions of why students do or do not recycle, rather than just a numerical rating scale) (1 mark).

1 mark: clearly explained benefit of qualitative data.
1 mark: clearly explained drawback of qualitative data.
1 mark: explicit application to the context of recycling attitudes or comparison.

IV Operationalisation: 1 mark for clearly defining the levels of the IV (e.g., 200ml of caffeinated coffee containing 100mg of caffeine vs 200ml of decaffeinated coffee, rather than just 'coffee vs no coffee'). DV Operationalisation: 1 mark for describing a specific, measurable indicator of concentration (e.g., score on a 5-minute standardised spot-the-difference task, rather than just 'concentration levels'). Context/Clarity: 1 mark for linking both operationalisations clearly to the context of the study.

1 mark: Operationalised IV (with clear levels/conditions).
1 mark: Operationalised DV (with clear unit of measurement/task).
1 mark: Clear link to the context of caffeine and concentration.

Definition: Standardisation refers to keeping the procedures, stimuli, and environment identical for all participants to control extraneous variables (1 mark). Description in context: Giving all participants the exact same set of 20 words, same font, same duration (e.g., 2 minutes) to study, and testing them in the exact same environment (1 mark). Reliability link: By standardising the procedure, the study can be easily replicated by other researchers to check for consistency of the findings (1 mark).

1 mark: Accurate definition of standardisation.
1 mark: Description of standardisation in a memory experiment context.
1 mark: Explanation of how it leads to reliability/consistency.

Advantage: Allows for highly detailed, qualitative, and longitudinal exploration of rare phenomena that cannot be replicated in a lab (1 mark). Disadvantage: Very low generalisability because findings are based on a single, unique individual or small group, and there is a high risk of researcher subjectivity/bias (1 mark). Link: Saavedra and Silverman's study focused on a single 9-year-old boy's button phobia, giving deep insight into evaluative learning but making it difficult to generalise the therapy's success to all individuals with phobias (1 mark).

1 mark: Valid advantage of case studies.
1 mark: Valid disadvantage of case studies.
1 mark: Relevant elaboration or link to psychological studies (e.g., Saavedra & Silverman).

Description: Selecting participants who are readily available and willing to take part at the time of testing (1 mark). Context: The researcher stands in a public area, such as a university campus or library, and approaches students passing by to ask about their sleep habits (1 mark). Limitation: The sample is highly likely to be unrepresentative of the wider population (e.g., university students have vastly different sleep schedules compared to the general public), which reduces the ecological validity and generalisability of the findings (1 mark).

1 mark: Definition/description of opportunity sampling.
1 mark: Contextual application (sleep habits study).
1 mark: Clear explanation of a limitation of opportunity sampling.

Definition: Cues in an experiment that convey to the participant the purpose or hypothesis of the study, which leads to participants consciously or unconsciously changing their behavior (1 mark). Control Method: A researcher can use a single-blind procedure (where participants do not know which condition they are in) or include filler/distractor tasks (1 mark). Mechanism: Because participants do not know what is being tested or are distracted by irrelevant tasks, they are unable to guess the true purpose of the experiment, ensuring their behavior remains natural (1 mark).

1 mark: Accurate definition of demand characteristics.
1 mark: Suggestion of a valid control method (e.g., single-blind, filler tasks, deception).
1 mark: Explanation of how the control method works to reduce demand characteristics.

Guideline 1: Species and strain. Researchers should choose a species that is scientifically suitable and has the least potential for distress or suffering (1 mark). Guideline 2: Housing. Caging must be designed to avoid overcrowding, maintain cleanliness, and provide social interaction if appropriate for the species, minimizing stress (1 mark). Other valid guidelines include: Number of animals (using the minimum required), Deprivation, Pain and distress, or Reward/deprivation. (1 mark for general explanation/accuracy of how guidelines are applied).

1 mark: Identification of first guideline with brief explanation.
1 mark: Identification of second guideline with brief explanation.
1 mark: Elaboration or accurate detail on how either guideline is implemented to protect animal welfare.

1 mark for identifying a valid strength of a natural experiment (e.g., high ecological validity, reduced demand characteristics).
1 mark for applying this strength to the scenario (referencing the office environment, ergonomic chairs, or productivity).

1 mark: Generic strength identified (e.g., 'It has high ecological validity' or 'There are fewer demand characteristics because participants do not know they are in an artificial setup').
1 mark: Explicit application to Dr. Aris's study (e.g., 'The employees are working in their normal office doing their everyday tasks, meaning their productivity is authentic').

1 mark for identifying a relevant ethical issue (e.g., informed consent, invasion of privacy, deception).
1 mark for applying it to the context of students in the library.

1 mark: Identifying a correct ethical issue (e.g., 'A major issue is lack of informed consent' or 'Invading the participants' privacy').
1 mark: Applying it to the library study (e.g., 'The students studying at shared tables are unaware they are being watched, so they cannot choose whether or not to participate').

1 mark for identifying a disadvantage of using questionnaires (e.g., social desirability bias, lack of ecological validity/realism, closed questions limiting detail).
1 mark for applying this disadvantage directly to the concept of obedience or authority orders.

1 mark: Stating a relevant questionnaire disadvantage (e.g., 'Participants may display social desirability bias' or 'What people say they will do does not match real-world behavior').
1 mark: Linking it to obedience (e.g., 'They might write that they would disobey the authority figure to look good, but in real life they would comply, reducing validity').

1 mark for explaining the concept of counterbalancing (splitting participants into AB/BA groups).
1 mark for applying this setup directly to the quiet and noisy conditions of the memory task.

1 mark: Describing the counterbalancing method (e.g., 'Half of the participants do Condition A first and the other half do Condition B first').
1 mark: Contextual application (e.g., 'Half of the group recalls words in the quiet room first then the noisy room, while the other half recalls words in the noisy room first then the quiet room').

1 mark for identifying how to structure an observation (e.g., using a coding scheme, tally sheet, or specific behavioral categories).
1 mark for applying it to the school playground and aggressive behavior context.

1 mark: Stating how to introduce structure (e.g., 'By using behavioral categories/a tally system/time sampling').
1 mark: Contextualised application (e.g., 'She can list specific aggression types like pushing or kicking and count their occurrences on the playground').

1 mark for explaining that correlations do not show cause-and-effect / only show relationships.
1 mark for explaining the role of a third/confounding variable or reverse causality applied to sleep and exam scores.

1 mark: Explaining that correlations do not equal causation (e.g., 'Correlations cannot establish cause-and-effect').
1 mark: Applying to the scenario (e.g., 'An external variable like study time or IQ could be causing both longer sleep and higher exam scores, or reverse causality could apply').

1 mark for identifying an advantage of volunteer/self-selected sampling over opportunity sampling (e.g., higher motivation, lower attrition/drop-out rates, explicit consent).
1 mark for applying it to Priya's replication of the doodling study.

1 mark: Stating an advantage of volunteer samples over opportunity samples (e.g., 'Participants are more motivated' or 'They are less likely to withdraw from the study').
1 mark: Applying it to the doodling context (e.g., 'They will be more cooperative when listening to the boring phone message or completing the surprise memory test').

1 mark for identifying a disadvantage of qualitative data (e.g., harder to compare/analyze, time-consuming to process, subjective interpretation/bias).
1 mark for applying it to the public speaking/feelings context.

1 mark: Stating a generic disadvantage of qualitative data (e.g., 'It is difficult to analyze mathematically or compare easily').
1 mark: Applying it to the scenario (e.g., 'Elena will have to interpret long, unique verbal descriptions of public speaking anxiety, making it hard to find objective trends').

To establish inter-rater reliability, Dr. Aris must have at least two observers watch the same children's behavior during playtime simultaneously but independently to avoid bias. They should use a clearly defined, standardized coding scheme of helping behaviors. After the observation, they compare their recorded data and calculate a correlation coefficient (e.g., Spearman's rho or percentage agreement). A high positive correlation (typically +0.80 or higher) indicates good inter-rater reliability.

1 mark for outlining the method of checking reliability (e.g., independent observers, standardized coding). 1 mark for explaining how the data is compared/correlated. For example: Award 1 mark for stating that Dr. Aris should have a second observer watch the children at the preschool at the same time but record their tallies separately. Award 1 mark for stating that they then compare their tally sheets and calculate a correlation coefficient to see if their scores are highly similar (e.g., 80% or higher agreement).

One strength of a correlational study in this context is that it allows the researcher to study variables that cannot be manipulated experimentally due to ethical or practical reasons. In an experiment, it would be unethical to force teenagers to play video games for excessive hours to see if it harms their empathy, and impractical to control their lives. A correlation avoids this by simply measuring their existing, naturally occurring video game habits and empathy scores.

1 mark for identifying a general strength of correlational studies (e.g., ethical/practical advantages of not manipulating variables). 1 mark for applying this strength specifically to the scenario (video games and empathy in teenagers). For example: Award 1 mark for explaining that correlations allow researchers to study variables that would be unethical to manipulate in a laboratory. Award 1 mark for applying this to the scenario, stating that Dr. Bennett cannot force a group of teens to play video games for many hours a week to see if it lowers their empathy, but can measure their natural game time instead.

The study will be a covert, non-participant naturalistic observation conducted at a local primary school during the morning play break (10:30 am to 11:00 am) over 5 consecutive weekdays. The children observed will be aged 5 to 7. Two observers will sit unobtrusively at the edge of the playground. Behavioral categories will include: 1) Physical play: running, climbing, or ball games; 2) Cooperative play: sharing toys, playing role-play games in groups; 3) Solitary play: sitting alone, reading, or playing with an individual object. To ensure reliability, both observers will use the same tally sheets with these operationalized categories. Prior to the study, they will conduct a pilot observation to practice coding and check for inter-rater reliability. A correlation coefficient (e.g., Spearman's rho) will be calculated, aiming for a score of 0.80 or above to demonstrate high reliability.

1 mark: Clear identification of location and timing of the observation. 2 marks: Clear description of behavioral categories (1 mark for naming relevant categories, 1 mark for fully operationalizing them). 2 marks: Explanation of how reliability is established (1 mark for mentioning inter-rater reliability/two observers, 1 mark for detailing a specific method to ensure agreement, e.g., pilot study or correlation coefficient). 2 marks: Description of the observational sampling method used (e.g., time sampling or event sampling, explaining exactly how it is applied in this context).

The study will use a structured questionnaire distributed to high school students aged 14-18. Variable 1 (sleep duration) will be measured using an open question: 'On average, how many hours of sleep did you get per night over the last school week?' to gather ratio-level quantitative data. Variable 2 (academic anxiety) will be measured using a 5-item index with 5-point Likert scales (e.g., 'I feel anxious when thinking about exams' where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), producing an overall anxiety score. Validity will be ensured by including two 'filler' questions about general school life to disguise the study's aim and reduce demand characteristics. Additionally, the questionnaire will be completed anonymously to minimize social desirability bias, ensuring participants respond honestly about their sleep habits and anxiety.

2 marks: Clear explanation of how sleep duration is measured (1 mark for the specific question format, 1 mark for specifying the quantitative nature of the data). 2 marks: Clear explanation of how academic anxiety is measured (1 mark for providing an example of a Likert-scale or closed question, 1 mark for explaining how a total score is calculated). 1 mark: General description of the questionnaire's distribution or format. 2 marks: Specific details on ensuring validity (1 mark for identifying a threat to validity like demand characteristics or social desirability, 1 mark for explaining the countermeasure, such as filler questions or anonymity).