Expert answer:Help with homework for Research of the Method

Answer & Explanation:Question 1Which of the following is an example of a testable research question?Why are leaves green?What methods can doctors develop to cure a cold or other viral illnesses?Are children who live close to electrical power lines more likely to develop cancer?What factors cause heart disease?Question 2A chemistry researcher at the University of Iowa was investigating variations in the density of silicon at different temperatures.  Unfortunately, the researcher failed to calibrate the laboratory instrument used to make measurements in his experiment, resulting in the same error in density measurement at every temperature tested.  This is an example of which type of error? systematic errorrandom errorType I errorType II errorQuestion 3A handout distributed on the first day of class describes the difference between applied and basic (pure or theoretical) research.  Which of the following is an example of basic research?investigation of the relationship between cholesterol in the diet and heart disease in middle-aged womenstudies to develop improvements in the design of fiber-optic cables used for telecommunicationsthe development of a vaccine for Ebolaa study of the existence of black holes in the Universe Question 4Write a few sentences below to explain your current understanding of the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.Question 5Please read the Abstract (pg. 2326) and the Introduction (the first 4 paragraphs on page 2327) of the Senn et al. article “Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women” before answering the questions below. Senn_NEJM_2015.pdf Before scientists develop a hypothesis to guide their research, they make observations about phenomena and develop testable research questions.  A hypothesis is a declarative statement that attempts to predict the relationship between two or more variables.a.) In the Senn et al. article what research question do you think was the basis for this study?b.) What is the hypothesis that was tested in this study?
senn_nejm_2015.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

The
n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l
of
m e dic i n e
Special Article
Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance
Program for University Women
Charlene Y. Senn, Ph.D., Misha Eliasziw, Ph.D., Paula C. Barata, Ph.D.,
Wilfreda E. Thurston, Ph.D., Ian R. Newby‑Clark, Ph.D., H. Lorraine Radtke, Ph.D.,
and Karen L. Hobden, Ph.D.​
A BS T R AC T
BACKGROUND
From the Department of Psychology and
Women’s and Gender Studies Program,
University of Windsor, Windsor, ON
(C.Y.S., K.L.H.), the Departments of Community Health Sciences (M.E., W.E.T.),
Ecosystem and Public Health (W.E.T.),
and Psychology (H.L.R.), University of
Calgary, Calgary, AB, and the Department
of Psychology, University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON (P.C.B., I.R.N.-C.) — all in
Canada; and the Department of Public
Health and Community Medicine, Tufts
University, Boston (M.E.). Address reprint requests to Dr. Senn at the Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Ave., Windsor, ON N9B
3P4, Canada, or at ­csenn@​­uwindsor​.­ca.
N Engl J Med 2015;372:2326-35.
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1411131
Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Young women attending university are at substantial risk for being sexually assaulted, primarily by male acquaintances, but effective strategies to reduce this
risk remain elusive.
METHODS
We randomly assigned first-year female students at three universities in Canada to
the Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act Sexual Assault Resistance program (resistance group) or to a session providing access to brochures on sexual assault, as was
common university practice (control group). The resistance program consists of
four 3-hour units in which information is provided and skills are taught and practiced, with the goal of being able to assess risk from acquaintances, overcome
emotional barriers in acknowledging danger, and engage in effective verbal and
physical self-defense. The primary outcome was completed rape, as measured by the
Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Form Victimization, during 1 year of follow-up.
RESULTS
A total of 451 women were assigned to the resistance group and 442 women to
the control group. Of the women assigned to the resistance group, 91% attended
at least three of the four units. The 1-year risk of completed rape was significantly lower in the resistance group than in the control group (5.2% vs. 9.8%;
relative risk reduction, 46.3% [95% confidence interval, 6.8 to 69.1]; P = 0.02). The
1-year risk of attempted rape was also significantly lower in the resistance group
(3.4% vs. 9.3%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS A rigorously designed and executed sexual assault resistance program was successful in decreasing the occurrence of rape, attempted rape, and other forms of victimization among first-year university women. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University of Windsor; SARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01338428.) 2326 n engl j med 372;24 nejm.org June 11, 2015 The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org by KATHLEEN ARNOS on June 11, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Progr am Y oung women attending university1,2 face a substantial risk of being sexually assaulted. The incidence of sexual assault is estimated to be between 20% and 25% over a period of 4 years and to be highest during the first 2 years.3,4 Being sexually assaulted can result in post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, alcohol use, and decreased safer-sex practices, among other negative health outcomes.5 In addition to the specific health consequences for the woman,6 the social and financial costs to society are also high.7,8 With the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act9 and establishment of a White House task force10 in the United States and increasing public awareness of this problem in Canada,11 universities face heightened pressure to educate students about sexual assault. However, most campuses use programs that have never been formally evaluated or have not proved to be effective in reducing the incidence of sexual assault.12 For example, the bystander approach is designed to increase men’s and women’s willingness to intervene when they encounter rapesupportive attitudes or behaviors, thereby changing the campus climate.13 Men are approached as allies and not as potential perpetrators. Studies generally have not assessed sexual assault rates after such training,14 although one intervention using the bystander approach with the addition of content designed to shift the social norms of the specific peer group (residence hall) showed a reduction in men’s self-reported sexual aggression.15 Other targeted programs for men and for women that have been evaluated for sexual assault outcomes13 have been disappointing, including interventions designed to decrease male perpetration of sexual assault.16 Workshops designed to help women resist sexual assault or reduce their risk have had inconsistent effects. Two studies showed shortterm benefit, which in one study was limited to women who had had no previous victimization17,18; other studies showed no clear benefits at 2, 4, or 6 months, even with “booster” sessions (i.e., sessions that review or expand on content to maintain or improve effects).19-21 All but one study was conducted at a single site, two used grouplevel randomization,17,19 and the one with the longest follow-up had a high rate of attrition.21 n engl j med 372;24 The aim of the current trial was to assess whether a new, four-unit, small-group sexual assault resistance program,22 as compared with access to brochures on sexual assault, could reduce the 1-year incidence of completed rape among first-year female students at three universities. A Quick Take ­animation is available at NEJM.org Me thods Enrollment and Randomization The Sexual Assault Resistance Education (SARE) Trial was approved by the ethics boards at the Universities of Windsor, Guelph, and Calgary. The full study protocol and the baseline characteristics and sexual assault histories have been published previously4,22; the study protocol is also available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. The first author assumes responsibility for the fidelity of the report to the protocol and the accuracy and completeness of the data. In brief, this open-label, randomized, controlled trial enrolled first-year female students, 17 to 24 years of age, at one large university in western Canada and two midsized universities in central Canada, from September 2011 to February 2013. To be eligible for the trial, students had to be able to attend one of four scheduled sets of intervention sessions during the semester in which they enrolled in the study. A total of 69.4% of the participants were recruited through e-mail messages and telephone calls to first-year female students who were registered in the research participant pools of psychology departments; approximately 70% of students on campus register for psychology courses and are thereby included in these pools. Other participants were recruited through posters or flyers around campus, e-mail messages forwarded by professors, and presentations in classes and at student events. A research assistant explained the study before scheduling a participant’s baseline session. At the baseline session, participants completed a computerized survey, underwent randomization, and immediately attended their first resistance session or a control session. Randomization was performed in permuted blocks of two with the use of the online tool Randomize.net, with stratification according to site. All the participants gave written informed consent. nejm.org June 11, 2015 The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org by KATHLEEN ARNOS on June 11, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. 2327 The n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l Interventions The Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act Sexual Assault Resistance program consisted of four 3-hour units that involved information-providing games, mini-lectures, facilitated discussion, and application and practice activities. The first author developed, revised, and pilot-tested the program between 2005 and 2011.23,24 The names (Assess, Acknowledge, and Act) and content of the first three units were based on recommendations by Rozee and Koss for a resistance program for women.25 These authors drew heavily on the work of Ullman regarding successful rape self-defense strategies26 and on Nurius and Norris’s “cognitive ecological” model,27 which provided a theoretical framework for the environmental and psychological factors that affect women’s responses to sexual assault. The fourth unit (Sexuality and Relationships) adapted content from the Our Whole Lives sexuality-education curricula.28,29 Participants assigned to the resistance group could choose to attend sessions for all the units in one weekend (two units each day) or for one unit per week for 4 weeks. Unit 1 (Assess) focused on improving women’s assessment of the risk of sexual assault by male acquaintances and developing problemsolving strategies to reduce perpetrator advantages. Unit 2 (Acknowledge) assisted women to more quickly acknowledge the danger in situations that have turned coercive, explore ways to overcome emotional barriers to resisting the unwanted sexual behaviors of men who were known to them, and practice resisting verbal coercion. Unit 3 (Act) offered instruction about and practice of effective options for resistance; this unit included 2 hours of self-defense training based on Wen-Do.30 The unit focused on common sexual assault situations involving acquaintances and defense against attackers who were larger than the woman. Unit 4 (Sexuality and Relationships) aimed to integrate content from the previous units into participants’ sexual lives by providing sexual information, including the slang and scientific terms for a wide range of possible sexual activities beyond intercourse and health and safer-sex practices, and a context to explore their sexual attitudes, values, and desires and to develop strategies for sexual communication. A detailed manual provided instructions for 2328 n engl j med 372;24 of m e dic i n e facilitators (see the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org). Initially, a 10-day training period, which included training in self-defense, was conducted for facilitators. In year 2, because most facilitators were experienced, the training period was shortened to 1 week. In the control sessions, brochures on sexual assault were displayed; this mimicked common university practice of having brochures available in campus clinics and counseling centers. The selection of brochures was campus-specific; however, the content was similar across sites and included general information on sexual assault and post-rape legal and medical advice (see the Supplementary Appendix). A research assistant informed participants about the brochures and invited them to take them and read them; this assistant also offered to answer questions in the group session, which was scheduled to last 15 minutes, or privately afterward. All resistance and control sessions were audiorecorded to assess fidelity to the interventions and staff adherence to the procedures and content. One quarter of the recordings from both groups, stratified according to facilitator or research assistant and semester, were randomly selected and scored according to checklists developed from the operations manuals. The mean scores for fidelity to the intervention were 94% (range, 81 to 100) for the resistance sessions and 86% (range, 75 to 100) for the control sessions. Data Collection All the participants completed in-person computerized surveys at baseline and 1 week after completion of the intervention (control participants were matched to the same interval but participated in only one session) and offsite Web-based surveys at 6 months and 12 months. To minimize attrition, participants in both groups were contacted by telephone, text, or e-mail at each time point, with up to seven attempts at contact made at each time point. Incentives were provided for completing the baseline and post­ intervention surveys (psychology-course bonus credit and entry in a $300 lottery) and the followup surveys ($30 gift cards). To retain participants in the resistance group during their multiple sessions, additional incentives (small gifts and tickets for two, $25, end-of-session lotteries) nejm.org June 11, 2015 The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org by KATHLEEN ARNOS on June 11, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Progr am were used. Women were considered to be lost to Statistical Analysis follow-up if they did not complete the survey at Outcomes were assessed in the modified inten12 months. tion-to-treat population, which included all eligible participants who completed one or more Outcome Measures postrandomization survey. The primary analysis Information on sexual victimization was col- compared the incidence (first occurrence) of lected with the use of the Sexual Experiences completed rape between the control group and Survey–Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV).31 the resistance group with the use of Kaplan– The SES-SFV, a revision of the original 1982 SES,32 Meier failure curves (indicating the cumulative is the most widely used measure in sexual as- percentage of completed rapes among women in sault research and has high reliability and valid- the respective groups) and the log-rank test. To ity.33 Its strength is that it does not require cor- account for the correlation among observations rect labeling of sexual assault by participants but within group sessions, variance estimates were assesses how often particular experiences that appropriately inflated34 for within-session clusterlegally constitute sexual assault (in Canada) and ing with the use of estimates of the design effect. rape (in the United States) have occurred. For The benefit of the resistance program was deexample, one item on the survey reads, “A man scribed in terms of relative risk reductions and put his penis into my vagina, or inserted fingers the number of women who would need to paror objects without my consent by using force, for ticipate in the program to prevent one additional example holding me down with his body weight, completed rape from occurring within 1 year afpinning my arms, or having a weapon.” ter participation. Because researchers have specAll experiences reported during 12 months of ulated that rates of attempted rape might be infollow-up were classified into one of five sexual creased by resistance training,21 the incidence of victimization categories: completed rape, attempt- attempted rape was also assessed. ed rape, coercion, attempted coercion, or nonIn other modified intention-to-treat analyses, consensual sexual contact. The primary outcome the incidences of coercion, attempted coercion, was completed rape; other outcomes were pre- and nonconsensual sexual contact were compared specified as tertiary. (Secondary outcomes were between the control group and the resistance psychological variables that were expected to group with the use of discrete-time survival mediate the effects of the intervention and are analyses that used a complementary log–log renot included here.) Completed rape (oral, vaginal, gression model,35 in which the variance estimates or anal penetration) and nonconsensual sexual for within-session clustering were also inflated.36 contact (nonpenetrative) were defined as nonTwo prespecified subgroup analyses were perconsensual sexual acts in which the perpetrator formed to assess whether the resistance program used threats, force, or drug or alcohol incapacita- had a similar effect regardless of prior rape viction. Coercion was considered to have occurred timization and program timing (i.e., weekend when perpetrators used pressure or manipula- vs. weekday sessions); tests for interaction were tion (e.g., “threatening to end the relationship” performed with the use of a Cox proportionalor “continually verbally pressuring me”) to in- hazards regression model. All P values were duce compliance in nonconsensual penetrative two-tailed, and P values of less than 0.05 were sexual acts. Attempted rape and attempted coer- considered to indicate statistical significance. cion were occasions in which the perpetrator All statistical analyses were performed with the tried to engage in the behavior but was not suc- use of SAS software, version 9.3 (SAS Institute). cessful. For completed and attempted rapes, participants recorded the dates of occurrence. R e sult s Study-group cross-contamination was measured on follow-up surveys in which participants Participants were asked whether they knew anyone in the Of the 916 women who underwent randomizaother randomized group and, if so, what they tion, 17 were found on postrandomization review not to have met eligibility criteria, and 6 did shared with (or were told by) that person. n engl j med 372;24 nejm.org June 11, 2015 The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org by KATHLEEN ARNOS on June 11, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. 2329 The n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l of m e dic i n e 3241 Women were assessed for eligibility 2325 Were excluded 1529 Declined to participate 305 Were not present at baseline 417 Did not make a decision about whether to participate 74 Did not meet eligibility criteria 916 Underwent randomization 452 Were assigned to control group 464 Were assigned to resistance group 10 Were excluded 9 Did not meet eligibility criteria on review 1 Withdrew 13 Were excluded 8 Did not meet eligibility criteria on review 5 Withdrew 442 Were included in the analysis 451 Were included in the analysis 22 Discontinued study 22 Were lost to follow-up 0 Withdrew 21 Discontinued study 17 Were lost to follow-up 4 Withdrew 420 Completed 12-mo follow-up 430 Completed 12-mo follow-up Figure 1. Screening, Randomization, and Follow-up. Women in the control group were provided access to brochures on sexual assault. Women in the resistance group participated in a four-unit sexual assault resistance program. not complete any postrandomization follow-up surveys. Therefore, 893 women were included in the analyses (Fig. 1). A total of 442 women were assigned to the control group and attended 1 of the 45 control sessions that were held during the course of the study (mean number of women per session, 9.8; range, 3 to 21). A total of 451 women were assigned to the resistance group and attended 1 of the 48 four-unit resistance sessions that were held during the course of the study (mean number of women per session, 9.4; range, 3 to 23). The design effect for the completed-rape outcome was estimated to be 1.25, calculated according to an overall mean of 9.6 women per session and a corresponding withinsession correlation of 0.029 among observations. 2330 n engl j med 372;24 The two groups were well-balanced with respect to baseline characteristics (Table 1). Adherence in the resistance group was high (91%), with 95% and 88% of the participants attending three or more units during weekend and weekday sessions, respectively. The mean followup was 11.6 months in both groups; 5.0% of the participants were lost to follow-up in the control group and 4.7% were lost to follow-up or withdrew from the study in the resistance group. There were no crossovers between groups, and cross-contam ... Purchase answer to see full attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades