9990 · Cambridge International AS Level
9990/13
Approaches, Issues and Debates
Psychology · June 2024 · Variant 3
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: Cambridge Assessment International Education
3.8 / 5
120
180 min
Research Methods (Planning, Ethics, and Experimental Designs)
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
120
Duration
180 min
Session difficulty
3.8 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
This exam series presents a medium-to-high difficulty level, typical of the Cambridge International AS Level standard but with an increased demand for contextual precision.
Paper 1 requires fine-grained knowledge of core procedures, such as the exact definition of response measures in Bandura et al.
and training steps in Fagen et al.
Paper 2 pushes students to demonstrate true methodological expertise, particularly in designing a valid correlational study with continuous co-variables.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
No data available in official reports
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
Skill weighting
Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.
Knowledge and Understanding
Weight: 4100%Application and Analysis
Weight: 375%Evaluation,
Weight: 250%Design
Weight: 125%
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
Report type
Cambridge Principal Examiner Report — component performance and international standards
Level A
Approx. 65% of maximum mark
Level B
Approx. 58% of maximum mark
Level C
Approx. 52% of maximum mark
Level D
Approx. 45% of maximum mark
Level E
Approx. 38% of maximum mark
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
No data available in official reports
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
Match the expected response style for “Outline” questions.
Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.
State features in sequence or list observable properties — do not explain causes unless asked.
Apply knowledge to an unfamiliar context; concise, practical points score best.
Weigh arguments for and against with evidence; end with a supported judgement.
Match the expected response style for “State” questions.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 1.8
Min per mark: 1.6
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)
12 marks this session
Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia)
10 marks this session
Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans)
8 marks this session
Andrade (doodling)
7 marks this session
Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)
6 marks this session
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Research Methods (Scenario and Design)
Research Methods (General Core)
Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams)
Milgram (obedience) (Social approach)
Pozzulo et al. (line-ups)
Andrade (doodling) (Cognitive approach)
Fagen et al. (elephant learning)
Bandura et al. (aggression)
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 1 Approaches, Issues and Debates:
Paper 2 Research Methods:
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)
12 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSaavedra and Silverman (button phobia)
10 marks this session
Practise in RevuiHölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans)
8 marks this session
Practise in RevuiAndrade (doodling)
7 marks this session
Practise in RevuiPiliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)
6 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
This exam series presents a medium-to-high difficulty level, typical of the Cambridge International AS Level standard but with an increased demand for contextual precision.
- 2Message
Paper 1 requires fine-grained knowledge of core procedures, such as the exact definition of response measures in Bandura et al.
- 3Message
and training steps in Fagen et al.
- 4Message
Paper 2 pushes students to demonstrate true methodological expertise, particularly in designing a valid correlational study with continuous co-variables.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
June 2024 2024
Psychology
This exam series presents a medium-to-high difficulty level, typical of the Cambridge International AS Level standard but with an increased demand for contextual precision. Paper 1 requires fine-grained knowledge of core procedures, such as the exact definition of response measur
This exam series presents a medium-to-high difficulty level, typical of the Cambridge International AS Level standard but with an increased demand for contextual precision.
Paper 1 requires fine-grained knowledge of core procedures, such as the exact definition of response measures in Bandura et al.
and training steps in Fagen et al.
- Total marks
- 120
- Duration
- 180 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.8 / 5
Session analysis
This exam series presents a medium-to-high difficulty level, typical of the Cambridge International AS Level standard but with an increased demand for contextual precision. Paper 1 requires fine-grained knowledge of core procedures, such as the exact definition of response measures in Bandura et al. and training steps in Fagen et al. Paper 2 pushes students to demonstrate true methodological expertise, particularly in designing a valid correlational study with continuous co-variables.
Updated Jun 12, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1 Approaches, Issues and Debates:
Paper 2 Research Methods:
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by chapter
See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.
Mark accessibility
Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.
75% within easy or medium reach
Command word frequency
Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.
Question type mix
Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.
Scenario Application
57·10·48%
Short Answer
35·15·29%
Essay and Evaluation
18·2·15%
Structured Design
10·1·8%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Difficulty trend
Compare difficulty across recent years.
Time vs marks
Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.
Paper 1 Section B
0.63 m/minPaper 2 Section B
0.57 m/minTotal marks
42
Total time
70 min
Avg pace
0.60
Cumulative marks ladder
The line is your running mark total question by question; dashed lines are the estimated grade cut-offs. See which question the line crosses your target grade at, so you know how far you must answer cleanly and which questions decide a band.
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams)
90%90%
Pozzulo et al. (line-ups)
85%85%
Difficulty Verdict
This exam series presents a medium-to-high difficulty level, typical of the Cambridge International AS Level standard but with an increased demand for contextual precision. Paper 1 requires fine-grained knowledge of core procedures, such as the exact definition of response measures in Bandura et al. and training steps in Fagen et al. Paper 2 pushes students to demonstrate true methodological expertise, particularly in designing a valid correlational study with continuous co-variables.
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 1h 30min
- Total marks
- 60
- Weighting
- 50%
- Question types
- Structured Short Answer, Comparison Essay, Evaluation Essay
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.