Lab Psychology homework help

Using the attached documents, please answer the questions below:

Participants: (not a full section, just the demongraphics)

Using the information provided in the overview, describe the source and size of the original sample.  From the output, provide descriptive statistics for age (mean, sd, n) by gender and risk status for the sample used for the analyses.

Data Analysis:

Describe the program used (SPSS) and the types of analyses (independent and dependent samples t tests).

Results: (multiple paragraphs)

State the hypotheses that were tested, the results, and the findings in publication format.  Review publication format for these analyses.  The results in your output may not be the same as described here.

For example: “To confirm the premise that children selected for playgroup have more challenges and lower levels of protective factors and skills, independent samples t tests (two-tailed, α=.05) were used to compare the ratings of ‘at risk’ children with those ‘not at risk’.  As expected, a significant difference at baseline between these two groups were found for teacher ratings of initiative, self-control, attachment, play interaction, behavioral concerns, and play disconnection….Contrary to expectations, baseline play disruption did not differ between at risk and not at risk children.” 

Make sure to respond to all three sets of hypotheses.

Interpretation/Discussion

Summarize the findings by consideration of all the results in the larger context of the study.  For example, you might start (if this is true in the output provided): “In considering these analyses from the 3rd year of the project, it can be seen that most of the research questions have been answered in the affirmative:  Overall, at risk children showed lower average fall ratings by their teachers in protective factors than their not at risk peers. In addition, they were rated as having higher levels of behavioral concerns and play disconnection, but not of play disruption.” Etc.

Lab 1 – Results and Interpretation

Introduction

In a proposal, we write our Method section in the future tense. We usually describe the data analysis plan we have for testing our research hypotheses. This includes the statistical procedures we plan to use. This is also included in a research article, sometimes at the end of the Method section, sometimes in the Results section. In a research article, the Method and Results are written in the past tense.

Learning Objectives

This lab serves as both a review of statistical methods and as practice in writing sections of research articles. This includes

· Description of the study participants – this usually appears in the Participants subsection of the Method section

· Results section, including a description of the data analysis used in the study

· Interpretation of the results in the context of the hypotheses tested – this would typically appear near the beginning of the Discussion section

Materials and Approach

For this assignment, you are provided with the overall description of the study and methods used. Most of you took Statistical Methods with me last semester or earlier in 2021, and so you will recognize the data and possibly remember some of the details of the study provided in the lab assignments. You will have a set of SPSS outputs to review. You will use these findings to address a set of research hypotheses.

This data comes from a program evaluation (details below). A program evaluation differs from a research study in that the data being collected and analyzed is designed to provide information about the process and outcomes of the program being evaluated rather than to test a narrow set of research hypotheses. There may be limitations in the way the data is gathered and what is gathered from whom. Results may be provided in institutional reports and presentations and used for further program development. During this project, data that was collected to meet the federal requirements of Head Start programs was also made available, with permission, to be used to supplement the data collected more specifically for the evaluation.

The Study and Program Evaluation

This data was collected as part of a collaboration between the NYC Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Jewish Board for Family and Children’s Services (JBFCS) to assess the introduction of a mental health intervention for preschool children attending several NYC Head Start programs. The intervention, called Early Childhood Group Therapy, was developed by the late Rebecca Shahmoon Shanok, PhD, at the Child Development Center of JBFCS. She was the director of the training program for early childhood professionals across multiple discipines to lead and facilitate these playgroups. In addition to providing the playgroups at the Head Start centers, the project also trained Head Start staff (several teachers, family workers, and disabilities coordinators) alongside the usual trainees in this program and provided weekly onsite clincial coordination with teachers and other staff. Program evaluation was engaged to gather both quantitative and qualitative data related to not only child behavior, but also to observe the effects of the presence of the project, staff training, and JBFCS clinical coordinators on the ongoing experience of Head Start staff overall, and on the families served by this program.

These are basic premises of the demonstration project (which was called Relationships for Growth during the duration of the project):

· There are social-emotional needs within the population of Head Start children which are not always getting addressed by the mental health community due to, at least in part, a variety of barriers to treatment. The availability of an early childhood intervention during the school day for children identified as ‘at risk’ would be beneficial.

· ‘At risk’ is defined as not being able to take full advantage of the Head Start preschool experience due to psychosocial-emotional-developmental challenges.

· These challenges are identified by observation in the classroom, elsewhere at the Head Start program, and at home by teachers, parents, family workers, JBFCS clinical coordinators, playgroup leaders and those in training, and anyone else who has the opportunity to interact or observe the child.

· ‘At risk’ is not identified via the program evaluation measures (PIPPS and DECA)

· ‘At risk’ children are not formally categorized by DSM diagnostic criteria for therapeutic purposes

· This demonstration project was approved by the parent committee at the Head Starts involved.

· For the purpose of program evaluation, the measures used to assess baseline protective factors (relationship and behavioral skills and strengths) and behavioral challeges (disruptive and disconnecting behavior and a range of other behavioral concerns) are the PIPPS and the DECA.

· The overarching premise of the project is that strengthening protective factors and interaction skills will be associated over time with a reduction to typical levels of behavioral concerns among all children at Head Start, with a special emphasis on those receiving the playgroup intervention.

Research Questions

1. Are baseline (Fall) ratings of children selected for the playgroup intervention (‘at risk’) lower in protective factors and skills and higher in behavioral challenges than those not selected (‘not at risk’)?

2. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have lower challenge ratings (BC, DISR, DISC) in the spring than in the fall?

3. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have higher protector factors and skills ratings (PINT, IN, AT, SC) in the spring than in the fall?

Data

The data set used to prepate this assignment is a sample of Head Start children who participated in the demonstration project at one of three NYC Head Starts in the 3rd year of the project. The full sample for that year included 626 children, 87 of whom received the playgroup intervention. Children selected for the playgroup intervention were identified as ‘at-risk’ of not sufficiently benefiting from the preschool program at their Head Start after observations by parents, teachers, family workers, and other staff. One of the research questions was whether children who were ‘at-risk’ would show substantial gains in social-emotional development after participation in the playgroup intervention.
The data presented here may or may not be representative of data we obtained during this multi-year project.

There are seven social-emotional variables, each of which was rated for each child in the fall and spring by teacher observation of classroom behavior. Additional variables include SEX and AGE and GROUP (whether the child received the intervention or not).

Higher scores on each variable indicate more frequent observation of the characteristics being rated. For example, a high score on Self-Control indicates that the child frequently showed self-control in situations where it would be appropriate. A high score on Play Disruption indicates that the child engaged in disruptive behavior in situations where this behavior would interfere with continued engagement in play activities with other children.

The rating scales were the DECA (Devereux Early Childhood Assessment) and the PIPPS (Penn Interactive Peer Play Scale). Copies of these measures are provided in with the Lab 2 materials in Canvas. Characteristics printed in green are protective factors and skills; characteristics in orange are behavioral challenges.

Teachers (T1) and parents (P1) provided baseline ratings about two months after the start of the school year (prior to the start of the playgroup intervention. Followup ratings with the same measures were also collected about a month before the end of the school year, T3 and P2 respectively.

DECA Variables – Teacher Ratings

· IN_T1 , IN_T3: Initiative

· SC_T1, SC_T3: Self-Control

· AT_T1, AT_T3: Attachment

· BC_T1, BC_T3: Behavioral Concerns

PIPPS Variables – Teacher Ratings

· DISR_T1, DISR_T3: Play Disruption

· DISC_T1, DISC_T3: Play Disconnection

· PINT_T1, PINT_T3: Play Interaction

DECA Variables – Parent Ratings

· IN_P1 , IN_P2: Initiative

· SC_P1, SC_P2: Self-Control

· AT_P1, AT_P2: Attachment

· BC_P1, BC_P2: Behavioral Concerns

PIPPS Variables – Parent Ratings

· DISR_P1, DISR_P2: Play Disruption

· DISC_P1, DISC_P2: Play Disconnection

· PINT_P1, PINT_P2: Play Interaction

Assignment:

The major purpose of this assignment is to write about the statistical findings in a professional way. You may use parent or teacher ratings in your write-up. Using the output provided, address the hypotheses stated in the Research Questions:

1. Are baseline (Fall) ratings of children selected for the playgroup intervention (‘at risk’) lower in protective factors and skills and higher in behavioral challenges than those not selected (‘not at risk’)?

2. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have lower challenge ratings (BC, DISR, DISC) in the spring than in the fall?

3. Do children who received the playgroup intervention have higher protector factors and skills ratings (PINT, IN, AT, SC) in the spring than in the fall?

Your write-up will include four sections, written in paragraph form.

1. Participants: (not a full section, just the demongraphics)

Using the information provided in the overview, describe the source and size of the original sample. From the output, provide descriptive statistics for age (mean, sd, n) by gender and risk status for the sample used for the analyses.

2. Data Analysis:

Describe the program used (SPSS) and the types of analyses (independent and dependent samples t tests).

3. Results: (multiple paragraphs)

State the hypotheses that were tested, the results, and the findings in publication format. Review publication format for these analyses. The results in your output may not be the same as described here.

For example: “To confirm the premise that children selected for playgroup have more challenges and lower levels of protective factors and skills, independent samples t tests (two-tailed, α=.05) were used to compare the ratings of ‘at risk’ children with those ‘not at risk’. As expected, a significant difference at baseline between these two groups were found for teacher ratings of initiative, self-control, attachment, play interaction, behavioral concerns, and play disconnection….Contrary to expectations, baseline play disruption did not differ between at risk and not at risk children.”

Make sure to respond to all three sets of hypotheses.

4. Interpretation/Discussion

Summarize the findings by consideration of all the results in the larger context of the study. For example, you might start (if this is true in the output provided): “In considering these analyses from the 3rd year of the project, it can be seen that most of the research questions have been answered in the affirmative: Overall, at risk children showed lower average fall ratings by their teachers in protective factors than their not at risk peers. In addition, they were rated as having higher levels of behavioral concerns and play disconnection, but not of play disruption.” Etc.

Looking for this or a Similar Assignment? Click below to Place your Order