Learn in your language
Skip to content
A Level · Cambridge (CIE) · 9990

Use postal questionnaires and rating scales

Choose postal self-report and fixed-response ratings carefully, then evaluate who answers and what the response format can show.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 · 2028–2030 · Version 1 · AL-POSTAL-RATING
Exam scope and assessment notes

Original StudyForA teaching mapped to the Cambridge 2028–2030 syllabus. These lessons are independent study support, not Cambridge material, official mark schemes or awarded grades. No lesson reproduces a research article or Cambridge question. Human subject-expert review and full timed-paper grading remain pending. This is one of the five additional A Level methodology areas and supports Paper 4 planning; it does not replace teaching the selected specialist options or a timed Paper 4 practice set.

Before you begin

  • This lesson supports the 2028–2030 Version 1 A Level Psychology route. Review the AS research-method foundations first, then apply the method to the specialist options your school selects.

Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.

Quick readiness check

A question asks a participant to choose one of five labelled points from 'never' to 'very often'. What is this?

What you will learn

  • Describe and evaluate postal questionnaires
  • Describe and evaluate rating scales and forced/fixed-choice response formats
  • Apply response-format choices to a new research question

Postal questionnaires standardise self-report questions

A postal questionnaire is sent to participants to complete and return. Everyone can receive the same wording and instructions, and respondents may answer privately without an interviewer present.

This can reach people across a wide area and reduce interviewer effects. It can also produce low or uneven response rates: people who return a form may differ from those who do not. Researchers cannot clarify a misunderstood question, and literacy, language, access or a long form can affect completion.

A rating scale turns a judgement into a selected category

A rating scale offers ordered response points, such as 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely, for a clearly stated question. Fixed-choice answers use categories selected in advance; a forced-choice item requires the respondent to choose among the offered options.

Defined anchors and consistent scoring make responses easier to compare, but the categories may not fit everyone's experience. Add a suitable 'not applicable' or 'prefer not to answer' option when appropriate. A numerical choice is not automatically an objective measure of a person's underlying feeling.

Response quality depends on design and participation

Keep each question clear, brief and focused on one idea. Avoid leading wording, double questions, overlapping response categories and a scale whose direction changes without warning. A short pilot can reveal confusing items before distribution.

Self-report can be affected by memory, social desirability, acquiescence and extreme or middle-point response styles. Explain confidentiality accurately, make return procedures accessible, and report the number invited and the response rate so readers can judge possible non-response bias.

Sources for this lesson

Pause and explain

What should a researcher report to help readers judge non-response bias?

Put the idea to work

Worked example

A researcher posts a questionnaire asking adults how often they feel tired, using the same 1–5 scale for everyone. Give one strength and one limitation of the method.

Show the worked solution
  1. Connect the strength to standardised delivery or privacy.
  2. Connect the limitation to response or interpretation.
  3. Do not call the rating a direct objective measure of fatigue.

Answer The same wording and anchored scale make answers easier to compare, and private completion may reduce interviewer pressure. However, people who return the questionnaire may differ from non-respondents, and a self-rating measures reported tiredness rather than an objective amount of fatigue.

Try a topic test

Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.

Test this topic →

From guided practice to a new situation

Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.

1 · Guided

Rewrite 'How calm and focused were you during yesterday's revision?' as two clearer rating items.

Give me a hint

The original item asks about two experiences at once.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Separate calmness from focus so each answer has one meaning.
  2. Give every point the same ordered anchors, for example 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely.
  3. Specify a time frame and include a decline or not-applicable choice if needed.

Use two questions: 'How calm did you feel during yesterday's revision?' and 'How focused did you feel during yesterday's revision?' Give both the same clear 1–5 anchors and preserve the stated time frame.

Look for these in your work

  • Two constructs separated
  • Scale points and anchors stated
  • Time frame retained
2 · Independent

Only 42 of 300 people return a postal questionnaire about a new health app. Explain why the sample result may be biased and name a useful report detail.

Give me a hint

Consider who is most likely to return the form.

Compare my reasoning
  1. People who use or like the app may be more motivated to respond than people who stopped using it.
  2. The returned forms may therefore over-represent satisfied or highly engaged users.
  3. Report invitation and return counts, and describe any known differences between respondents and the invited group.

The 14% return rate leaves substantial scope for non-response bias: respondents may be more engaged or positive than non-respondents. Report the invitation and usable-return counts and qualify any claim about all app users.

Look for these in your work

  • Potentially different responders identified
  • Bias linked to the question context
  • Response rate and limitation reported
3 · Transfer

Design two response options for a private question about missed study sessions that avoid forcing disclosure.

Give me a hint

Make the answer categories clear and provide a genuine way not to answer.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Ask about a defined recent period, such as the past seven days.
  2. Offer non-overlapping frequency categories such as 0, 1–2, 3–4 and 5–7 days.
  3. Include 'prefer not to answer', explain privacy limits honestly and avoid asking for identifying details unless essential.

A clear seven-day time frame and non-overlapping categories support consistent responses. A private completion route and a 'prefer not to answer' option reduce pressure; the researcher should state how answers are protected.

Look for these in your work

  • Time period defined
  • Categories are ordered and non-overlapping
  • Privacy and voluntary response respected

Common mistakes

  • Calling a mailed survey a random sample
  • Assuming a low response rate is harmless
  • Treating an ordered rating scale as equal-interval measurement without evidence
  • Forcing a sensitive answer when a decline option is needed
  • Confusing 'fixed choice' with the researcher fixing participants' answers
Recall without your notes

What can you explain now?

Why can a low return rate weaken a postal questionnaire?

Compare with the explanation

Respondents may differ systematically from people who do not return it, so the answers may not represent everyone invited.

A high return rate also does not by itself prove that every group is represented.

After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.

Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.

Make it stick

How do a postal questionnaire and a fixed-response rating scale work, and what can response and scale design do to the evidence?

If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.

Keep learning Psychology

Course scope and assessment

Seven original lessons map all 15 AS research-method and methodological-concept sections to explained Guided, Independent and Transfer practice. All 12 compulsory AS core studies have original study-specific teaching and staged practice; five additional A Level methodology lessons cover research design and validity. All 15 Clinical, all 15 Consumer (2.1.1–2.5.3) and all 15 Health (3.1.1–3.5.3) Psychology sections link to original teaching and staged practice. All 15 Organisational Psychology sections 4.1–4.5 now have original teaching and explained staged practice; the six new 4.4–4.5 lessons bring the planning map to 92 of 92 indexed sections. Consumer lessons cover physical and psychological environments; decision models, heuristics and mistakes; packaging, selling and buying; advertising, self-monitoring, product placement, brand recognition and slogans. Evaluation boundaries are explicit: studies use particular products, samples, tasks and settings; gaze, recall, self-report, EEG indices, ratings, choices and purchases are different outcomes. Health evidence is bounded: Laba et al. measured hypothetical preferences; Riekert and Drotar raise a non-response concern; Chung and Naya's cap tracked openings, not swallowing; Chaney et al. was a short caregiver-reported pilot; Yokley and Glenwick examined immunisation attendance in one public-health setting. MacLachlan et al. report one patient, not a controlled treatment effect; Brudvik et al. compared separate child, parent and physician ratings in one emergency department. Chandola et al. found a cohort association; Wang et al. measured responses during a monitored arithmetic task; Evans and Wener observed commuters; Bridge et al. found mixed self-rated outcomes in radiotherapy. Janis and Feshbach measured short-term self-reports in one school; Lewin et al. tested a rehabilitation package, not information alone. Tapper et al. and Fox et al. studied bounded school and worksite programmes; incentive effects do not establish transfer or rule out reporting effects. Weinstein measured comparative expectations, while Seligman’s framework is conceptual and Shoshani and Steinmetz used a school-level comparison. These findings do not establish universal health effects or diagnose individuals. Need-theory examples use a child measurement study, not a workplace test; SMART is a practical checklist, not a motivational theory. Landry et al. compared reward framing with student volunteers in a lab; this does not establish universal effects in workplaces. Cuadrado et al. (2008) measured undergraduate evaluations of presented leaders, not workplace performance or hiring; this does not establish a universal gender effect. The historical 1995 Munchausen criteria are not a current diagnostic checklist. Cambridge’s 2028–2030 Reference List treats Oruč et al. (1997) as an example of genetic explanation although its participants had bipolar I; gambling disorder is listed in Cambridge’s Clinical topic but classified under addictive behaviours in ICD-11. Candidates choose two options, but all four remain listed so schools can select a route. The 92-section count is a planning index, not a Cambridge score. Remaining work is deeper coverage review, separate-year syllabus reconciliation, timed-paper practice and human subject-expert review. The separate 2027 and 2024–2026 syllabuses are not reconciled into this route. Practice is not official grading, a timed-paper simulation or human subject-expert review.

StudyForA · Learn with understanding

Original teaching content and links to official sources. Check your exam year and qualification before using a resource.