· Start with researching symptoms or “things to look for” with Suicide Risk to figure out the three (3) characteristics you would be measuring in your assessment

/in /by

Criterion-related validity: Create a hypothetical test based around the topic of Suicide Risk and identify 3 characteristics of appropriate, relevant and measureable criteria. Identify a criterion for which predictor scores could be compared. You are to design a criterion related validity study with identifying the specific 3 characteristics and identify if they are concurrent or predictive validity evidence and explain with specific details.

For example, if the test was a Career Interest Test it would be based around criterion of Likes/Dislikes, Abilities/Skills, and Experience as the criterion and then go on from there to focus on whether concurrent or predictive, scoring and explanation. (this is an example only)

Create your response into a word document using APA format with a minimum of 500-750-word count. (It might be easier to insert the criterion into a table format with the explanation in paragraph format below the inserted table however, your choice as to how to create your Suicide Risk Study). Include in text citations which will connect to the factual points from your sources, and include the reference citations at the end of the document.

For the Assignment, some tips:

· Start with researching symptoms or “things to look for” with Suicide Risk to figure out the three (3) characteristics you would be measuring in your assessment

· They want to know how you will show Criterion Related Validity with the assessment you create.  The easiest way to do that is by finding an already established suicide risk assessment that has been proven valid and comparing the scores between the two assessments. You can search for one in the Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY) and scroll through to read the review of it.  Review of validity will sometimes have its own paragraph, but you should also get that information from the “summary” at the end of the review.  It will state whether the test has good validity and reliability.  It will also state if it doesn’t.  You want to find a test that has proven validity. The idea here is if someone who is at high risk of suicide takes the suicide risk assessment you create AND ALSO takes the already established suicide risk assessment, they should score high on both.  If someone who is not suicidal takes your assessment and the already established assessment, they should score low on both.  This will show that there is criterion related validity.  You will know that there is an issue with your validity if someone who is at high risk of suicide takes your assessment and scores low, but scores high in the established assessment.  Same thing for someone not at risk – if they score high on your assessment and low on the established assessment, again, we know somethings wrong with your assessment’s validity.

How do you think ethical standards have changed (if at all) since the Principal Investigator of your chosen study filled out his/her own IRB Application?

/in /by

MOCK IRB APPLICATION EXERCISE-PT. 2

Psychological experiments that are conducted on human or animal subjects must go through a review by an administrative body known as an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Approval must be gained by an IRB before a study can be funded or conducted. Researchers, whether they are faculty, students, or other affiliated personnel, must complete a detailed application that is presented to the IRB for its review.

APUS has an IRB, much like that of any research-producing university or institution. Attached you will find an amended version of the actual application that researchers must submit to the IRB in advance of conducting psychological research. ***This is a mock version of the application. You are not actually submitting anything to the real APUS IRB while conducting this exercise.

For Part 2 of this exercise, you will use the same readings and information that you used in Part 1 earlier in the semester. These are experiments that have already been conducted and published. Several are “classic” experiments in social psychology of which you should already be aware. You will read the published information carefully and then you will take the knowledge gleaned from the readings to complete the IRB application AS IF you were the Principal Investigator applying for approval to conduct the study.

For some of the questions included on the application, you may need to “stretch” your knowledge a bit. For example, the published readings may say that college students were given extra credit for participation, but may not go into a lot of detail regarding the process used to recruit those students. In such a situation, you may need to use your imagination to fill in some blanks.

In addition, please remember that the goal here is to put yourself in the principal investigator’s shoes at the time that he/she conducted the experiment. If the experiment was conducted in the 1970s, for example, remember that the standards for human experimentation were different back then. Answer the questions as the investigator WOULD have answered them (based upon what you read about the experiment), not as they SHOULD have answered them based upon today’s ethical standards.

Assignment Instructions (Please complete both #1 and #2 below)

1. After carefully reading your article (remember, use the same article you used in Part 1 of this exercise), please complete the attached document. The attached document is editable, so please place your responses directly into the document. Be sure to save the document on your hard drive and then upload it into the slot for the assignment.

2. After completing the Mock IRB Assignment-Part 2, please answer the following questions in a 3-page Word Document (.docx format) and upload as an attachment to the slot for the assignment.

a. What was the most challenging section of the Mock IRB Application-Part 2 to complete? Why was it challenging?

b. Were there any sections of the Mock IRB Application-Part 2 that you felt the authors of your article did not adequately address (either in terms of not doing it or not addressing it in their write-up of their Method/Procedure)?

c. If you were actually the Principal Investigator of this study, what might you do differently in order to adequately address all the questions asked on Part 2 of this Mock IRB Application?

d. How do you think ethical standards have changed (if at all) since the Principal Investigator of your chosen study filled out his/her own IRB Application?

Explain the kind of reasoning you think is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position you think is strongest.

/in /by

Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper, and re-read them often during and after the writing process to make sure that you are fulfilling all of the instructions. Please also utilize the assignment guidance and the outlined model provided.

Overview
In the Week Three Assignment, you discussed either deontological or utilitarian theory, applied that theory to the question, and raised a relevant objection.

By engaging with the course material, you now have had a chance to refine your thinking and broaden your understanding of the problem by approaching it from the perspective of multiple ethical theories.

In this paper, you will demonstrate what you have learned by writing an essay in which you

  • Present a revised formulation of the ethical question and introduction to the topic.
  • Explain the kind of reasoning you think is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position you think is strongest.
  • Raise an objection, and be able to respond to it.

Instructions
Write an essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA

The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines:

  • Introduction
    Your first paragraph should begin with the topic question, suitably revised. It should be focused, concrete, and on a relevant moral problem. You should then introduce the topic in the way described by the Week One instructions, but reflecting the developed understanding and information you have gained about the topic and any necessary refinement of the scope.Follow this with a thesis statement that states your position, and a brief description of the primary reason(s) supporting your position. (See the handout on thesis statements provided). Finally, provide a brief preview of the overall aim and procedure of your paper.

 

  • Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning
    This section of the Final Paper will explain and demonstrate what you believe to be the best way of reasoning about the question you have chosen, and showing how that reasoning supports the position you have taken on the question. You might explain the principles, rules, values, virtues, conceptions of purposes and ends, and other general ideas that you find persuasive, and show how they support concrete judgments.In the course of doing so, you must make reference to at least two of the approaches that we have examined in the course (such as deontological, utilitarian, or virtue-based), and utilize at least one resource off the provided list for each of the two approaches. One of these theories may be the theory you discussed in your Week Three Assignment, but your discussion here should be more refined.

    For example, you might find the reasoning associated with Aristotelian virtue ethics to be the most compelling, and reference Aristotle in the process of showing how that reasoning supports a certain conclusion. In the course of this, you could contrast that with a utilitarian approach, referencing Mill for instance.

 

  • Objection and Response
    After explaining the ethical reasoning that supports your position, you should raise an objection and respond to it. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument weak or problematic. You should explain how it brings out this weakness, and do so in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with your own argument. Then, provide the best response you can to the objection, showing how it does not undermine your position. Your response should not simply restate your original position or argument, but should say something new in support of it.

 

  • Conclusion
    Provide a conclusion that sums up what you presented in the paper and offers some final reflections.

Resource Requirement
You must use at least four scholarly resources. Two of the resources must be drawn from the list of acceptable primary resources on each of the two theories you discuss. For example, if you discuss deontology and virtue ethics, you would need at least one resource under the “Deontology” list and at least one resource under the “Virtue Ethics” list. The other two may be from either the Required or Recommended Resources, or scholarly resources found in the Ashford University Library.

  • The textbook may be cited, but it does not count toward the resource requirement. If you cite the textbook, you will still need to cite at least four more sources that fulfill the requirements stated above.
  • If you need help with finding additional resources, or are unsure about whether a particular resource will count toward the requirement, please contact your instructor.
  • For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources that are listed on the references page, but not cited within the paper, do not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement.

 

The Final Paper:

  • Must be 2000 to 2500 words in length (excluding title and reference pages), and formatted according to APA style.
  • Must include a title page with the following:
  • Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement and statement of procedure.
  • Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought.
  • Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.
  • Must make meaningful reference to at least two of the ethical theories studied in the course.

To prepare: Select and focus on one of four case studies listed in the Learning Resources. You will use this same case study throughout the course.

/in /by

 

In this course, you will be asked to select one case study and to use it throughout the entire course. By doing this, you will have the opportunity to see how theories guide your view of a client and the client’s presenting problem. Although the case may be the same, each time you use a different theory, your perspective of the problem changes, which then changes how you go about asking the assessment questions and how you intervene.

The first theoretical approach you will use to apply to a case study is systems theory. In other words, your theoretical orientation—your lens—will be systems theory as you analyze a social work case study.

Different theories can be used to take a systems approach. For example, Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory considers how a system is made of smaller subsystems that influence each other and seek homeostasis, whereas Brofennerbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory focuses on how an individual’s experience is influenced by different system levels (micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono). Systems theory is commonly used to understand the interrelationships of the systems (e.g., family, community, organizations, society) of the client. If you are working with families, communities, and organizations, it is also beneficial to use systems theory to get a holistic picture of all the interrelated parts of the system.

To prepare: Select and focus on one of four case studies listed in the Learning Resources. You will use this same case study throughout the course.

By Day 7

  • Focus on the identified client within your chosen case.
  • Analyze the case using a systems approach, taking into consideration both family and community systems.
  • Complete and submit the “Dissecting a Theory and Its Application to a Case Study” worksheet based on your analysis.