statistical infrequency

• What is statistical infrequency?

  defining 'normal' or 'abnormal' can be according to how often we come across it.

  Statistics are about numbers

  -any relatively usual behaviour or characteristic can be though of as 'normal', and any behaviour that is unusual is 'abnormal'

  when an individual has a less common characteristic
• what is the psychopathological example of statistical infrequency?

  intellectual disability disorder (IDD)-

  in any human characteristic, the majority of people's scores will cluster around the average, the further we go above or below that average the fewer people will attain a score- normal distribution. characteristics that can be reliably measured

  IQ-

  average IQ is 100, at normal distribution most people will have a score ranging from 85-115. only 2% of people have a score below 70, they are very 'abnormal' and are liable to receive a diagnosis of psychological disorder. (IDD)
• AO3- Strength- Real life practical application

  E- statistical infrequency is used in the diagnosis and assessment of psychological disorders eg/ intellectual disability disorders- requires an IQ of below 70. also used in assessment tools like Beck's depression inventory- a score of 30+ is considered severely depressed

  E/L- Therefore this suggests that, it helps to improve qol in treating mentally ill people, backing up the definition, shows value of statistical infrequency criterion, shows its usefulness
• AO3- Limitation- (Contradicting evidence) unusual characteristics can be positive

  E- for every person with an IQ below 70 there is another IQ above 130, we wouldn't think someone with a high IQ is abnormal but a genius. also someone with a very low depression score wouldn't be considered abnormal

  E/L- need to take into account alternative definitions to be able to suitably define abnormality. never sufficient as the sole basis for defining abnormality, undermining definition, may not be useful. cautious with the validity of the definition
• AO3- Limitation- Ethical issues considered stigmatising

  E- not all statistically unusual people benefit from labels- classed as abnormal. someone with a low IQ who can cope with their chosen lifestyle would not benefit from a label. there is a social stigma attached to labels

  E/L- costs of labelling someone outweighs benefits of diagnosing. cautious when using definitions, used appropriately & doesn't label individuals. need to ensure protecting participants from harm as it could do more harm than good- benefits need to outweigh costs