What Is The Diagnosis For Kristopher

/in /by

The Case of Kristopher

Kristopher is a 14-year-old boy who was recently accused by a female classmate of forcing her to have sex with him. He claimed that she agreed to have sex with him and then became angry because he went out with other girls. Kristopher is known as a bully and often fights with other students. He was removed from his biological mother’s home when he was 4-years-old because she was unresponsive when he was repeatedly abused by her boyfriend. Kristopher was adopted by his current parents when he was 7-years-old after he had lived in a series of foster homes. He was a known charmer. Despite his charm, however, he had difficulty controlling his temper and seemed to take pleasure in being cruel to other children and animals.

During the next few years, Kristopher’s adoptive parents tried to help him. They worked with the school to help him control his temper and provided him with therapy. However, his behavior became increasingly difficult to manage. He frequently lied and sometimes stole money from his mother. He began to spend time with other adolescents who were known to use drugs. His school performance, which had never been satisfactory, deteriorated even further. Soon after he was accused of the sexual assault, he ran away from home but was caught by police and arrested.

Ethical Consultation

/in /by

Case Study: Ethical Consultation

A local shelter that receives funding from the National Institute of Health and Mental Health is upgrading its website. Along with several upgrades to the website, the web developer/consultant makes a suggestion that the shelter add a testimonial page where local citizens can describe their positive interactions with the shelter and its services. Since the web developer/consultant want to get that page up and running first, the developer suggests using some positive ratings and responses from Angie’s List® and other similar ratings sites that already have positive stories and experiences with the shelter.

The director of the shelter loves the idea of a testimonial page. She thinks it would really add to the community feel of the shelter. However, knowing her funding source, she researches the APA Ethics Code and believes the shelter would be acting inappropriately. To discuss the matter in further detail, the director of the shelter calls you for an ethics consult.

In 500-750 words, explain the advice you would give:

  1. Describe the ethical issues involved in this situation.
  2. Discuss any other concerns about the web developer/consultant’s strategies.
  3. Explain some recommendations that you would make to the shelter.

Use two to three scholarly sources to support your claims.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Assignment adapted from: http://www.ethicalpsychology.com/2012/06/vignette-14-psychology-of-advertizing.html

Religion Paper 3

/in /by

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.)?

Where do you want to go professionally, and how will you leverage your Walden experience to become this person?

/in /by

You have already identified many resources in your network—in this class and outside the university—and within the wider Walden community. Support is best used when you know what you need; it is hard to get support in building a ladder if you do not know what a ladder looks like.

If you have an idea of what a ladder looks like, you can ask for rungs and nails and a hammer. Think of the resources offered by Walden as the rungs and nails for your ladder, but you are the one who must design the ladder. A PDP allows you to design your ladder and identify which supports you need to build it.

Remember that you must help your classmates and colleagues along the way with their ladders too. Think of what you need to give, as well as what you will need to receive, in terms of support and help.

A PDP explains how you, individually, came to the decision to begin your graduate studies, what you envision for yourself and others when you complete the degree, and what objectives or steps you need to define in order to realize your dream and become your previously envisioned “future self.” You will refer to your PDP when you want to check your progress or re-evaluate your goals. It should be motivating and related to the mission of Walden, your mission, and the community of your colleagues. Remember, we are all in this together.

PowerPoint presentations will be used in many of your courses at Walden. This Assignment will also provide an opportunity for you to become familiar with, or become a more advanced user of, PowerPoint as a communication tool.

NOTE: You are strongly encouraged to submit this Assignment as a PowerPoint presentation, but if you are having difficulty with the software, you may submit it as a Word document with sufficient notes to explain each “slide.” Please feel free to contact your Instructor if you need any support with this Assignment.

To prepare for this Project:

Prepare a PowerPoint presentation of your PDP using no more than 6–8 slides.

The PDP should incorporate elements within your specific Program Tab and must address the following:

  1. Where have you been in your life personally and professionally that has brought you to this point?
  2. What is your motivation in choosing this career; why did you choose this profession and aspiration?
  3. How do your personal and professional community factor in to the realization of your aspirations—what support mechanisms do you have in place to help you meet your goals?
  4. What are the things you foresee that might get in the way of your plan, and how will you overcome them as well as help others overcome theirs?
  5. Share about your future self. Where do you want to go professionally, and how will you leverage your Walden experience to become this person? What is the best advice you would give yourself now from the point of success when you finish?

Make use of the Notes section within PowerPoint to provide the details of your presentation.

Your presentation should be explicit in its detail about what you plan to do at Walden to meet your personal and professional goals.