Running head: PAPER III: STUDY TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 1

PAPER III: LITERATURE REVIEW 3

 

Checklist – Paper III: Study Two Literature Review

Use the check sheet below to make sure your paper is the best it can be! Make sure you answer “Yes” to all questions before submitting your paper! Some sections duplicate checklists from prior papers while those in purple focus on new Study Two Literature Review elements.

General Paper Format (This section is identical to the Papers I and II Checklists)
Yes	No
		1. Is everything in your paper (including headers, the main body of your mini-literature review, and your references) in 12 point Times New Roman font?
		2. Is everything in your paper double spaced, including references (here I mean the spacing above and below each line, not the spaces following a period)?
		3. Do you have one inch margins on all sides of the paper (one inch from the top of the page, one inch from the bottom, and one inch from each side)
		4. Are the first lines of all paragraphs indented roughly ½ inch?
		5. Are your paragraphs aligned left? (That is, text should be flush left, with lines lining up on the left of the page, but text should NOT line up on the right side of the page – it should look ragged)
		6. Do you need help figuring out how to configure a word document in APA format (inserting headers, page numbers, proper indents, etc.)? If YES, I highly recommend watching this video which walks you through setting up an APA formatted paper! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbUoNa5tyY​
Title page (This section is identical to the Papers I and II Checklists)
Yes	No	Header
		1. Do you have the phrase “Running head” in your header (with a lower case h)?
		2. Is the rest of your Running head title in ALL CAPS?
		3. Is your Running head in 12 point Times New Roman font?
		4. Do you have a page number (1) that is flush right (also in 12 point Times New Roman font)?
		5. Is your header 50 characters or less (including spaces and punctuation)?
	Title / Name / Institution
		1. Is your title 12 words or less (as recommended by the APA)?
		2. Does your title describe your general paper theme (while avoiding something blank like “Paper Three: Literature Review”)? Note that your header and title can differ!
		3. Do all title words with four letters or more start with a capital letter?
		4. Are your name and institution correct?
		5. Are your title, name, and institution elements centered and in 12 point Times New Roman font?
Literature Review Study One (This section is nearly identical to Paper I)
Yes	No	Title for the literature review
		1. Do you have the identical title you used on the title page rewritten at the top of your literature review?
		2. Is this title centered?
		3. Does your literature review start on page 2?
		Main body of the literature review
		1. Does your literature review start broadly, giving a brief overview of the study one to come?
		2. Does your literature review start to narrow down toward your hypotheses?
		3. Do your paragraphs transition from one to the next? (That is, avoid simply listing studies you read. Tie them together. How does Study A in paragraph A relate to Study B in paragraph B?)
		4. Does your paper end in your very specific hypotheses? (You will lose a lot of points if your paper doesn’t provide the specific predictions!)
		5. Did you make sure your predictions are written in the past tense?
		6. Is your paper at least two pages long (not including the hypotheses)?
	Citations for the literature review
		1. Did you cite a minimum of 5 references (all peer-reviewed resources)? Note that you can give a lot of detail for some references but only a sentence or two for others. How much detail you go into depends on how important the article is in helping your support your hypotheses.
		1.a If NO, do your citations between the study one and study two literature reviews add up to ten or more references?
		2. Are your citations in APA format (That is, ONLY the last name of the author(s) and date of publication)? a. Note that you do NOT include first names, initials, or the title of the article the authors wrote when citing. That information belongs in the references pages only. b. Also note that you only use an ampersand – the & symbol – when it occurs within parentheses. In other instances, use the word “and”
		3. If you quoted, did you provide a page number for the direct quote?
		4. If you paraphrased in any way, did you cite the source of that information?
		5. Did you cite everything that sounded like it was factual information?
		6. Did you make sure the period follows the citation rather than coming before it?
Methods Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II – Methods Study One)
Yes	No	Title for the methods section
		1. Is the word “Methods” centered and in bold? (Note: No page break needed)
Yes	No	Participants
		1. Do you have the word “Participants” flush left and in bold, right below the word “Methods”?
		2. Did you list out your demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and ethnicity / race?
		3. Did you provide the descriptive statistics for (means and standard deviations) for age and italicize the letters M and SD?
		4. Did you provide frequencies for gender and ethnicity/race and italicize the N?
		5. Did you refer readers to Appendix for the full listing of demographic tables?
	Materials and Procedure
		1. Did you mention informed consent?
		2. Did you discuss any instructions the participant may have read?
		3. Did you thoroughly describe any stimulus material that might have occurred before your actual independent variables (and photos, descriptions, profiles, questions, puzzles, etc.) that are a part of your study?
		4. Did you thoroughly describe your independent variable in enough depth and detail that another researcher could duplicate your materials?
		5. Did you give your IVs names that matches up with the name you refer to in the results section?
		6. Did you describe all of your most relevant dependent variables, noting the scales you used (e.g. “Yes / No”, “A scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 9 (very likely))” for EACH of your DVs?
		7. Did you fully describe what participants went through in the study, noting the order in which they received study materials (e.g. first informed consent, then IVs, DVs, and debriefing)?
		8. Did you fully describe your attention check (manipulation check) with enough detail that a reader unfamiliar with your study could recreate it, and did you include the scale for that attention check question?
		9. Did you use the past tense when describing your methods (seeing how you already collected the data, and therefore do not discuss what participants will do)?
Results Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II – Results Study One)
Yes	No	Results
		1. Do you have the word “Results” centered and in bold, immediately following the methods section?
		2. Did you analyze at least three different dependent variables, including one chi square and at least one ANOVA?
		3. Did you mention all of the IVs and the DV by name when talking about your analysis?
		4. Did you include means and standard deviations within parentheses for each level of your independent variable?
		5. If your ANOVA was significant, did you include post hoc tests?
		6. Did you italicize the letters F, t, p, M, SD, and X2 (where appropriate)?
		7. Did you round ALL numbers to two decimal places (with the exception of the p value, which can go as low as p < .001 or p = .001).
Discussion Section Study One (This section is identical to Paper II – Discussion Study One)
Yes	No
		1. Do you have the word “Discussion” centered and in bold, immediately following the results section?
		2. Did you remind your reader of your hypothesis?
		3. Did you mention whether you supported or did not support your hypothesis?
Literature Review Study Two (This section is completely new)
Yes	No	Title for the literature review
		1. Do you have some title that denotes the start of study two (e.g. something as simple as “Study Two” is okay, though you can also have something that is descriptive of your new independent variable)?
		2. Is this title centered?
		3. Does your literature review start immediately after the study one discussion (there should be no page break unless it occurs naturally)
	Main body of the literature review
		1. Does your new literature review start broadly with your second IV, giving a brief overview of what it entails?
		2. Does your literature review start to narrow down toward your study two hypotheses?
		3. Do your paragraphs transition from one to the next? (That is, avoid simply listing studies you read. Tie them together. How does Study A in paragraph A relate to Study B in paragraph B?)
		4. Do you tie in your new IV with your original study one IV, showing how they might interact?
		5. Does your paper end in your study two hypotheses? (More specifically, you should have a hypothesis for your main dependent variables).
	Citations for the literature review
		1. Did you cite an additional 5 references (three of which MUST be peer-reviewed resources)? Note that you can give a lot of detail for some references but only a sentence or two for others. How much detail you go into depends on how important the article is in helping your support your hypotheses.
		1.a If NO, do your citations between the study one and study two literature reviews add up to ten or more references? If yes, you are good here!
		2. Are your citations in APA format (That is, ONLY the last name of the author(s) and date of publication)? a. Note that you do NOT include first names, initials, or the title of the article the authors wrote when citing. That information belongs in the references pages only. b. Also note that you only use an ampersand – the & symbol – when it occurs within parentheses. In other instances, use the word “and”
		3. If you quoted, did you provide a page number for the direct quote?
		4. If you paraphrased in any way, did you cite the source of that information?
		5. Did you cite everything that sounded like it was factual information?
		6. Did you make sure the period follows the citation rather than coming before it?

 

References Page (This section is similar to Paper I, but with 10 references)
Yes	No	Title for the references page
		1. Do references start on their own page?
		2. Is the word “References” centered?
	References – Make sure these are in APA format!
		1. Are references listed in alphabetical order (starting with the last name of the first author listed) for all 10 articles you referenced?
		2. Are all citations from the literature review referenced?
		3. Is the first line of the reference flush left while subsequent lines are indented (Note: Use the ruler function for this. DO NOT simply tab)?
		4. Did you use the “&” symbol when listing more than one author name?
		5. Did you include the date of publication
		6. For article references, is the article title (which is not italicized) with only the first word and proper names starting with a capital letter?
		7. For article references, is the name of the journal present with all major words starting with a capital letter (and this journal title is italicized)?
		8. For article references, is the volume number italicized
		9. For article references, are the page numbers present (not italicized)
		10. For article references, is the DOI present

 

 

Appendix Section – Study One (Similar to Paper II)
Yes	No
		1. Do you have the word “Appendix” centered on each Appendix page, followed by a description of the appendix content, immediately following the results section?
		2. In Appendix A (Demographics), do you have SPSS tables for gender, ethnicity, and age? (Note: Age might be in a general “statistics” table, but you should have specific frequency tables for both gender and ethnicity)
		3. In Appendix B (Chi Square), do you have the crosstabs table (with percentages) plus the chi square test (with Pearson)?
		4. In Appendix C (ANOVA), do you have the descriptives table, the ANOVA table, and the post hoc table for your first dependent variable?
		5. In Appendix D (ANOVA or t-Test), do you have the descriptives table, ANOVA (or t-Test) table, and post hoc table (for the ANOVA) for your second dependent variable?
		6. Do the analyses in Appendix C and D focus on DIFFERENT dependent variables? (Make sure you answer YES on this one!)
		7. Do the appendices come AFTER the references?

 

 

Writing Quality
Yes	No	1. Did you proofread your paper, go to the writing center, go to the research methods help center, or use the Pearson writer to make sure your paper flows well?
		2. Did you use the past tense (which is recommended, since your papers in this class will reflect work you already did rather than work you will do)?
		3. Did you use a scientific / objective terms like “people”, “participants”. “users”, “readers”, etc. (as opposed to subjective words like “you”, “we”, “me”, “I”, or “us”, etc.)?

Please no plagiarism and make sure you are able to access all resource on your own before you bid. Main references come from Van Wormer, K., & Davis, D. R. (2018) and/or American Psychiatric Association. (2013). You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation regarding treatment. APA format also requires headings. Use the prompt each week to guide your heading titles and orga

Discussion Posting and Response Rubric

	Exemplary	Proficient	Progressing	Emerging
Element (1): Responsiveness: Did the student respond to the main question of the week? 10 points (28%)	Posts exceed requirements of the discussion instructions (e.g., respond to the question being asked; go beyond what is required (i.e., incorporates additional readings outside of the assigned learning resources, and/or shares relevant professional experiences); are substantive, reflective, and refers to learning resources demonstrating that the student has considered the information in learning resources and colleague postings). 10 points	Posts are responsive to and meet the requirements of the discussion instructions. Posts respond to the question being asked in a substantive, reflective way and refer to learning resources demonstrating that the student has read, viewed, and considered the learning resources and colleague postings. 8–9 points	Posts are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the discussion instructions. Posts are not substantive and rely more on anecdotal evidence (i.e., largely comprised of student opinion); and/or does not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered learning resources and colleague postings. 5–7 points	Posts are unresponsive to the requirements of the discussion instructions; miss the point of the question by providing responses that are not substantive and/or solely anecdotal (i.e., comprised of only student opinion); and do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered learning resources and colleague postings. 0–4 points
Element (2): Critical Thinking, Analysis, and Synthesis: Is the student able to make meaning of the information? 10 points (28%)	Posts demonstrate the student’s ability to apply, reflect, AND synthesize concepts and issues presented in the weekly learning objectives. Student has integrated and mastered the general principles, ideas, and skills presented. Reflections include clear and direct correlation to authentic examples or are drawn from professional experience; insights demonstrate significant changes in awareness, self-understanding, and knowledge. 10 points	Posts demonstrate the student’s ability to apply, reflect OR synthesize concepts and issues presented in the weekly learning objectives. The student has integrated many of the general principles, ideas, and skills presented. Reflections include clear and direct correlation to authentic examples or are drawn from professional experience, share insights that demonstrate a change in awareness, self- understanding, and knowledge. 8–9 points	Posts demonstrate minimal ability to apply, reflect, or synthesize concepts and issues presented in the weekly learning objectives. The student has not fully integrated the general principles, ideas, and skills presented. There are little to no salient reflections, examples, or insights/experiences provided. 5–7 points	Posts demonstrate a lack of ability to apply, reflect, or synthesize concepts and issues presented in the weekly learning objectives. The student has not integrated the general principles, ideas, and skills presented. There are no reflections, examples, or insights/experiences provided. 0–4 points
Element (3): Professionalism of Writing: Does the student meet graduate level writing expectations? 6 points (16%)	Posts meet graduate-level writing expectations (e.g., are clear, concise, and use appropriate language; make few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; provide information about sources when paraphrasing or referring to it; use a preponderance of original language and directly quote only when necessary or appropriate). Postings are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 6 points	Posts meet most graduate-level writing expectations (e.g., are clear; make only a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; provide adequate information about a source when paraphrasing or referring to it; use original language wherever possible and directly quote only when necessary and/or appropriate). Postings are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 4–5 points	Posts partially meet graduate-level writing expectation (e.g., use language that is unclear/inappropriate; make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; provide inadequate information about a source when paraphrasing or referring to it; under-use original language and over-use direct quotes). Postings are at times less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 2–3 points	Posts do not meet graduate-level writing expectations (e.g., use unclear/inappropriate language; make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; do not provide information about a source when paraphrasing or referring to it; directly quote from original source materials or consistently paraphrase rather than use original language; or are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints). 0–1 points
Element (4): Responses to Peers: Did the student respond to peer posts and contribute professionally? 10 points (28%)	Responds to two or more peers in a manner that significantly contributes to the discussion. 10 points	Responds to one or more peers in a manner that significantly contributes to the discussion. 8–9 points	Responds to one or more peers in a manner that minimally contributes to the discussion. 5–7 points	Does not respond to any peer posts. 0–4 points
	36 points 100%	28–32 points 78–89%	17–24 points 47–67%	0–13 points 0–36%

nize the content of your initial post under the appropriate headings. Remember to use scholarly research from peer-reviewed articles that is current. I have also attached my discussion rubric so you can see how to make full points. Please follow the instructions to get full credit for the discussion. I need this completed by 04/25/19 at 4pm.

Discussion – Week 9

Top of Form

Family Influences and Dynamics

While there is no single definition of “family,” most counselors will work with client families that fit—clearly or loosely—into one of three categories: traditional, extended, or chosen. Regardless of the family structure or description, all family types share a common trait: Members are bound by enduring psychological ties to each other. Counselors should consider a client’s “family” to be anyone who fits that description, and is an integral part of the “inner circle” of a client’s life. These would include both past and present family members.

Over time, families develop patterns of behaviors, interactions, and communication among members, often accompanied by general “roles” each individual adopts in the system. Understanding how a system functions and the roles of members is paramount to effective addiction treatment, and to facilitating the process of change. While availability of families to participate in addiction recovery is not always an option, it is helpful to understand the client within the context of his or her family system, the past and present adaptations in the system, and the system’s overall readiness for change.

In this Discussion, you will analyze some of the key impacts of family systems roles and dynamics on the development and treatment of addiction, as well as the unique ethical and legal considerations that arise in working with families in treatment.

Post by Day 4 a description of two ways that family roles and dynamics interact with addiction. Then, identify at least one unique characteristic within families of clients with addiction problems. Lastly, describe one ethical or legal concern related to counseling families with addiction diagnoses. Include specific examples to illustrate your points.

Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.

Bottom of Form

Required Resources

• Van      Wormer, K., & Davis, D. R. (2018). Addiction treatment: A      strengths perspective (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.
  • Chapter       10, “Family Risks and Resiliencies” (pp. 391-430)
• Epstein,      M., Hill, K. G., Bailey, J. A., & Hawkins, J. D. (2013). The effect of      general and drug-specific family environments on comorbid and      drug-specific problem behavior: A longitudinal examination. Developmental      Psychology, 49(6), 1151–1164.
  Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
• Jang,      M. H., & Ji, E. S. (2012). Gender differences in associations between      parental problem drinking and early adolescents’ internet addiction. Journal      for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 17(4), 288–300.
  Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
• Klosterman,      K., Kelley, M. L., Mignone, T., Pusateri, L., & Wills, K. (2011).      Behavioral couples therapy for substance abusers: Where do we go from      here? Substance Abuse & Misuse, 46(12), 1502–1509.
  Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
• Vernig,      P. M. (2011). Family roles in homes with alcohol-dependent parents: An      evidence-based review. Substance Use & Misuse, 46(4),      535–542.