IB Psychology SL Extended Essay Example

The title clearly signals both the intervention and the target group, so the reader immediately understands the investigation’s broad topic. This is a strong starting point for focus because it frames the essay around a specific treatment outcome rather than a general discussion of OCD.

The research question is clear in direction, but the wording is imprecise: “the antidepressant SSRIs” is grammatically awkward and SSRIs are not a single drug. The student should define what counts as “to what extent” by naming a measurable outcome such as CY-BOCS change, remission, response rate, or relapse.

The student could sharpen the method focus by distinguishing between efficacy and safety more explicitly. A brief sentence stating that the essay will prioritise symptom reduction, then evaluate adverse effects and relapse as secondary considerations, would make the purpose more research-driven and less descriptive.

This is too sweeping a claim and oversimplifies OCD treatment. The student should avoid presenting treatment as limited to “two ways” and instead acknowledge that CBT and SSRIs are major evidence-based options, while other approaches may also be used depending on severity and context.

The framing here is too binary and methodologically unspecific. The student should avoid presenting studies as simply “for” or “against” and instead explain what each study can and cannot show about effectiveness, because different designs, age ranges, and outcomes make the evidence more nuanced.

This is a strong methodological move because it names a standard outcome measure early. That helps the reader see how effectiveness will be judged and gives the question a concrete clinical basis.

The student begins with a correct core definition of OCD, which gives the essay a clear knowledge base before moving into treatment evidence. This kind of concise conceptual grounding works well because it keeps the later evaluation connected to the disorder being studied.

The student repeats broad biological claims without critically qualifying them. A stronger approach would be to distinguish between historical explanatory models and the specific evidence relevant to SSRI action, because “serotonin deficiency” is not the same as proving SSRIs are effective.

This is accurate but still very general. The student should connect the concept more explicitly to OCD treatment by explaining why a medication class designed for depression is relevant to obsessive-compulsive symptoms, rather than leaving the statement as a standalone definition.

This shows good subject knowledge because the student identifies the instrument, its role, and its practical use in research. The inclusion of a clinical scale strengthens the essay by linking the treatment discussion to a recognised measurement tool.

This overstates what can be concluded from the evidence and blurs the difference between a controlled trial and a perfectly controlled environment. The student should be more precise about which variables were actually controlled by the design and avoid implying that all outside influences were removed.

This interpretation of the p-value is too simplified. The student should explain that $p<0.001$ indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, not that the result was “not coincidental” in a casual sense.

The student reports the result, but does not interpret how large or clinically meaningful the difference is. A stronger analysis would explain what a 16-point gap means in practical terms and whether the improvement is substantial enough to support the claim of effectiveness.

This is strong evidence use because the student reports key design details and outcome data rather than relying on vague summary. Including allocation numbers helps make the later judgement about effectiveness more convincing and transparent.

Which of these limitations most seriously affects the trustworthiness of the conclusion: sample size, generalisability, or treatment duration? The student would strengthen the analysis by ranking the limitations and explaining why the most important one matters most for the research question.

The reasoning here is internally inconsistent: a larger sample helps precision, but representativeness depends on the sample characteristics, not size alone. The student should separate these ideas and explain why the exclusion of comorbidity limits ecological validity even if the sample is reasonably sized.

This is a sound analytical link because the student explains how the measure supports reliability and comparison across participants. That move shows the student is evaluating method rather than simply narrating study results.

This is a strong evaluative point because it goes beyond immediate symptom change and considers relapse, which is highly relevant to treatment effectiveness. That makes the analysis more clinically meaningful than a simple before-and-after summary.

This is too general and argumentative without specifying what makes SSRIs “not the best option.” The student should anchor the claim in comparative outcomes, remission rates, or relapse data, rather than using a broad judgement that is stronger than the evidence presented.

This is one of the strongest analytical observations in the essay because it directly compares conditions and draws a meaningful inference about relative treatment effectiveness. It shows the student is evaluating the evidence against the research question rather than just listing outcomes.

The student should be more careful here: an RCT strengthens causal inference, but it does not guarantee it in every respect. The analysis would be stronger if it acknowledged remaining issues such as therapist effects, sample composition, and the limited time frame.

The student could use this limitation to compare the study more directly with Semerci and Ünal’s longer follow-up. A brief synthesis across studies would show how treatment duration changes the confidence one can place in SSRI effectiveness.

This is not well supported by the study description and sounds overconfident for a retrospective cohort design. The student should avoid implying experimental control where there was none, and instead explain that observational studies can identify associations but not clean causal effects.

What evidence in the essay actually demonstrates that the benefits outweigh the risks? The student would strengthen the conclusion by weighing symptom reduction against specific adverse-effect data and relapse findings, rather than making a broad final judgement.

The document includes a contents table that matches the major sections of the report, and that helps create a professional academic structure. This is especially useful in a literature review because it signals the progression from introduction to evidence and conclusion.

The report includes a table of contents, which helps the reader navigate the essay’s main sections and see its overall organisation quickly. This is a clear presentation strength because it supports readability and structure.

The introduction is much longer than necessary and delays the move into analysis. The student should tighten the opening so the reader reaches the research question and line of argument sooner, which would improve the report’s overall clarity and pace.

The wording is too broad and somewhat repetitive for an academic report. The student should use more precise signposting, for example by naming the specific limitation each study reveals, so the section title and topic sentence feel analytically purposeful rather than summary-based.

The subheading clearly signals a shift in argument, which makes the essay easier to follow. This kind of signposting is effective because it helps the reader track the structure of the evaluation.

This reference is incomplete and contains a clear title error, so the source cannot be reliably identified from the bibliography as written. The student should correct it and make sure every in-text citation matches a full reference entry exactly.

The reference list contains a clearly incomplete and incorrectly ordered citation entry here. The student should check the full bibliographic details against the source and ensure the title, journal name, volume, issue, and page range are presented in one accurate reference.