📚 Year 9 AQA Psychology: Case Study Practice in Action | Year 9 AQA 心理学：案例分析实战演练
Case studies are like a magnifying glass for psychologists - they let us zoom in on one person, group or event in extraordinary detail. In this revision guide you will learn what a case study is, how it is conducted, and how to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. We will walk through classic examples such as Phineas Gage and H.M., discuss the ethical issues that surround this method, and give you the chance to practise your own case study analysis, all perfectly aligned with the AQA approach to research methods.
案例研究就像是心理学家的放大镜 —— 它让我们能够以非凡的细节聚焦于一个人、一个群体或一个事件。在本复习指南中，你将了解什么是案例研究、如何进行案例研究，以及如何评估其优势与局限。我们将走一遍盖奇（Phineas Gage）、H.M. 等经典案例，讨论围绕这一方法的伦理问题，并让你有机会练习自己的案例分析，与 AQA 研究方法的考查方式完美契合。
1. What is a Case Study? | 什么是案例研究？
A case study is an in-depth, detailed investigation of a single individual, group, event or community. Researchers gather information from many sources and over a period of time in order to build a complete picture of the case. Unlike a survey that collects shallow data from many people, a case study goes deep: it may last months or even years, and it may use interviews, observations, tests and medical records all at once.
案例研究是对单个个体、群体、事件或社区进行的深入、详细的调查。研究者从多种来源收集信息，并在一段时间内构建出该案例的完整图像。与从许多人那里收集浅层数据的调查不同，案例研究是深入挖掘的：它可能持续数月甚至数年，也可能同时使用访谈、观察、测验与医疗记录等多种手段。
A useful working definition for Year 9 is the one below. Learn it, because AQA often asks you to describe a research method before asking you to evaluate it.
对 Year 9 同学来说，下面这个可操作的定义值得记住，因为 AQA 常常先让你描述一种研究方法，再让你对其进行评价。
ngle person, group or event, using multiple methods and sources of data, often carried out over a long period of time.
案例研究 = 对单一个体、群体或事件进行的深入研究，使用多种方法与数据来源，通常历时较长。
The word 'case' is important. A case is something that can be clearly identified and bounded - one pupil, one family, one school, one rare injury, one unusual childhood. If you cannot tell where the case starts and ends, it is probably not a well-designed case study.
"案例"这个词很重要。案例必须是可以被清楚识别、有明确边界的对象 —— 一名学生、一个家庭、一所学校、一次罕见的脑损伤、一段异常的童年经历。如果你说不清案例的边界在哪里，那大概就不是一个设计良好的案例研究。
2. Key Features of a Case Study | 案例研究的核心特征
Every good case study shares a set of recognisable features. The first is depth rather than breadth: the aim is to understand one case thoroughly, not to describe a large population. The second is triangulation - using more than one method or source so that findings can be checked against each other. The third is a longitudinal element: data are usually collected over time so that change can be tracked.
每一个好的案例研究都具备一组可识别的特征。第一是"深度而非广度"：目标是彻底理解一个案例，而不是描述一个庞大的群体。第二是三角验证（triangulation）—— 使用不止一种方法或来源，使不同发现能够互相印证。第三是纵向元素：数据通常在一段时间内持续收集，以便追踪变化。
The case is also usually unusual, extreme or unique in some way. Psychologists choose such cases because they offer something that a large-scale study cannot: a natural experiment that would be impossible or unethical to create artificially.
案例通常在某方面具有不寻常、极端或独特的性质。心理学家之所以选择这类案例，是因为它们提供了大规模研究无法提供的东西：一场无法人为制造、或者制造出来不道德的"自然实验"。
- Depth, not breadth | 深度优先，而非广度优先
- Triangulation - multiple methods and sources | 三角验证 —— 多种方法与来源
- Longitudinal data collection | 纵向数据收集
- A unique or extreme case | 独特或极端的案例
- Qualitative and quantitative data combined | 质性与量化数据相结合
- Context is preserved - the person is studied in their real life | 保留情境 —— 在真实生活中研究个体
3. How Case Studies Are Conducted | 案例研究如何实施
Conducting a case study follows a logical sequence. First the researcher defines the case and gains access - this may require consent from the participant or, if the participant is a child or is unable to consent, from a parent, carer or guardian. Next, a range of data-collection techniques is chosen to suit the case. Then data are gathered over an extended period, recorded carefully, and finally analysed to look for patterns and themes.
实施案例研究遵循一个合乎逻辑的顺序。研究者首先界定案例并取得进入权限 —— 这可能需要参与者本人同意，若参与者是儿童或无法自行同意，则需由父母、照顾者或监护人同意。接着，选择适合该案例的一系列数据收集技术。随后在较长时期内收集数据、仔细记录，最后进行分析，寻找模式与主题。
The analysis stage is where AQA students often lose marks. Case study data are frequently qualitative - interview transcripts, diary entries, letters, observation notes - so the researcher must organise them into themes or categories. This is called content analysis, and it is a common companion to the case study method.
分析阶段是 AQA 考生最容易失分的地方。案例研究的数据往往是质性的 —— 访谈转录稿、日记、信件、观察笔记 —— 因此研究者必须将其整理为主题或类别。这被称为内容分析（content analysis），它常常与案例研究方法相伴出现。
| Stage 阶段 | What happens 具体内容 |
| 1. Define the case 界定案例 | Decide exactly who or what is being studied and why 明确研究对象与理由 |
| 2. Gain access and consent 取得途径与同意 | Contact the participant, family, school or hospital 联系参与者、家庭、学校或医院 |
| 3. Choose methods 选择方法 | Interviews, observations, tests, records 访谈、观察、测验、档案 |
| 4. Collect data 收集数据 | Over weeks, months or years 历时数周、数月或数年 |
| 5. Analyse 分析 | Content analysis, theme spotting, comparison with norms 内容分析、主题识别、与常模比较 |
| 6. Report 撰写报告 | Publish with anonymity protected 在保护匿名性的前提下发表 |
4. Research Methods Used Inside a Case Study | 案例研究中使用的具体方法
A case study is not a single method; it is a framework that contains several methods. Interviews give rich verbal detail about thoughts and feelings. Naturalistic observation records what the person actually does in their own environment. Psychological tests and IQ assessments provide quantitative scores that can be compared with norms. Medical, educational and social records supply background information that the participant may not remember or may not report accurately.
案例研究不是单一方法，而是一个包含多种方法的框架。访谈提供关于想法与感受的丰富言语细节；自然观察记录个体在自身环境中的实际行为；心理测验与智力评估提供可与常模比较的量化分数；医疗、教育与社工档案则提供参与者可能记不清或不准确报告的背景信息。
Because the methods differ in nature, the data they produce also differ. Combining qualitative and quantitative evidence is one of the great strengths of the case study: a test score can be explained using interview data, and an interview claim can be checked against an observation.
由于方法性质不同，所产生的数据性质也不同。将质性与量化证据结合起来，正是案例研究的巨大优势之一：测验分数可以用访谈数据来解释，访谈中的说法也可以用观察来验证。
Case study = method framework + triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data
案例研究 = 方法框架 + 质性数据与量化数据的三角验证
5. Classic Example: Phineas Gage | 经典案例：菲尼亚斯·盖奇
In 1848 Phineas Gage was a railway construction foreman in Vermont, USA. While he was tamping explosive powder into a hole, the charge went off and a metre-long iron rod was blasted through his skull, entering below his left eye and exiting through the top of his head. Remarkably, Gage survived and could walk and talk within minutes. His memory and language were largely intact, but his personality changed dramatically.
1848 年，菲尼亚斯·盖奇是美国佛蒙特州的一名铁路施工工头。当他正在把炸药捣入炮孔时，炸药意外引爆，一根一米长的铁棍穿过他的头骨 —— 由左眼下方进入，从头顶穿出。令人惊讶的是，盖奇活了下来，几分钟内就能行走和说话。他的记忆与语言能力基本完好，但人格却发生了剧烈变化。
Before the accident, Gage was described as capable, reliable and well liked. Afterwards he reportedly became unreliable, impulsive, rude and unable to hold down a job. The case became classic evidence that the frontal lobe is involved in personality, emotional control and social behaviour, supporting the idea of localisation of function in the brain.
事故之前，盖奇被描述为能干、可靠、受人喜欢；事故之后，据说他变得不稳定、冲动、粗鲁，无法保住工作。该案例成为经典证据，说明额叶与人格、情绪控制和社会行为有关，支持了大脑功能定位（localisation of function）的观点。
Modern researchers have reconstructed Gage's skull and used brain imaging to estimate the damaged pathway, suggesting that the ventromedial prefrontal region and its white-matter connections were most affected. This shows an important point: case study evidence can be revisited decades later when new technology becomes available.
现代研究者重建了盖奇的头骨，并利用脑成像技术估计受损的神经通路，认为腹内侧前额叶区域及其白质连接受影响最大。这一点很重要：当新技术出现时，几十年前的案例研究证据仍然可以被重新检验。
6. More Classic Examples: H.M. and Genie | 更多经典案例：H.M. 与吉妮
H.M. (later identified as Henry Molaison) suffered from severe epilepsy. In an attempt to control his seizures, surgeons removed tissue from both sides of his medial temporal lobes, including the hippocampus. His epilepsy improved, but he developed profound anterograde amnesia: he could no longer form new long-term memories, although his childhood memories and his working memory remained intact.
H.M.（后来公开身份为亨利·莫莱森）患有严重癫痫。为控制发作，外科医生切除他两侧内侧颞叶的组织，其中包括海马体。癫痫改善了，但他出现了严重的顺行性遗忘：他再也无法形成新的长时记忆，尽管童年记忆和工作记忆仍然完好。
H.M. was studied for decades. Crucially, he could still learn new motor skills such as mirror drawing, even though he had no memory of ever practising. This was evidence that memory is not one single system: procedural memory and declarative memory depend on different brain structures.
H.M. 被研究了数十年。关键在于，他仍然能够学习镜像描画等新运动技能，尽管他完全不记得自己练习过。这证明记忆并非单一系统：程序性记忆与陈述性记忆依赖不同的脑结构。
Genie is a very different and far more troubling case. Discovered in California in 1970, she had spent almost her entire childhood isolated and abused, and had never learned to speak. After she was rescued, researchers and therapists worked intensively with her. She acquired some vocabulary but never fully developed grammar, which was used to support the critical period hypothesis for language development.
吉妮是另一个截然不同、也更令人不安的案例。她于 1970 年在加利福尼亚被发现，几乎整个童年都被隔离与虐待，从未学会说话。被解救后，研究者与治疗师对她进行了密集干预。她掌握了一些词汇，但语法能力始终未能充分发展，这被用来支持语言发展的关键期假说。
Both cases raise a serious warning: when a case study is driven by research interest rather than the participant's welfare, harm can follow. Genie's case is now widely taught as an example of what can go wrong ethically.
两个案例都提出了严肃的警示：当案例研究由研究兴趣而非参与者福祉驱动时，伤害就可能发生。吉妮的案例如今被广泛用于教学，说明伦理上可能出什么问题。
7. Strengths of Case Studies | 案例研究的优势
The first strength is richness of detail. Case studies generate far more detailed, holistic information than any questionnaire or short experiment, because the person is studied in their own real-life context. This gives the method high ecological validity - the findings describe behaviour as it actually happens.
第一个优势是细节丰富。案例研究能产生比任何问卷或简短实验都更细致、更完整的信息，因为个体是在其真实生活情境中被研究的。这赋予该方法较高的生态效度 —— 研究结果描述的是实际发生的行为。
The second strength is that case studies allow research into areas where experiments are impossible or unethical. You cannot deliberately damage a person's frontal lobe, raise a child in isolation, or assign participants to a rare brain injury. Case studies give psychologists access to these otherwise unavailable situations.
第二个优势是，案例研究使研究可以进入实验不可能或不道德的领域。你不可能故意损伤一个人的额叶，不可能把儿童隔离抚养，也不可能把参与者随机分配到罕见脑损伤组。案例研究让心理学家得以接触这些否则无法获得的情境。
The third strength is that case studies generate hypotheses and theory. Gage and H.M. both produced findings that shaped entire research programmes in neuropsychology, and those hypotheses were later tested using experiments and brain imaging.
第三个优势是，案例研究能够生成假说与理论。盖奇与 H.M. 都产生了塑造神经心理学整个研究纲领的发现，而这些假说后来通过实验与脑成像得到了检验。
- Rich, holistic, detailed data | 丰富、整体、细致的数据
- High ecological validity - studied in real life | 生态效度高 —— 在真实生活中研究
- Only possible route into some topics | 某些课题的唯一可行途径
- Generates hypotheses for later testing | 为后续检验生成假说
- Useful in clinical practice - informs diagnosis and therapy | 临床实用 —— 有助于诊断与治疗
8. Weaknesses and Limitations | 弱点与局限
The most serious limitation is that a case study usually involves one person, so the findings cannot be generalised to the wider population. A case is by definition unique, and what is true for H.M. may not be true for anyone else with hippocampal damage. This low generalisability limits the scientific usefulness of the method.
最严重的局限是，案例研究通常只涉及一个人，因此结果无法推广到更大的人群。案例在定义上就是独特的，对 H.M. 成立的事，对任何其他海马体受损者未必成立。这种低可推广性限制了该方法的科学价值。
The second limitation is subjectivity. The researcher selects which details to record, which quotes to include and which themes to report. This introduces researcher bias and reduces objectivity. Memory of events may also be distorted, especially if the case is written up years later.
第二个局限是主观性。研究者决定记录哪些细节、引用哪些语句、报告哪些主题。这会引入研究者偏差，降低客观性。事件记忆也可能被扭曲，尤其是当案例在多年之后才被撰写时。
The third limitation is that case studies cannot establish cause and effect. Because the researcher does not manipulate an independent variable or control extraneous variables, we cannot be sure that the brain damage caused the behavioural change - other factors may be responsible. Finally, case studies are hard to replicate, are often very time-consuming and expensive, and can be intrusive into a person's private life.
第三个局限是案例研究无法确立因果关系。由于研究者不操纵自变量，也不控制额外变量，我们无法确定脑损伤确实导致了行为改变 —— 其他因素也可能起作用。最后，案例研究难以重复，往往耗时且昂贵，并且可能侵入个人的私生活。
9. Reliability, Validity and Generalisability | 信度、效度与可推广性
These three concepts appear in almost every AQA evaluation question, so you must be able to apply them to case studies precisely. Reliability means consistency - would the same result be obtained again? Case studies score low on reliability because the case cannot be repeated under the same conditions, and the researcher's own judgement is part of the measurement.
这三个概念几乎出现在每一道 AQA 评价题中，因此你必须能够准确地将其应用于案例研究。信度意味着一致性 —— 再次进行是否能得到相同结果？案例研究在信度上得分较低，因为案例无法在相同条件下重复，而且研究者本人的判断本身就是测量的一部分。
Validity means measuring what you intend to measure. Case studies have high ecological validity because behaviour is studied in a natural setting, but internal validity can be weak, because many variables change at once and cannot be controlled. Generalisability refers to how far findings apply beyond the sample; with a sample size of one, generalisability is very low.
效度意味着测量到了你本想测量的东西。案例研究生态效度较高，因为行为是在自然情境中研究的；但内部效度可能较弱，因为多个变量同时变化且无法控制。可推广性指结果能超出样本多大范围；当样本量为 1 时，可推广性非常低。
| Measure 指标 | Case study rating 案例研究的评价 | Reason 原因 |
| Reliability 信度 | Low 低 | Cannot be repeated; subjective interpretation 无法重复；解释主观 |
| Ecological validity 生态效度 | High 高 | Real-life setting, no artificial lab tasks 真实情境，无人工实验任务 |
| Internal validity 内部效度 | Often low 常常较低 | No control of extraneous variables 未控制额外变量 |
| Generalisability 可推广性 | Very low 极低 | Sample size is usually one 样本量通常为 1 |
10. Ethical Issues in Case Studies | 案例研究中的伦理问题
Case studies raise ethical issues that are more intense than in most other methods, because the participant is identifiable and is often vulnerable. Informed consent is the first requirement: participants must understand the purpose of the research and agree freely. Where someone cannot consent - a child, or a person with severe memory loss - consent must come from a parent, carer or guardian.
案例研究引发的伦理问题比大多数其他方法更为尖锐，因为参与者是可识别的，而且往往处于弱势。知情同意是首要要求：参与者必须理解研究目的并自愿同意。当某人无法同意时 —— 例如儿童或严重记忆丧失者 —— 同意必须来自父母、照顾者或监护人。
Confidentiality and anonymity are the next priority. In a famous case study it can be almost impossible to hide identity, which is why H.M. was known only by his initials for decades and his name was revealed only after his death. Participants also have the right to withdraw at any point, and researchers must protect them from both physical and psychological harm.
保密与匿名是接下来的重点。在著名案例研究中，隐藏身份几乎不可能，这正是 H.M. 数十年来只以缩写示人、直到去世后才公开姓名的原因。参与者还有权在任何时候退出，研究者必须保护他们免受身体与心理伤害。
Genie's case illustrates what happens when these principles are strained. She was studied by multiple research teams, her therapy and her research participation became entangled, and her case was later criticised for prioritising scientific interest over her welfare. Debriefing, ongoing support and independent ethical review are now standard requirements for any case study involving a vulnerable person.
吉妮的案例说明了当这些原则被拉扯时会发生什么。她曾被多个研究团队研究，她的治疗与研究参与纠缠在一起，该案例后来因把科学兴趣置于她的福祉之上而受到批评。如今，事后说明、持续支持与独立伦理审查，已成为任何涉及弱势参与者的案例研究的标准要求。
11. AQA Exam Skills: Answering Case Study Questions | AQA 考试技巧：作答案例研究题
AQA questions on this topic usually move from description to explanation to evaluation. A one-mark question might ask you to name the method; a two-mark question asks you to outline it; a four-mark question asks for strengths or weaknesses; and longer questions ask you to apply the method to a scenario or to evaluate it fully.
该主题的 AQA 题目通常从描述推进到解释，再到评价。1 分题可能只是要求你说出方法名称；2 分题要求你概述它；4 分题要求你写出优势或局限；更长的题目则要求你把该方法应用于一个情境，或对其进行完整评价。
For application questions, the key skill is using the scenario. Do not simply write a generic list of strengths and weaknesses - link each point to the details given. For example, "Because the researchers studied one child over three years, the findings are detailed but cannot be generalised to all children" is worth more marks than a general statement about generalisability.
对于应用题，关键技能是使用情境材料。不要只是泛泛地罗列优势与局限 —— 要把每一点与给定细节联系起来。例如，"由于研究者对一个儿童追踪了三年，因此结果很细致，但不能推广到所有儿童"，比一句笼统的可推广性陈述得分更高。
A reliable structure is point, evidence, explain. State the point clearly, use a detail from the scenario as evidence, then explain why this matters for the research. Follow it with a short conclusion sentence that answers the question directly.
一个可靠的结构是"观点 — 证据 — 解释"。先清楚陈述观点，再用情境中的细节作为证据，最后解释这一点为何对研究重要。随后用一句简短的结论直接回答问题。
- Command word: describe means say what it is; explain means say why it works; evaluate means give both sides and judge. | 指令词：describe 说明是什么；explain 解释为何有效；evaluate 给出两面并作判断。
- Use the scenario: quote or paraphrase the details given. | 使用情境：引用或转述题目给出的细节。
- Give both sides: one strength and one weakness is the minimum for a balanced evaluation. | 两面兼顾：一条优势和一条局限，是平衡评价的最低要求。
- Name the concepts: reliability, validity, generalisability, ethics, ecological validity. | 点出概念：信度、效度、可推广性、伦理、生态效度。
- Link back to the question: finish with a judgment. | 回扣问题：以一句判断收尾。
12. Practice Activity: Your Turn | 实战演练：轮到你了
Read the following scenario, then complete the tasks below. A 10-year-old boy named Arun was referred to an educational psychologist after a head injury at the age of six. He has difficulty concentrating and remembering instructions for more than a few minutes, but his reading and drawing skills are above average. He was interviewed four times over a year, observed in class twice a month, and his hospital records and school reports were examined.
请阅读以下情境，然后完成下面的任务。一名 10 岁男孩阿伦（Arun）在六岁时头部受伤，之后被转介给教育心理学家。他难以集中注意力，对指令的记忆只能维持几分钟，但他的阅读与绘画能力高于平均水平。他在一年内接受了四次访谈，每月被课堂观察两次，并且研究者查阅了他的医院记录与学校报告。
Now work through the four tasks. Try to write your answers in full sentences, and always link your points back to Arun's case rather than writing about case studies in general.
现在请完成以下四项任务。尽量用完整句子作答，并且始终把你的观点与阿伦的案例联系起来，而不是泛泛而谈案例研究。
- Task 1: Identify the research method used and give one piece of evidence from the scenario that supports your choice. | 任务 1：指出所使用的研究方法，并从情境中给出一个支持你判断的证据。
- Task 2: Give one strength and one weakness of this method for this specific case. | 任务 2：针对这一具体案例，写出该方法的一个优势与一个局限。
- Task 3: Explain how the researchers have used triangulation. | 任务 3：解释研究者是如何进行三角验证的。
- Task 4: Describe one ethical issue that the researchers must consider and how they could deal with it. | 任务 4：描述研究者必须考虑的一个伦理问题，并说明他们可以如何应对。
A model full-mark answer for Task 2 might look like this. The strength: because Arun was studied four times over a year in his own school and home life, the researchers obtained rich, detailed information with high ecological validity, which is useful for planning his support. The weakness: because only one boy was studied, the findings cannot be generalised to other children who have a head injury, and the researchers' own interpretations of his behaviour may have introduced bias.
任务 2 的满分范文可能是这样的。优势：由于阿伦在一年内被访谈四次，且研究发生在他自己的学校与家庭生活中，研究者获得了丰富而细致、生态效度高的信息，这对规划他的支持方案很有帮助。局限：由于只研究了一个男孩，结果无法推广到其他头部受伤的儿童，而且研究者对他行为的解释可能引入偏差。
Published by TutorHao | Year 9 AQA Psychology Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图