Evaluate the Evidence Drawing on your expertise in psychology research methods

Evaluate the Evidence Drawing on your expertise in psychology research methods

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Evaluate the Evidence Drawing on your expertise in psychology research methods

Title:  Evaluate the Evidence Drawing on your expertise in psychology research methods

Evaluate the Evidence Drawing on your expertise in psychology research methods, evaluate the strength of the evidence provided in the scholarly article you selected for reading this week. While all studies have strengths and weaknesses, research design (if used correctly) has the potential to improve the validity of our causal inferences. Make note of any limitations of the study design that influence the internal and external validity of your selected study. Based on your analysis, state in your own words the conclusions that can actually be drawn, given the methodological approach. Then identify what you view as the most important direction for future research that would improve the direction of the field. If you need a refresher on how to evaluate the quality of research, consider using these checklists (select the appropriate stud Meta-analysisDownload Meta-analysis Randomized Controlled TrialDownload Randomized Controlled Trial Intervention ResearchDownload Intervention Research Observational ResearchDownload Observational Research Nonrandomized ResearchDownload Nonrandomized Research Other Francie Rottini (She/Her)/100 words The article I evaluated provided an overview of several research studies that analyzes the relationship between mindfulness practices and romantic relationship functioning (Karremans, Schellkens, & Kappen, 2017).

Some of the extraneous variables include the length of time individuals had been together or married, and the number of prior relationships. This would obviously impact the quality and persistence of the relationship possibly impacting the approach to problemsolving and communication. For instance, mindfulness during my first marriage may not have likely made a significant impact given my age and inexperience with relationships, while in my current marriage, the practice would likely be more impactful. Another example would be the perceived satisfaction with non-romantic relationships. For instance, if an individual has a negative outlook towards all relationships or are they primarily unsatisfied with their romantic relationships only? One limitation that seems to be prominent in many of the studies was the lack of experimental elements to help support the causal implications of mindfulness in romantic relationships. Many of the studies relied heavily on self-report measures for both relationship satisfaction and mindfulness itself which can post a construct validity concern. Based on my analysis, I think the primary variable being measured (and positively associated with mindfulness and relationships) is likely the ability of an individual (and couple) to manage and withstand stress. The mindfulness practice itself provides a type of stress buffer to insulate the couple from too much of a negative impact in high-stress situations.

It seems likely that the technique itself actually improves the individual’s (and their partner’s) subjective well-being, but helping each of them to manage their levels of stress more effectively. One area for future study that I think would be interesting to further explore, is the role that gratitude and forgiveness can play when actively participating in positive psychology interventions (e.g., mindfulness). Perhaps the practice of mindfulness itself is not directly impacting the couple’s satisfaction, but the byproduct of increasing gratitude and forgiveness, instead. Article: Karremans, J.C., Schellekens, M. P. J. & Kappen, G. (2017). Bridging the sciences of mindfulness and romantic relationships: A theoretical model and research agenda. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(1), 29 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315615450 Karalee Beall /100 words I read the article on Mindfulness in parenting and co-parenting for this discussion. The study utilized a program named MTurk, a crowdsourcing website run by Amazon that allows businesses to hire remote workers to perform tasks that computers cannot. In the enrollment phase of the study, families were chosen under the criteria of being US residents and having a 95% task approval rate for previous MTurk tasks (Parent et al., 2016). This is already a red flag because it does not include a generalized population or allow for the researchers to ensure a wide demographic. Without more specific control measures on the demographic of participants, the data will not be able to be generalized. A major component of possible error in this study is that the questions are primarily emotionally measured. Because of this, it is easy for participants to sway answers to what they feel is correct rather than truthful. Furthermore, when given options such as never, somewhat, or all the time – you are asking the participants to make generalizations themselves, which can lead to inaccuracies. Due to this, the same questions should be asked more than once to verify if the participants’ answers are consistent throughout the questionnaire, therefore confirming the data is reliable. The study had further limitations, the first being that because of the way the participants were chosen, only one participant answered the questions. This means that the study only gathers one perspective on the parenting and/or co-parenting dynamics. This raises questions about the validity of the statements and answers as they cannot be cross-referenced with a secondary source. Second, the sample demographics were incredibly narrow and did not include much variety. The sample population was primarily white, educated, and middle or upper-income class, which means the study lacks generalizability (Parent et al., 2016). The data gathered from the study clearly included one main demographic and does not account for a much more diverse population. Furthermore, the study only assessed one form of mindfulness, which excludes any other facets utilized by participants, again skewing the data by excluding alternative forms. Lastly, the researchers did not take into account if participants had received any previous training on mindfulness, which could indicate how their results would vary. Based on the lack of generalizability, missing information on participants’ understanding of mindfulness, and one-sided perspectives – the study cannot make large conclusions with the data. Instead, it can be concluded that programs that target mindful parenting correlate with improved parent-child relationships, co-parenting relationships, and parenting practices for this specific population – white, educated, middle/upper-income families. Moving forward with future research on this topic, important attention must be paid to choosing participants to ensure generalizability. Furthermore, both parents should be required to participate in order to ensure bias is minimized and answers are accurate. It may even be beneficial to have families complete training on mindfulness and follow them with a long-term study on how the training affected their relationships. Parent, J., McKee, L. G., Anton, M., Gonzalez, M., Jones, D. J., & Forehand, R. (2016). Mindfulness in parenting and Coparenting. Mindfulness, 7(2), 504–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0485-

 

As we begin this session, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my expectations for this course:

Please note that GCU Online weeks run from Thursday (Day 1) through Wednesday (Day 7).

 

Course Room Etiquette:

  • It is my expectation that all learners will respect the thoughts and ideas presented in the discussions.
  • All postings should be presented in a respectful, professional manner. Remember – different points of view add richness and depth to the course!

 

Office Hours:

  • My office hours vary so feel free to shoot me an email at [email protected] or my office phone is 602.639.6517 and I will get back to you within one business day or as soon as possible.
  • Phone appointments can be scheduled as well. Send me an email and the best time to call you, along with your phone number to make an appointment.
  • I welcome all inquiries and questions as we spend this term together. My preference is that everyone utilizes the Questions to Instructor forum. In the event your question is of a personal nature, please feel free to post in the Individual Questions for Instructor forumI will respond to all posts or emails within 24 or sooner.

 

Late Policy and Grading Policy

Discussion questions:

  • I do not mark off for late DQ’s.
  • I would rather you take the time to read the materials and respond to the DQ’s in a scholarly way, demonstrating your understanding of the materials.
  • I will not accept any DQ submissions after day 7, 11:59 PM (AZ Time) of the week.
  • Individual written assignments – due by 11:59 PM AZ Time Zone on the due dates indicated for each class deliverable.

Assignments:

  • Assignments turned in after their specified due dates are subject to a late penalty of -10%, each day late, of the available credit. Please refer to the student academic handbook and GCU policy.
  • Any activity or assignment submitted after the due date will be subject to GCU’s late policy
  • Extenuating circumstances may justify exceptions, which are at my sole discretion. If an extenuating circumstance should arise, please contact me privately as soon as possible.
  • No assignments can be accepted for grading after midnight on the final day of class.
  • All assignments will be graded in accordance with the Assignment Grading Rubrics

Participation

  • Participation in each week’s Discussion Board forum accounts for a large percentage of your final grade in this course.
  • Please review the Course Syllabus for a comprehensive overview of course deliverables and the value associated with each.
  • It is my expectation that each of you will substantially contribute to the course discussion forums and respond to the posts of at least three other learners.
  • substantive post should be at least 200 words. Responses such as “great posts” or “I agree” do notmeet the active engagement expectation.
  • Please feel free to draw on personal examples as you develop your responses to the Discussion Questions but you do need to demonstrate your understanding of the materials.
  • I do expect outside sources as well as class materials to formulate your post.
  • APA format is not necessary for DQ responses, but I do expect a proper citation for references.
  • Please use peer-related journals found through the GCU library and/or class materials to formulate your answers. Do not try to “Google” DQ’s as I am looking for class materials and examples from the weekly materials.
  • will not accept responses that are from Wikipedia, Business com, or other popular business websites. You will not receive credit for generic web searches – this does not demonstrate graduate-level research.
  • Stay away from the use of personal pronouns when writing.As a graduate student, you are expected to write based on research and gathering of facts. Demonstrating your understanding of the materials is what you will be graded on. You will be marked down for lack of evidence to support your ideas.

Plagiarism

  • Plagiarism is the act of claiming credit for another’s work, accomplishments, or ideas without appropriate acknowledgment of the source of the information by including in-text citations and references.
  • This course requires the utilization of APA format for all course deliverables as noted in the course syllabus.
  • Whether this happens deliberately or inadvertently, whenever plagiarism has occurred, you have committed a Code of Conduct violation.
  • Please review your LopesWrite report prior to final submission.
  • Every act of plagiarism, no matter the severity, must be reported to the GCU administration (this includes your DQ’s, posts to your peers, and your papers).

Plagiarism includes:

  • Representing the ideas, expressions, or materials of another without due credit.
  • Paraphrasing or condensing ideas from another person’s work without proper citation and referencing.
  • Failing to document direct quotations without proper citation and referencing.
  • Depending upon the amount, severity, and frequency of the plagiarism that is committed, students may receive in-class penalties that range from coaching (for a minor omission), -20% grade penalties for resubmission, or zero credit for a specific assignment. University-level penalties may also occur, including suspension or even expulsion from the University.
  • If you are at all uncertain about what constitutes plagiarism, you should review the resources available in the Student Success Center. Also, please review the University’s policies about plagiarism which are covered in more detail in the GCU Catalog and the Student Handbook.
  • We will be utilizing the GCU APA Style Guide 7th edition located in the Student Success Center > The Writing Center for all course deliverables.

LopesWrite

  • All course assignments must be uploaded to the specific Module Assignment Drop Box, and also submitted to LopesWrite every week.
  • Please ensure that your assignment is uploaded to both locations under the Assignments DropBox. Detailed instructions for using LopesWrite are located in the Student Success Center.

Assignment Submissions

  • Please note that Microsoft Office is the software requirement at GCU.
  • I can open Word files or any file that is saved with a .rtf (Rich Text Format) extension. I am unable to open .wps files.
  • If you are using a “.wps” word processor, please save your files using the .rtf extension that is available from the drop-down box before uploading your files to the Assignment Drop Box.

Grade of Incomplete

  • The final grade of Incomplete is granted at the discretion of the instructor; however, students must meet certain specific criteria before this grade accommodation is even possible to consider.
  • The grade of Incomplete is reserved for times when students experience a serious extenuating circumstance or a crisis during the last week of class which prevents the completion of course requirements before the close of the grading period. Students also must pass the course at the time the request is made.
  • Please contact me personally if you are having difficulties in meeting course requirements or class deadlines during our time together. In addition, if you are experiencing personal challenges or difficulties, it is best to contact the Academic Counselor so that you can discuss the options that might be available to you, as well as each option’s academic and financial repercussions.

Grade Disputes

  • If you have any questions about a grade you have earned on an individual assignment or activity, please get in touch with mepersonally for further clarification.
  • While I have made every attempt to grade you fairly, on occasion a misunderstanding may occur, so please allow me the opportunity to learn your perspective if you believe this has occurred. Together, we should be able to resolve grading issues on individual assignments.
  • However, after we have discussed individual assignments’ point scores, if you still believe that the final grade you have earned at the end of the course is not commensurate with the quality of work you produced for this class, there is a formal Grade Grievance procedurewhich is outlined in the GCU Catalog and Student Handbook.
Evaluate the Evidence Drawing on your expertise in psychology research methods
Evaluate the Evidence Drawing on your expertise in psychology research methods

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:Evaluate the Evidence Drawing on your expertise in psychology research methods