Confidence Intervals, Effect Size, and Statistical Power
When submitting this file, be sure the filename includes your full name, course and section. Example: HW8_John Doe_354B01
Be sure you have reviewed this module/weeks lesson and presentations along with the practice data analysis before proceeding to the homework exercises. Complete all analyses in SPSS, then copy and paste your output and graphs into your homework document file. Answer any written questions (such as the text-based questions or the APA Participants section) in the appropriate place within the same file.

. .

The post Complete all analyses in SPSS, then copy and paste your output and graphs into your homework document file appeared first on USA Dissertation Editors.

Select any country in the world and using an essay form of academic writing, address the following questions:

How is healthcare funded and delivered in the country?

Identify any areas in the country, or groups of people within the country, where access to healthcare is less than ideal in terms of health resources being allocated according to the principles of equity, efficiency and effectiveness.

Explain why this has occurred?

How does this country’s health care system compare with similar countries in other parts of the world?

Identify two (2) important health problems facing the country. Please supply data to support your choice of problems.

. .

The post How is healthcare funded and delivered in the country? appeared first on USA Dissertation Editors.

2. What is blanking? 3. What two zones does a typical laser scanner have? 4. Explain the term control reliability. 5. Name two differences between a safety controller and a safety relay? 6. What is a safety PLC?

. .

The post What is muting? appeared first on USA Dissertation Editors.

Human Services
discuss the advantages and potential problems associated with developing family support systems. Clients who you see in your human service settings
will usually report having some or no family support, unless they are receiving mental health or substance abuse service. Often, those who struggle with financial,
housing, and/or transportation issues do so because of dysfunctional or no family support. You can implement strategies to build strong family support ties that will
serve as a protective factor for your clients. Often, human service professionals are thrilled to incorporate family members into a client’s intervention, treatment,
or case management activities. However, there can be some ethical issues related to the inclusion of family members into a client’s plan. Select the path that relates
to your study and respond to the Discussion using that scenario.
Path 1: Child and Family Welfare
You work as a prevention specialist in an agency that provides services to adolescents (e.g., HIV testing, pregnancy testing). One of your teen clients, Rod, has
tested positive for HIV and has not discussed it with his parents yet. His mother discovered the receipt for his anonymous test results in his pants’ pocket and called
demanding to know the results.
Discuss the ethical issue presented in the scenario. What advice would you give to your client about the family member’s attempt to gain access to his/her personal
information? How would you handle the situation with the family member?
Using systems theory or other relevant theories, explain how these difficult situations could be opportunities to build family support and a strong support system for
the client. Remember that every situation presents some opportunity for growth.7
TO ORDER FOR THIS QUESTION OR A SIMILAR ONE, CLICK THE ORDER NOW BUTTON AND ON THE ORDER FORM, FILL ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS THEN TRACE THE DISCOUNT CODE,
TYPE IT ON THE DISCOUNT BOX AND CLICK ON ‘USE CODE’ TO EFFECT YOUR DISCOUNT. THANK YOU

. .

The post Advantages and potential problems associated with developing family support systems appeared first on USA Dissertation Editors.

DISCUSSION According to the predictions of decisional behaviour based on the individualist-collectivist dimension it was expected that the Japanese students would measure higher on complacent avoidant and hypervigilant decisional styles than Australian students and that Australian students would measure higher on the vigilant style.

Question THIS IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY. THE ARTICLE IS FICTIONAL AS ARE ALL THE REFERENCES. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AUSTRALIAN AND JAPANESE STUDENTS IN DECISIONAL COPING STYLES The effect of culture on decisional coping styles is examined. Results of a questionnaire study of 743 Japanese and 309 Australian university students showed that cultural differences existed with Japanese students higher on complacency avoidance and hypervigilance coping styles and lower on the vigilant style than Australian students. These findings are related to cross-cultural differences between Australia (an individualistic culture) and Japan (a collectivistic culture). It has been suggested that current descriptive theories of decision making fail to account for decision making in non-Western cultures (Jones 1990; Smith 1989). Although recognising that decision making is common to most if not all societies the results from several cross-cultural studies of decision making suggest there are cultural differences in the cognitive style of problem solving and decision making (e.g. Bloggs & Hoon 1993; Man & Taki 1996; Wu 2001). To date few studies have examined the influence of culture on the major patterns that are used for coping with decisional conflict. Therefore the aim of this study was to examine cultural differences in decision-making behaviour in samples from two countries – Japan and Australia. In particular it aimed to see to what extent the Conflict Model (Jankt & Man 1978) was able to adequately account for decision making in non-Western cultures. According to the Conflict Model making important decisions is stressful (Jankt & Man 1978). The model identifies four major coping patterns for dealing with decisional stress: complacency (associated with low stress in which the individual ignores the need to make a decision or simply takes the first course of action which presents itself); avoidance (associated with high stress in which the individual puts off or avoids making a decision); hypervigilance (associated with high stress in which the individual makes a hasty and ill-thought out decision); and vigilance (associated with moderate stress and which involves careful information processing which is likely to lead to informed and successful decision making). The first three styles are associated with poor or maladaptive decision making and the fourth is associated with adaptive or “good” decision making. A positive correlation has been found between self-esteem of a decision maker and the use of the vigilance coping pattern and a negative correlation with avoidance and hypervigilance (Brown Man & Booker 1987; Ramer & Kolt 1981). Gray (1985) suggested that although the Conflict Model may be appropriate in describing decision making in the United States it is unable to account for decision making in non-Western countries and in particular Japan. According to Gray describing decision making in terms of conflict predisposes the theorist to find conflict where it may not exist and to neglect other factors which may be important. Further Gray suggests that decision making is dependent on culturally-determined modes of operation. He claims that decision making is a social process for Japanese whereas it is a cognitive and conceptual one for North Americans. However to date there is no empirical test of Gray’s claims. In a cross-cultural comparison we found that Japanese students revealed the same relationship between decisional self-esteem and decision making coping patterns as Australian students as predicted by the Conflict Model (Bloggs & Hoon 1993). However our results also demonstrated cultural differences between the two samples with Japanese students having lower decisional self-esteem and a greater tendency to display avoidance and a lower tendency to use many sources of information than Australian students. Although these results support the notion of conflict in decision making across cultures they also suggest that culture might influence preferred ways of coping with difficult decisions. A review of the literatures on decision making personality and culture suggested some important cultural differences in both the behaviours used in decision making as well as the style in which decision making is made. For Japanese the group and significant others (e.g. parents teachers) seem to play an important role in behaviour. Important considerations include personal reputation in the eyes of others a concern for the group’s reputation a concern over possible material and social losses and gains for the group seeking advice and guidance from significant others and allowing external circumstances and events to help determine behaviour and decisions (Charles 1983; Lebron 1976; Masatagi 1982; Nakanumi 1986). In decision making the expectation is for the greater concern and involvement by the individual’s social group allowing for a sharing of responsibility and encouraging dependence. Because of shared resources individual ability is not emphasised or regarded as important for the success of a decision (Doin 1971; Lebron 1976). For Australian decision makers the emphasis is on the individual as the instigator of the decision on his or her personal attributes and personality (e.g. “decisive” “adventurous”) and on the importance of considering the consequences of the decision for the self and one’s own goals (Black 1972). Important considerations in decision making include personal reputation consideration of personal losses and gains role of past experiences and factual information (Jankt & Man 1978; Strong 1972). The concepts of individualism and collectivism have been identified as being important starting points for examining the role of culture on behaviour (Bloggs & Hoon 1993; House 1980; Triangle 1986). Although decision making is important in both Japanese and Australian cultures Japanese decision makers are more likely to use a coping style that is characteristic of a collectivist society. In other words Japanese decision makers allow for the involvement of others and take into account the role of the immediate social group. Going along with others (complacency) avoiding a decision that affects others (avoidance) and being highly stressed by having to account for others’ needs (hypervigilance) might be more prevalent in collectivist societies which focus on group needs and goals over and above the individual’s. Australian decision makers on the other hand are more likely to display a behaviour that is characteristic of an individualist society with its concern with individual performance action reward and responsibility. People in individualist societies are concerned to make the best decision to fulfil their own needs and goals and to seek out all possible alternatives. Two hypotheses involving a collectivist and individualist culture represented by Japan and Australia respectively are investigated in relation to the four coping styles suggested by the Conflict Model. These are: H1: Japanese are more likely to prefer complacent avoidant and hypervigilant coping styles in decision making compared to Australians. H2: Australians are more likely to prefer the vigilant coping style in decision making compared with Japanese. METHOD Participants The participants were 309 Australian students (116 males and 193 females) enrolled in undergraduate courses at a university in Sydney Australia and 743 Japanese students (505 males and 237 females) enrolled in undergraduate courses at a university in Nagasaki Japan. The mean ages were 18.9 years for Australian students and 18.5 years for Japanese students. Materials The Decision Behaviour Inventory (DBI) (Bloggs & Man 1982) was administered. The original DBI consists of 20 items tapping the four coping styles of complacency avoidance hypervigilance and vigilance. Some items were reworded for simplicity and clarity and to remove any colloquialisms in expression. For example “I like to go along with other people’s decisions” (complacency); “I put off making decisions” (avoidance); “I get anxious when I have to make an important decision” (hypervigilance); “I examine all the alternatives before making a decision” (vigilance). The items used a likert response scale with numbers from 1 “not at all true” to 4 “very true”. The inventory was translated into Japanese using the back-translation method (Breese & London 1973). Procedure The Australian data were collected from first year psychology students during a general testing session at the beginning of the year. The Japanese data were collected from first year applied science students during a normal lecture period. RESULTS The data were analysed using independent groups t-tests. An alpha level of .05 was used for the type I error rate. Scales were created for the four coping styles by adding the 5 items for each style. Thus the measure ranged from 4 (low on the style) to 20 (high on the style). Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the Australian and Japanese samples and the significance of the obtained t-values. Table 1 The Means Standard Deviations for the Four Decision-making Coping Styles and their Significance Values. Australian (n = 309) Japanese (n = 743) Coping Style M (sd) M (sd) T-value Complacency 6.8 (2.2) 10.0 (2.7) 14.2*** Avoidance 8.0 (2.7) 10.3 (3.3) 10.1*** Hypervigilance 9.0 (2.8) 11.5 (3.5) 10.3*** Vigilance 15.5 (2.8) 13.8 (2.9) 7.6*** *** p< .001 df = 2 1025 The results in Table 1 support both the hypotheses. The Japanese students were found to be significantly higher on the complacent avoidant and hypervigilant decisional styles than the Australian students. By contrast the Australian students were significantly higher on the vigilant style tan the Japanese students. DISCUSSION According to the predictions of decisional behaviour based on the individualist-collectivist dimension it was expected that the Japanese students would measure higher on complacent avoidant and hypervigilant decisional styles than Australian students and that Australian students would measure higher on the vigilant style. The results of the study support these predictions. A strict interpretation of the results according to the Conflict Model suggests that Australians are more efficient decision makers that the Japanese or at least they report using more efficient decision-making practices. By examining the results in terms of a cultural framework the results can be understood in a different light. It has been reported that Australian students display a distinctive pattern of decision behaviour consistent with an individualist society (Bloggs & Hoon 1993; Man Smith & Taylor 1998). This role emphasises individual motivation ability action and responsibility with decision making approached vigilantly throughout. For Japanese the importance of the group and significant others plays a vital role in the decision making processes. Therefore being complacent or avoidant or exhibiting the high stress associated with conflicted decision making (hypervigilance) may demonstrate adaptive decision making in those collectivist-oriented societies in which the decision pathway is prescribed by the determinants of societal expectations and the interrelatedness of the decision maker to significant others. If this is the case new typologies which escape the negative connotations associated with “complacency” “avoidance” and “hypervigilance” may need to be designed for cross-cultural research. Future research and theory making examining adaptive decision making need to take account of cultural differences if the results are going to be used in training in schools universities or business particularly in a multicultural society such as in Australia. The traditional view that “good” decision making involves investigating all viable alternatives may not be applicable beyond Western countries which value choice and independence. While the study shows the relevance of the Conflict Model in countries outside the West such as Japan it may not include an exhaustive set of coping styles for non-Western countries. There may as yet be undiscovered styles in non-Western nations. Researchers in non-Western countries need to be wary of the wholesale adoption of Western measuring instruments and be open to the possibilities of behaviour characteristic to that country but which is not applicable or appropriate in the West. The study was essentially one of self-report hence is examining behavioural intentions rather than actual behaviour. Field studies of actual decision making behaviour would be useful to confirm these findings. In summary cultura differences between student populations in Australia and Japan provide support for cultural influences on decision making. Although the findings support the Conflict Model of decision making the inclusion of a cultural dimension is needed to interpret the findings. Future research should examine whether the findings of this study reflect the decision making behaviour of other collectivist societies such as China Hong Kong Korea etc. Actual decision problems should be investigated to examine the relationship between self-reported decision behaviour and actual decision behaviour. Unfortunately obtaining a suitable decision problem that has the same meaning and importance to all subjects within one culture is difficult enough without having to find one across cultures. REFERENCES Black G. (1972). Individualism in American society. Beverley Hills CA: Wise Press. Bloggs F. & Hoon A. (1993). Differences between Australia and Japan in decision making behaviour. Journal of Australian Psychotics 34(1)134-141. Breese N. & London A. (1973). Research methods in cross-cultural psychology. New York: Fox Studios. Brown C. Man W. & Booker T. (1987). Psychotic turns and decision making. Macquarie Island Journal of Psychiatry 2(1)45-56. Charles D. (1983). Japanese cultural patterns. Honolulu: Hawaii Press. Doin V. (1971). The skeleton of dependence. Tokyo: Kodak International. Gray S. (1985). Culture and decision making. Hollywood CA: Wise Press. House H. (1980). Individualism and collectivism in everyday life: A case study. New Foundland Psychologist 35(4)378-392. Jankt T.S. & Man W. (1978). The Conflict Model of decision making. Hollywood CA: University Press. Jones N. (1990). American cultural patterns in decision making. Chicago: Cross- cultural Press. Lebron H. (1976). Japanese patterns of behaviour. Honolulu: North-South Press. Man W. & Taki L. (1996). Culture depression and decision making. Journal of Psychiatry 24(3)456-467. Man W. Smith F. & Taylor E. (1998). Decision making processes in an Australian multicultural classroom. Journal of Intercultural Psychology 12 (4) 563-571. Masatagi M. (1982). Ways of thinking in Japan and China. New York: Amoco. Nakanumi B. (1986). The sword of the Samurai. Middlesex: Sealion. Ramer V.S. & Kolt B. (1981). Cross-cultural and gender differences in decision making. Paper presented at the Second International Conference of the Cross- cultural Society of Psychology July1981 Prague Czech Republic. Smith F. (1989). Decision making in cross-cultural perspective. In L. King (Ed.) Behavioural advances in cross-cultural research. New York: Peter Wiley. Triangle H. (1986). Individualism-collectivism. In R. Late & W. Bodner (Eds) Culture shock uncovered (2 nd Ed.). East Sussex: Rootedge. Wu K.L. (2001). Decision making in East Asian business. Asian Journal of Organisational Behaviour 3 (2)235-245. Title Abstract Brief but with all important information. BE CLEAR No heading “introduction” General introduction to the problem (starts broad). Introduces broad rationale and aims of the study. (Only take one or two paras to get to the main aim of the study.) Next few paragraphs review the pertinent literature in the area at the same time using the literature to build the reasons for doing the study. They specifically relate question of interest to the literature. Introduction is now narrowing toward specific details of rationale leading to hypotheses. Hypotheses “fall out” of the rationale built in the introduction. Gives demographic information about the participants and how they were recruited. Describes the materials used. In this a case a questionnaire inventory. An existing inventory is referenced. Examples of items in the measures are given. Explains how the items were measured. Explains how the data were collected. Summarises method of analysis. Table referred to in text. Table numbered and labelled. Use a minimum of borders in tables. Don’t split table over two pages. Don’t interpret findings here. Just remind the reader of the hypothesis and report whether it is supported or not. First paragraph summarises the important findings and whether the hypotheses are supported or not. Relates findings back to literature in the introduction. Don’t repeat the introduction. At this point explain any discrepancies. (Ie if a hypothesis was not supported why is that?) Do the psychology. Interpret your results. What do they mean? Getting less specific. Gives the implications of the findings for broader application in terms of theory and real-world situations. Gives the limitations of the study. Do this briefly and sympathetically. Don’t be harsh on your own research. Conclusion and directions for future research. References are listed alphabetically according to APA format. All authors cited in the text must appear in this list. Do not include authors you read for background but did not refer to.

. .

The post According to the predictions of decisional behaviour based on the individualist-collectivist dimension it was expected that the Japanese students would measure higher on complacent avoidant and hypervigilant decisional styles appeared first on USA Dissertation Editors.