The aim: does CBT work, and does it last?
Young's question was practical, not about causes: does a course of CBT improve people already addicted, and is any improvement still there months later? In one line: to investigate whether CBT is an effective treatment for internet addiction, and whether improvement is maintained over time. "Over time" is the phrase candidates drop — it is why the six-month follow-up exists. It was not a study of causes, nor a comparison against drugs.
Procedure: 114 clients, 12 sessions, COQ
Numbered steps earn the procedure marks. (1) 114 clients from the Center for Online Addiction, assessed as internet-dependent. (2) Each had twelve weekly sessions of individual CBT — early ones on behaviour, later ones on thinking. (3) Progress was measured with the Client Outcome Questionnaire (COQ) at sessions 3, 8 and 12 and a six-month follow-up. Those four measurement points are the whole design.
The six COQ measures examiners want
The Client Outcome Questionnaire (COQ) measures six areas examiners say candidates cannot name: motivation to stop, managing online time, offline relationships, sexual functioning, engagement in offline activities, and abstaining from the problem application. Two things follow: it measures outcomes in the client's life, not just feelings; and every area is self-reported — the root of the study's biggest weakness.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
The weakest-recalled study — stop guessing
Examiners call answers here vague and clearly guessing — generic CBT, nothing specific. The fix is a checklist; be sure you can supply: 114 clients; twelve weekly sessions; the COQ and two of its areas; sessions 3, 8, 12 and a six-month follow-up; and that most were managing by session 8. If it would fit any CBT study, it is not answering this one.
Answers were "vague... clearly guessing" and candidates could not recall the percentage reported (Nov 2021 P1 Q14b, Q12b), echoing that they could not name the questionnaire measures (June 2019 P1 Q10).
"Measure" vs "effective" — read the noun
The recorded misread here. The stem asks how the study lets you measure effectiveness — the answer is the design: a standardised questionnaire, the same six areas scored at fixed points and follow-up. Candidates instead argue whether CBT works ("effective because clients got better") and score nothing. Measure is method; effective is outcome.
Many misread the question, arguing whether CBT was effective rather than how the study lets you measure effectiveness (June 2024 P1 Q15a).
Reliability vs validity aren't the same
Saying Young "is not reliable because clients lied" uses the wrong word. Reliability = consistent results if repeated. Validity = whether it measures what it claims. Here the COQ is strong on reliability (standardised, same four points) but weaker on validity (self-report to the treating therapist may capture reported, not real, recovery).
A "describe the difference" answered as two separate definitions scores one mark (June 2019 P1 Q6; June 2022 P1 Q7).
Result vs conclusion on Young
A result is what the questionnaire showed ("most clients were managing by session 8, still improved at the six-month follow-up"). A conclusion is what Young infers ("CBT is an effective treatment for internet addiction, and improvement can appear before session 12"). Asked for a conclusion, give the inference, not a restatement of the scores.
A result offered where a conclusion was asked is a recurring zero (June 2023 P2 Q1f; June 2024 P1 Q5a, Q11a).
A 2-mark describe needs two unique points
A 2-mark describe wants two different points, not one reworded. "Clients improved" and "they got better on the questionnaire" is one point twice, scoring once. Pair from different parts of the study — (1) it used twelve weekly sessions of CBT, and (2) progress was tracked with the COQ at four fixed points. Check the second adds new information.
A 2-mark describe needs two unique points (June 2023 P2 Q22).
Identify a strength/weakness, then justify
Naming a strength or weakness is only half the mark. "A weakness is there was no control group" identifies but does not justify — add the consequence: "so improvement cannot be credited to the CBT rather than to time passing or to the attention of a weekly appointment." Use point, why, consequence every time.
Identification without justification on strength and weakness items (June 2024 P1 Q11b, Q15b).
Not proof, not cause, not a cure
"The study proves CBT cures addiction" has three errors. Proof: a study supports a conclusion, not proves one. Cause: with no control group, it shows clients improved during CBT, not that CBT caused it (time or weekly attention could too). Cure: the COQ measured managing time online and re-engaging — management, not removal of a condition.
Name the study? Use Young, not CBT-general
If the stem names Young (2007), use the study — its aim, a procedure detail and the finding. Describing how CBT works is the therapy (3.1.7) and answers the wrong question. The reverse holds: reciting 114 clients and the COQ is not how CBT treats addiction.
9-mark Assess: AO1, scenario, both sides
The 9-mark Assess is AO1 3 / AO2 3 / AO3 3; the 7-9 band is missed for lack of AO3 and balance. Plan: AO1 the study accurately; AO2 the scenario's detail mapped to the COQ areas; AO3 one supporting, one limiting point; then a conclusion. Prose, not bullets.
AO3 needs AO2; map detail to COQ areas
AO3 cannot be awarded without AO2. The name, repeating the stem and generic points are not application. Use the scenario's own detail: "plays until 3am, no longer sees friends" maps onto the COQ areas for managing online time and offline relationships.
Statement 3.2.2 asks for four things about this named study: its aim, its procedure, its findings (results AND conclusions), and its strengths and weaknesses. Learn them as four separate blocks, because that is how the questions are set.
Examiners describe this as the weakest-recalled study on Paper 1. Candidates who lose marks here are not misunderstanding it — they are guessing, because they never learned any detail that belongs only to this study.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
