Benchmark – Research Proposal

Using the topic you have developed in PSY-530 write a Research Proposal (2,200-2,500 words) on a topic relevant to the course. To complete the Research Proposal, do the following:

Review the attached document “Research Proposal Guidelines” as well as Topic 7 lecture section on The Results and Discussion Sections in the Research Proposal for a brief overview pertaining to “how to” complete the assignment.

1. Introductory section: Include hypothesis and a review of the literature.
2. Method section: Include subsections on Participants, Apparatus/Materials/Instruments, Procedure, and Design.
3. Results section: Include statistic, critical values, degrees of freedom, and alpha level.
4. Discussion section: Include interpretation of results, ethical concerns, limitations of study, and suggestions for future research.
5. Figures and Tables section: Include a minimum of two (either two figures, two tables, or a figure and a table).

Include at least 8-10 scholarly references.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines within the APA 7th Style Guide. 

PSY 550 – Research Methods

Topic 7 Research Proposal Guidelines

Here are the requirements for the Research Proposal:

· Include a Title Page, Abstract page, and References page in APA format, 7th edition.

· Introduction: This is the longest section of your paper. Begin with an introductory paragraph that states the purpose of the paper. Then, go into detail on your literature review. Begin with a general review of your topic and move to specific studies that are similar to your proposal. Show how your proposal is different from what has been done before. Build to a paragraph that includes your hypothesis (-ses).

· Method: This part has four sections (each of which is a subheading):

· Participants: Describe who they will be, how many, how would they be recruited, what characteristics they would have, etc.

· Apparatus/ Materials and/ or Instruments: What ingredients will you need to run your study (tests, gadgets, paper/ pencils, etc.)?

· Procedure: Outline the steps of your study in chronological order. Write in the conditional tense if the study is not going to be carried out.

· Design: Include what type of design you’re using (e.g., correlational nonexperimental design, between-subjects, within-subjects, or mixed experimental design).

· Results: This section may be combined with the Discussion section. Include a paragraph describing what statistic was used (e.g., t-test, ANOVA, correlation, chi-square), how many degrees of freedom, alpha level (choose .05), and critical value.

· Discussion (20%): Include at least four paragraphs.

· Describe what it would mean if you obtained significant results. Then describe what it would mean to obtain nonsignificant results.

· Discuss how your study followed APA ethical guidelines, by discussing the use of an informed consent form, debriefing statement, deception, and obtaining IRB permission.

· Discuss any limitations in your study (e.g., possible confounding, lack of random assignment, or random sampling).

· Conclude with a discussion of future studies that could arise from your study.

· Include two figures, OR two tables, OR a table and a figure (10%). A table is columns of numbers, and a figure is anything else (chart, map, graph, etc.). You can include your Informed Consent form and your Debriefing form as two figures.

2

Assessing Current Approaches to Childhood Immunizations

Department of Psychology, Grand Canyon University

PSY-530: Social and Cultural Psychology

Dr. Kristi Husk

December 16, 2020

Assessing Current Approaches to Childhood Immunizations: Summary of Studies

Gesser-Edelsburg, A., Shir-Raz, Y., & Green, M. S. (2016). Why do parents who usually vaccinate their children hesitate or refuse? General good vs. individual risk. Journal of Risk Research, 19(4), 405-424.

This study analyzes vaccination aversion or refusal following the 2013 polio flare-up in Israel, given two hypothetical models. The first is Sandman’s hypothetical model, which holds that hazard discernment is involved in danger in addition to shock. The subsequent model is the influence heuristic that clarifies the danger/advantage jumbling. It expects to uncover the boundaries that restrained parental consistency with OPV vaccination for their youngsters. The study utilized blended methods, a poll review, and a substantial investigation of parents’ conversations in websites, Internet destinations, and Facebook pages. The findings demonstrate that a few parents who typically give their youngsters routine vaccinations chose not to give them OPV because of an absence of confidence in the well-being framework, worries about antibody security, and reasons explicit to the polio flare-up in Israel.

Dubé, E., Vivion, M., Sauvageau, C., Gagneur, A., Gagnon, R., & Guay, M. (2016). “Nature does things well; why should we interfere?” Vaccine hesitancy among mothers. Qualitative Health Research, 26(3), 411-425.

This subjective longitudinal study aimed to more readily comprehend why moms decide to immunize or not their infants. Fifty-six pregnant moms living in various regions of Quebec (Canada) were met. These meetings assembled data on moms’ perspectives on well-being and vaccination. Practically 50% of the moms were ordered as antibody reluctant. A subsequent meeting was led with these moms 3 to 11 months after birth to discuss their real choice and conduct concerning vaccination. The results show the heterogeneity of elements impacting immunization dynamics. Even though most antibody reluctant moms at long last decided to follow the suggested immunization plan for their youngster, they were as yet conflicted, and they kept on scrutinizing their choice.

Hendrix, K. S., Sturm, L. A., Zimet, G. D., & Meslin, E. M. (2016). Ethics and childhood vaccination policy in the United States. American journal of public health, 106(2), 273-278.

The purpose of this study was to assess ethics and childhood vaccination. Youth inoculation includes a harmony between parents’ independence in concluding whether to vaccinate their youngsters and the advantages to general well-being from ordering antibodies. Moral worries about pediatric vaccination range within a few general well-being areas, policymakers, clinicians, and different experts. Considering progressing advancements and discussions, the creators talk about a few critical moral issues concerning youth vaccination in the United States and depict how they influence policy improvement and clinical practice. They center on moral contemplations relating to crowd immunity as a network decent, immunization correspondence, excusal of antibody denying families from training, and immunization orders.

Sobo, E. J. (2016). What is herd immunity, and how does it relate to pediatric vaccination uptake? US parent perspectives. Social Science & Medicine, 165, 187-195.

The purpose of the study was to distinguish hard immunity and parent’s vaccination points of view. Further, knowing about crowd immunity, that general well-being specialists would consider ‘right’ did not full, prompt vaccination. Ramifications of findings for seeing how the public utilizes logical data, the likely part of general well-being informing concerning unselfishness and ‘free-riding,’ and presumptions that antibody careful parents would unshakably exploit group immunity are investigated corresponding to parent job desires and American independence.

Gilkey, M. B., Calo, W. A., Moss, J. L., Shah, P. D., Marciniak, M. W., & Brewer, N. T. (2016). Provider communication and HPV vaccination: the impact of recommendation quality. Vaccine, 34(9), 1187-1192.

The purpose of the study was to survey HPV vaccination recommendations. Getting a medical care supplier’s proposal is a definite indicator of HPV vaccination, yet little is thought observationally about which suggestion sorts are generally persuasive. We arranged parents as having gotten no, inferior quality, or excellent recommendations for HPV vaccination utilizing a file of these quality markers. Practically half (48%) of parents announced no supplier proposal for HPV vaccination, while 16% got inferior quality recommendations, and 36% got excellent recommendations. Top-notch recommendations were firmly connected with HPV vaccination conduct. However, just around 33% of parents got them.

References

Dubé, E., Vivion, M., Sauvageau, C., Gagneur, A., Gagnon, R., & Guay, M. (2016). “Nature does things well; why should we interfere?” Vaccine hesitancy among mothers. Qualitative Health Research, 26(3), 411-425.
Gesser-Edelsburg, A., Shir-Raz, Y., & Green, M. S. (2016). Why do parents who usually vaccinate their children hesitate or refuse? General good vs. individual risk. Journal of Risk Research, 19(4), 405-424.
Gilkey, M. B., Calo, W. A., Moss, J. L., Shah, P. D., Marciniak, M. W., & Brewer, N. T. (2016). Provider communication and HPV vaccination: the impact of recommendation quality. Vaccine, 34(9), 1187-1192.
Hendrix, K. S., Sturm, L. A., Zimet, G. D., & Meslin, E. M. (2016). Ethics and childhood vaccination policy in the United States. American journal of public health, 106(2), 273-278.
Sobo, E. J. (2016). What is herd immunity, and how does it relate to pediatric vaccination uptake? US parent perspectives. Social Science & Medicine, 165, 187-195.