Discussion Assignments | Online Homework Help
RESPOND TO STUDENTS POSTS Using critical thinking skills, what questions might you ask the learners about their chosen articles? What information might you need to decide if their articles are valid and reliable? Your responses are expected to be substantive in nature and should reference the assigned readings or other professional literature, as applicable, to support your views.
The article I have chosen is structural neuroimaging and the antisocial brain. A series of neuroimaging studies have reported structural differences in several subcortical and frontal systems in individuals with stable antisocial behavior. Specifically, differences have been observed in the prefrontal and temporal cortices. However, the sASB population is typically characterized by co-occurring hyperactivity– inattention symptoms and low cognitive ability (Campbell & Kenny, 1999; Meehl, 1970) . These nuisance variables are likely to complicate the interpretation of findings regarding structural differences associated with sASB. The way in which each study deals with these variables influences the conclusions that can be drawn about the brain structure and function of children and adults with sASB. This article briefly reviews the extant literature in this field before considering two approaches that may be used to deal with comorbidities conceptualized as nuisance variables namely, the analysis of covariance and the matched-group design. Then, the authors illustrate, with their own data, checks that may be performed to ensure the validity of results using ANCOVA. Matched group design was used. The key limitations of the matched-group design include the following: systematic unmatching, unrepresentative subpopulation problem, causal arrow ambiguity, and regression to the mean (Campbell & Kenny, 1999; Meehl, 1970).
Dissecting the Point:
Understanding the dynamics within same sex and heterosexual households is by far a great foundation for the examination of how current social norms affect childhood development. Bos et. al. (2018) statistical approach to outlining the different perspectives and confidences on child rearing, child wellness (psychological) and parental stress compared and contrasted three groups of parental structures as they relate to gender norms and family structure. Because of the unbiased approach applied to representing and measurement of these interests, Bos et. al. (2018) is able to equally represent each group and provides rationales, not based on group acceptance but rather, based on controlled variables tailored to provide the most accurate comparison of the varying participants. John Ruscio (2006) explores the limitations behind the usage of various approaches and the bias needs behind the neglect of viable reasoning in this week’s readings. The study’s controlled requirements helped to balance representation and streamlined the data collection process as to not overly represent one group’s results verses another.
Bos et. al. (2018) actually denote the only viable limitation to this study being the availability of research and details behind a finding in Sullins’ study stating children from same sex households are more emotionally unstable. Despite the consistencies in other surveys, statistics and findings, Bos et. al. wanted to ensure that the impact of family transitions was not included as a variable concern to negate any negative results arising from separation, abandonment or adoption. Given their importance to the measurement of psychological wellness, only families directly related by birth were utilized with some questions and responses only being taken from the blood relative*. Dynamic and functionality questions were inquired from all participants but to minimize any biases the controlled variable of relation helped to remove the probability of added experience and varied perception when diagnosing the family structures.
The findings can be generalized to the public but would require structure for testing. The Netherlands was an ideal test market given the availability of test groups and size. On a national scale, the amount of census needed to divide and categorize test groups is exponential when certain variables require control. Bos et. al. testing clarifies the importance and impact of particular variables and how they can change the perspective, biases and results of a sample if unchecked (2018). Concerns such as family transition can come in the form or breakups, adoptions or other phases of change and must be accounted for during sampling to ensure each group is equally represented in the deductions made towards the hypothesis (Bos et.al., 2018). Development of a better survey platform could also support in depth comparison to why and where differences arise (Bos et.al, 2018)
Conclusion and Results
The conclusions are based on the reported results as they represent and give possible reasoning behind correlations. Fathers in same sex and mothers in different sex couples both displayed similar results. Bos et. al. denoted the relation between structure and role to further associate his findings (2018). Each group was identified and r were offered as to possible catalysts for their apprehensions.The measurements used are dissected for understanding and can be found listed in a comparable manner. All conclusions listed were approximated results of the survey and testing conducted. Although prior research by various surveys (many used in the U.S for census purpose as well) were the prerequisites for this study, they were only used to understand possible uncontrolled variables that may affect the accuracy of the test method’s results (Bos et.al., 2018).
Respond to Richild post and comment on her plans to practice self-reflection. Your responses are expected to be substantive in nature and should reference the assigned readings or other professional literature, as applicable, to support your views.
I chose the kolb’s reflective learning cycle. I think this best fits me because This model tells us that learning involves the acquisition of concepts, which we then apply to a variety of different situations, and that new experiences allow us to learn new concepts. Kolb (1984) says himself that learning is a process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation (reflection) of experience. I believe it is of the utmost importance to teach concepts and principles and then allow our athletes to learn to apply them to differing contexts, this a view shared by American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman, who was quoted as saying “teach principles not formulas”. Feynman was coined “The Great Explainer” and his work on teaching and understanding is very, very useful for coaches.
When responding to your peers’ posts, consider the following: Is their reasoning clear? Does it make sense to you? Where might there similarly be room for interpretation in your own post, and how might you clarify?
The news article I chose to further study throughout this course is about how a Hydrogel was created to help repair heart ventricles in people that have been through heart attacks. Going through a heart attack creates a lot of stress on the heart as well as tissue damage, which ultimately in time, slows down overall function of the heart. This Hydrogel is called VentriGel, which is manmade from heart tissue of pigs. It is then taken and turned into powdered form then liquidized down in order to make it easier to inject directly into the damaged heart ventricle via catheter. The overall idea in creating this gel is that it is minimally invasive, and causes less stress on the heart than an actual surgery to repair and remove scar tissue after a heart attack. The gel acts as a healing agent once it reaches body temperature after the injection is hardens creating a scaffold in the damaged ventricle, allowing for healthy cells to grow and repair damage from the heart attack.
I chose this article because in today’s time heart attacks are a leading cause of death in the United States, if something so simple as a gel could help lower the amount of people affected then I think that is pretty amazing. I was intrigued because it seems like such an easy “fix” and much better alternative than an actual surgery. This article also got me thinking about if this VentriGel can fix a damaged heart ventricle, what else in the body could this eventually be used for instead of someone undergoing surgery?
Basically this article is about taking what your body naturally produces to remodel the microbiome in your stomach. So we have good bacteria and bad bacteria in our stomach. The good bacteria is what helps fight off certain diseases such as inflammation cholesterol which can lead to plaque in your arteries. So they are going to take the peptides which is protein to remodel these microbiomes. Our DNA has a sequence that makes proteins or peptides that they are going to use to change. So they grew a mouse’s microbiome and used different peptides that the mouse’s DNA produced to see if they could remodel there microbiome to have bacteria that could help fight off certain diseases.
When they did this experiment they found out that inflammation went away, and that there was a big reduction in the plaque in the mouse’s arteries. This was a success in how we can use this to fight off certain diseases in our bodies instead of using pills. They figured out that we can use what our body naturally produces to help fight these diseases off. This story made me curious because we look so much to medicine to help us when we are sick or have a disease. When the answer could be in us literally to help with all theses diseases that are deadly. Just think is the cure for cancer does not lie within radiation or chemotherapy, but within what our body is already producing and we just have not researched it deep enough to find the answer. I am a big fan of not taking pills because there are always risks involved in doing that. What happens in one pill has a reaction with another pill you take nobody knows for sure if that will happen or not. Another thing is what if one person has a DNA sequence that is the answer for a cure to diseases. This type of research could save a lot of lives instead of a doctor giving some a week, month, or a couple of years to live they can give them a cure that is produced within there own bodies.