Week 15 — How Do We Know Care Helps? Reasoning About Disorders Without Labeling Anyone

Assignment 14 of the term, and the last one — count the checks behind the three D's, read three composite scenes in context, plan the experiment that shows whether a therapy helps, choose the right research design, and explain to a friend, without labeling anyone, how we know therapy works.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based brief. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 1 you met the biopsychosocial model, and in Week 2 you learned what an experiment can claim that a correlation cannot; this week you apply both to psychological disorders and their treatment. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together and explain them.

The task

This week you checked three composite scenes, built for this course, for the three D's: distress (the person's own suffering), dysfunction, and deviance. A runner trains before sunrise six days a week and loves it. A student cries most evenings in the weeks after a grandparent dies and misses two days of class. A commuter has had sudden waves of pounding-heart fear on the bus for months, walks an hour to avoid it, and has started missing shifts. You also saw how researchers test a therapy: volunteers are randomly assigned to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or to a waitlist control group, and the outcome is the number of bus rides taken in a week. No real person is described anywhere in this assignment, and nobody is diagnosed.

Work these two problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. Three composite scenes are each checked for all three D's. How many checks is that?
2. A study of CBT for a fear of riding the bus randomly assigns 80 volunteers in equal numbers to CBT or a waitlist control group. How many volunteers are in each group?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation and one limit. For problem 1, say which scene meets all three D's with no context to explain it away, explain why the runner and the grieving student are not disorders, and state the commuter's pattern as a category reading in person-first language, never as a diagnosis. For problem 2, name the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV), and explain why random assignment to a waitlist control group lets a difference in rides be traced to the therapy.

Choose the procedure

This is the last assignment of the course, so it asks you to pull the research toolkit together. A friend asks, "Does therapy actually work, or do people only feel better with time?" Three ways to look into it come from earlier weeks: a case study of one person who went to therapy, a correlational study that surveys people about whether they saw a therapist and how they feel now, and an experiment with random assignment to a therapy or a waitlist control group. Choose the one that can answer your friend's question, justify the choice from what each design is allowed to conclude, and say why one plausible alternative fits less well.

Explain it to a non-expert

Write a 3–5 sentence message to that friend, who has never studied psychology. In everyday words, explain how researchers know whether a therapy such as CBT helps, why people feeling better over time is not enough on its own, and one limit: a study shows what happens on average across many people, so it cannot promise how therapy will go for one person. Explain any technical term in everyday words, use person-first language, and do not label or diagnose anyone, including yourself.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who says a new sleep app "works" because three people on the team slept better after downloading it. Model answer: "Three people sleeping better is a good story, but it can't tell us the app did it. Maybe the busy season ended, or they started going to bed earlier anyway. To know, you'd want a group that uses the app and a similar group that doesn't, chosen by chance, and then compare. Even then, the result tells you what happens on average, not what will happen for you."

Use that pattern for your friend, with your own explanation and evidence.

Looking ahead to the final. The final exam comes in Week 16, finals week. To prepare, use the Final study guide, the Final Practice Exam, and the exam-prep tutorial in the finals-week module. The choose-the-design skill you practise here, matching a question to the research design that can answer it, is the skill those materials ask you to use across the whole course.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both answers, the two brief interpretations, your design choice, and your message to your friend before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the brief for you. It is also not a diagnostic tool: it must never diagnose you, the composite people in the scenes, or anyone you describe. If it drifts that way, point it back to the task. If you or someone you know is struggling, you do not have to handle it alone. Your campus counseling or health center, or a health professional you trust, is a good place to start. In the United States, you can also call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at any hour.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about psychological disorders and treatment: the three D's judged in context, classifying conditions rather than people, person-first language, and how an experiment with random assignment to a therapy or a waitlist control group shows whether a therapy helps. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. You are not a diagnostic tool: never diagnose me, the composite people in the scenes, or anyone I describe, and never give personal treatment advice. If I say I am struggling, respond kindly, mention a campus counseling or health center or a trusted health professional, and that in the United States I can call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at any hour, then ask whether I want to continue.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The facts: the three D's are distress (the person's own suffering), dysfunction (trouble carrying out daily life), and deviance (a departure from the norms of the person's own culture and setting), weighed together and always in context; no single D is enough. A runner trains before sunrise six days a week and loves it. A student cries most evenings in the weeks after a grandparent dies and misses two days of class. A commuter has had sudden waves of pounding-heart fear on the bus for months, walks an hour to avoid it, and has started missing shifts. All three are composites built for the course. In the CBT study, the IV is the therapy condition and the DV is the number of bus rides taken in a week.
PROBLEM P1: Three composite scenes are each checked for all three D's. How many checks is that?
PROBLEM P2: A study of CBT for a fear of riding the bus randomly assigns 80 volunteers in equal numbers to CBT or a waitlist control group. How many volunteers are in each group?
After the two answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, which scene meets all three D's with no context to explain it, why the runner and the grieving student are not disorders, and the commuter's pattern stated as a category reading in person-first language, never as a diagnosis; for P2, the IV and the DV, and why random assignment to a waitlist control group lets a difference in rides be traced to the therapy. Then I must choose among a case study, a correlational survey, and an experiment with random assignment to answer a friend's question, "Does therapy actually work, or do people only feel better with time?", justify the choice, and say why one plausible alternative fits less well. Finally I must write a 3-5 sentence message to that friend, in everyday words, explaining how researchers know whether a therapy helps, why feeling better over time is not enough on its own, and one limit: a study shows what happens on average, not how it will go for one person.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (20 points), disorders and treatment reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my design choice and my message to my friend only with P2, not again with P1.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct result = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0. Accept equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, BOTH a correct reading of the three scenes in context (only the commuter meets all three D's with no context; deviance alone and expected grief are not disorders) AND the commuter's pattern stated as a category reading in person-first language rather than a diagnosis = 2; exactly one of the two = 1; neither = 0. For P2, ALL of a correct IV and DV with an accurate account of why random assignment to a waitlist control group lets a difference be traced to the therapy, a justified choice of the experiment over the case study and the correlational survey, and a message to the friend that explains how we know and names one limit = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Diagnosing a person, calling a person by a condition, treating a before-and-after story or a survey as proof that therapy causes improvement, or swapping the IV and the DV does not count. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to psychology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the design choice and the message to the friend with P2 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation shown = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work. Use person-first language yourself.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Offer the reflection as a choice of two equally weighted prompts and let me pick one: (a) what did the revision change about how I describe a person or a pattern, or (b) what would I now tell someone who says therapy works because people feel better afterward. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both answers and their brief interpretations AND made my design choice AND written my message to my friend AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised brief, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised brief with both answers, their brief interpretations, your design choice, and your message to your friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the two groups in the experiment with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 15 skills — judging a pattern with the three D's in context, describing conditions in person-first language without diagnosing anyone, explaining how an experiment with random assignment to a waitlist control group shows whether a therapy helps, and choosing the research design that fits a question — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, the two brief interpretations, the design choice, and the message to your friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised brief, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, design choice, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com