Discuss the assumptions of the statistical test used in the journal article.

Unit9Assign1

Journal Article Summary

For this assignment, you will identify a published research article either in the print literature or online in the Capella Library. Your article must be based on empirical (data-based) research; qualitative or purely descriptive research is not appropriate. Select a journal article in your career specialization that reports a correlation, a t test, a one-way ANOVA, or some combination of these test statistics. The library guides listed in the Resources area can help you to locate appropriate articles.

The intent of this assignment is to:

• Expose you to professional literature in your discipline.
• Provide practice in the interpretation of statistical results contained in an empirical (data-based) journal article.
• Provide practice in writing and thinking in a concise and economical manner that is typical of scientific discourse.

You will summarize the article in a maximum of 600 words using the DAA Template located in the Resources area. Specific instructions for completing each section of the DAA Template are listed below.

You may use some of the author’s own words to summarize the article with proper citation, but avoid lengthy direct quotes (such as copying multiple sentences or paragraphs verbatim). You should not exceed the limit of 600 words. This is a situation where less is better.

Step 1: Write Section 1 of the DAA.

• Provide a brief summary of the journal article.
• Include a definition of the specified variables (predictor, outcome) and corresponding scales of measurement (nominal, continuous).
• Specify the sample size of the data set.
• Discuss why the journal article is relevant to your career specialization.

Step 2: Write Section 2 of the DAA.

• Discuss the assumptions of the statistical test used in the journal article.
  • If possible, identify information in the article about how these assumptions were tested.
  • If no information on assumptions is provided, consider this as a limitation of the reported study.

Step 3: Write Section 3 of the DAA.

• Specify the research question from the journal article.
• Articulate the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis.

Step 4: Write Section 4 of the DAA.

• Report the results of the statistical test using proper APA guidelines. This includes:
  • The statistical notation (such as r, t, or F).
  • The degrees of freedom.
  • The statistical value of r, t, or F, and the p value.
• Report the effect size and interpretation if one is provided.
• Interpret the test statistic with regard to the null hypothesis.

Step 5: Write Section 5 of the DAA.

• Discuss the conclusions of the statistical test as it relates to the research question.
• Conclude with an analysis of the strengths and limitations of the study reported in the journal article.

Submit your DAA Template as an attached Word document in the assignment area.

Resources

• Journal Article Summary Scoring Guide.
• DAA Template.
• Capella Library – Finding Articles by Type: Empirical Research.
• Capella Library – Research Guide: Psychology.

APA Style and Format.

The influences of delay and severity of intellectual disability on event memory in children.

Authors:

Brown, Deirdre A.. Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England, Deirdre.Brown@vuw.ac.nz

Lewis, Charlie N.. Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England

Lamb, Michael E.. Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England

Stephens, Emma. Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England

Address:

Brown, Deirdre A., School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand, 6012, Deirdre.Brown@vuw.ac.nz

Source:

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 80(5), Oct, 2012. pp. 829-841.

NLM Title Abbreviation:

J Consult Clin Psychol

Publisher:

US : American Psychological Association

Other Journal Titles:

Journal of Consulting Psychology

Other Publishers:

US : American Association for Applied Psychology

US : Dentan Printing Company

US : Science Press Printing Company

ISSN:

0022-006X (Print)

1939-2117 (Electronic)

Language:

English

Keywords:

developmental delay, eyewitness testimony, forensic interviews, intellectual disabilities, suggestibility, event memory

Abstract:

Objective: To examine the ability of children with intellectual disabilities to give reliable accounts of personally experienced events, considering the effects of delay, severity of disability, and the types of interview prompt used. Method: In a between-subjects design, we compared children with intellectual disabilities (7–12 years) that fell in either the mild–borderline range (n = 46) or the moderate range (n = 35) and typically developing children matched for either chronological age (7–12 years; n = 60) or mental age (4–9 years; n = 65) with respect to memories of an interactive event about which they were interviewed after either a short (1-week) or long (6-month) delay. Children were interviewed using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol (Lamb, Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Esplin, 2008) to elicit their recall of the event and were then asked a series of highly suggestive questions to allow both their reliability and suggestibility to be examined. Results: The children with mild intellectual disabilities were as able as their mental age matches, whereas children with more severe cognitive impairments were qualitatively different across the various competencies examined. However, even children with more severe impairments were highly accurate in this supportive interview context. Conclusions: The findings indicate that children with intellectual disabilities can be valuable informants when forensically interviewed and can provide clear guidance about the ways in which they should be interviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Document Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

*Delayed Development; *Legal Testimony; *Memory; *Witnesses; *Intellectual Development Disorder; Experiences (Events); Interviews; Suggestibility

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):

Child; Child Development; Cues; Female; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Male; Mental Recall; Reproducibility of Results; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors

PsycINFO Classification:

Mental Retardation (3256)

Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues (4200)

Population:

Human

Male

Female

Age Group:

Childhood (birth-12 yrs)

School Age (6-12 yrs)

Tests & Measures:

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Third Edition, U.K. Version

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third Edition, U.K. Version

NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol

Grant Sponsorship:

Sponsor: Economic and Social Research Council

Grant Number: UK RES-000-23-0949

Recipients: Lewis, Charlie N.; Brown, Deirdre A.; Lamb, Michael E.

 

Sponsor: Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, New Zealand

Grant Number: LANC0201

Recipients: Brown, Deirdre A.

Methodology:

Empirical Study; Quantitative Study

Format Covered:

Electronic

Publication Type:

Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal

Publication History:

First Posted: Jul 16, 2012; Accepted: May 29, 2012; Revised: May 18, 2012; First Submitted: Nov 2, 2010

Release Date:

20120716

Correction Date:

20120924

Copyright:

American Psychological Association. 2012

Digital Object Identifier:

http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1037/a0029388

PMID:

22799269

PsycARTICLES Identifier:

ccp-80-5-829

Accession Number:

2012-18554-001

Number of Citations in Source:

97

 

The Influences of Delay and Severity of Intellectual Disability on Event Memory in Children

Contents

1. Sample

2. Event

3. Range of Competencies Under Investigation

4. Questioning Strategy

5. Delay

6. Method

7. Participants

8. Procedure

9. Results

10. Statistical Design

11. Discussion

12. Footnotes

13. References

Listen American Accent Australian Accent British Accent

By: Deirdre A. Brown

Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England;

Charlie N. Lewis

Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England

Michael E. Lamb

Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England

Emma Stephens

Psychology Department, Lancaster University

Acknowledgement: Emma Stephens is now at the School of Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.

 

This research was supported by Economic and Social Research Council Grant UK RES-000-23-0949 to Charlie N. Lewis, Deirdre A. Brown, and Michael E. Lamb, and in part by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, New Zealand (LANC0201) to Deirdre A. Brown. We gratefully acknowledge the participation of the schools, children, and their families. We thank the numerous research assistants who staged the event, and we also thank Judith Lunn for contributions to interviewing and data processing.

The past two decades have seen the development of research-based recommendations for the conduct of forensic interviews with typically developing (TD) children who have been witness to, or victims of, crimes (Lamb, Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Esplin, 2008). Less attention has been given, however, to particular groups of vulnerable witnesses, including those with intellectual disabilities (also referred to as learning difficulties, developmental delays, developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, or mental retardation) and those with other disorders usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood, or adolescence (e.g., pervasive developmental disorders such as autism, and attention deficit and disruptive behavior disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]). Children with disabilities are a particularly vulnerable group of witnesses. They are both more likely to experience or witness abuse (Balogh et al., 2001; Crosse, Kaye, & Ratnofsky, 1993; Goldman, 1994; Hershkowitz, Lamb, & Horowitz, 2007; Randall, Parrila, & Sobsey, 2000; Reiter, Bryen, & Shachar, 2007; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996a, 1996b; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sobsey & Mansell, 1994; Sobsey, Randall, & Parrila, 1997; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998, 2000; Verdugo, Bermejo, & Fuertes, 1995; Vig & Kaminer, 2002; but see also Jaudes & Mackey-Bilaver, 2008) and yet less likely to report their abuse or to have their complaints investigated (Goldman, 1994; Reiter et al., 2007; Sharp, 2001) in a developmentally appropriate manner (Cederborg & Lamb, 2008), or have their capacities and limitations recognized in court (Cederborg & Lamb, 2006; Westcott & Jones, 1999). Thus, researchers and practitioners in a number of relevant fields (e.g., law, social services, policing, psychology) are increasingly recognizing the need for empirical research to provide an evidence base from which to (1) inform expectations of these witnesses; (2) guide the conduct of interviews that facilitate reporting without compromising reliability; and (3) develop resources, guidelines, and education for the legal system to improve access for alleged victims or witnesses who are both young and intellectually challenged.

There is a widespread perception that children with intellectual (or learning) disabilities (CWID) are even less able to provide meaningful accounts of their experiences than typically developing children (Aarons & Powell, 2003; Aldridge & Wood, 1998; Ericson, Perlman, & Isaacs, 1994; Henry, Bettenay, & Carney, 2011; Nathanson & Platt, 2005). Indeed, cognitive impairment is a central diagnostic feature of intellectual disability, and comorbid communication deficits are not uncommon. Police officers often feel they have insufficient skills, resources, and support when interviewing witnesses with intellectual disabilities, perceiving them as difficult interviewees as a result of behavioral difficulties and cognitive, communicative, and attentional limitations (Aarons & Powell, 2003; Aarons, Powell, & Browne, 2004; Milne, 1999; Sharp, 2001). Negative perceptions about the reliability and suggestibility of witnesses with intellectual disabilities appear to be widespread among police officers, legal professionals, and mock jurors (Aarons & Powell, 2003; Nathanson & Platt, 2005; Peled, Iarocci, & Connelly, 2004; Stobbs & Kebbel, 2003), meaning that cases are less likely to be investigated because successful outcomes (i.e., guilty verdicts) are deemed unlikely (Aarons & Powell, 2003; Aarons et al., 2004). Nevertheless, this group increasingly does participate in forensic interviews and court trials in a number of countries (e.g., Cederborg, Danielsson, LaRooy, & Lamb, 2009; Cederborg & Lamb, 2008; Cederborg, LaRooy, & Lamb, 2008; Connolly, personal communication, June 2011; Hanna, Davies, Henderson, Crothers, & Rotherham, 2010), despite the concerns outlined above. Indeed, 4% of the children testifying as witnesses in New Zealand recently had an intellectual disability (Hanna et al., 2010), and between August 2009 and June 2011, 215 applications were made for registered intermediaries to support child witnesses in the United Kingdom (Connolly, personal communication, 2011). Furthermore, whether a case ultimately reaches court or not, CWID are likely to be “interviewed” in a number of contexts, both informal (e.g., by parents, caregivers, or the persons they first disclosed to) and formal (e.g., child protection workers, investigators, attorneys). Thus, evidence-based information about how CWID narrate their personal experiences and the interviewing strategies that may enhance or detract from the accuracy of their accounts is sorely needed.

Even when cases involving CWID reach court, procedures and attitudes undermine their ability by seldom acknowledging or accommodating witnesses’ intellectual difficulties (Cederborg & Lamb, 2008; Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2004; O’Kelly, Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2003). Although complex, directive, and suggestive questions abound, judges tend not to intervene to reduce the potentially harmful impact of such questions on the witnesses’ reliability and