Discuss the validity of the study by Lehmkuhl et al.
Discussion points could include:
• + The study has good validity as it is a longitudinal/detailed study so provides a lot of information about the treatment and recovery of the patient.
• + Shows that exposure and response prevention is a good therapy technique that can be adapted to suit the individual needs of a patient. Good validity
• + Provides supporting evidence that the treatment is valid.
• + Has both qualitative and quantitative data which increases validity. Qualitative gives detailed information and comparisons can be made before and after treatment to assess the effectiveness of therapy, which increases the validity of the study and shows that it was the treatment that improved Jason’s symptoms and not something else.
• +/- There can be communication problems with children (lower validity) but as mentioned above this was taken into account with Jason and the therapy was adjusted (increases validity).
• - But poor generalisability and therefore lower validity due to it being one participant so cannot be generalised to patients without autism/ASD or older/younger participants. Jason had not had OCD for very long compared to adults with the condition. This may mean we cannot generalise that a similar therapy could work with autistic adults but it does highlight if therapy is brought in early on in the condition, significant improvements can be made.
• +/- Could have lower validity as Jason may have responded to demand characteristics/social desirability and said that he felt better than he really did. He could have done this due to the close relationship he built with the therapist. It is possible Jason didn’t think of himself as a ‘participant’ and more as a ‘patient’ and responded in a natural way to the therapy (good ecological validity)
Mark according to the levels of response criteria below:
Level 3 (5–6 marks)
• Candidates will show a clear understanding of the question and will discuss at least two points regarding validity.
• Candidates will provide a good explanation with clear detail.
Level 2 (3–4 marks)
• Candidates will show an understanding of the question and will discuss one point about validity in detail or two or more in less detail.
• Candidates will provide a good explanation.
Level 1 (1–2 marks)
• Candidates will show a basic understanding of the question and will attempt a discussion.
• Candidates will provide a limited explanation.
Level 0 (0 marks)
No response worthy of credit.
Other appropriate responses should also be credited.