Question
Answered step-by-step
SuperMetal7917
Using the ePortfolio tool you selected, you must address the…
Using the ePortfolio tool you selected, you must address the following rubric criteria:
Include one or more artifacts from the course in your ePortfolio.
Explain why you selected the artifacts for your ePortfolio. Consider the following:
How has this artifact contributed to your learning or experience?
How did you benefit personally or professionally from completing this artifact?
Describe how each artifact relates to one of the five programmatic themes:
Self-care
Social justice
Emotional intelligence
Career connections
Ethics
REFERENCES: Here are the artifact’s (assignments) I will be adding to my portfolio
FIRST ARTIFACT: Article 1: Corporate Wellness Programmes in Singapore: Effect on Stress, Satisfaction and Absenteeism
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
I think this article is would be classified as scholarly. This is based off off the publishers guidelines for author of the submitted research.
Empirical or non-empirical?
This study is non-empirical, because the authors of the research based it on data collected by others and not their own
Article 2: Impact of Worksite Wellness Intervention on Cardiac Risk Factors and One-Year Health Care Costs
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
This research study is scholarly, the publishers saying the all articles are sent for peer reviews
Empirical or non-empirical?
This research study is non- empirical. The research is based on information gathered or report by others.
Article 3: Effects of Occupational Stress Management Intervention Programs: A Meta-Analysis
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
This research is scholarly. it was published in the US, making it a peer-reviewed journal
Empirical or non-empirical?
This is an empirical research study article ,the research, data collection, and written by the researchers themselves
Article 4: Enhancing Workplace Wellness Efforts to Reduce Obesity: A Qualitative Study of Low-Wage Workers in St Louis, Missouri, 2013-2014
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
This research article is scholarly, “Peer Reviewed” was stated at the top of the article
Empirical or non-empirical?
This research study is empirical. They did not do any of the research or gather the information themselves.
Article 5: Promoting Prevention Through the Affordable Care Act: Workplace Wellness
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
This is non- scholarly because this article requires more research to be done
Empirical or non-empirical?
This article it is not an empirical one, because of the layout or format of the article.
Article 6: The Risks of Using Workplace Wellness Programs to Foster a Culture of Health
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
This article is non-scholarly because there are no peer reviews found for this article
Empirical or non-empirical?
This research is non- empirical, because there is no evidence of peer review for this article
Article 7: Managing Employee Stress and Wellness in the New Millennium
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
This research is scholarly. The article was published in the US, making it a peer reviewed journal
Empirical or non-empirical?
This is an non- empirical study, an update by the researcher’s of the original study. It gives new or additional finding that go with this study or correlates with it.
Article 8: How Well Do Workplace Wellness Programs Work?
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
This research study is non-scholarly, it’s a blog there is no evidence of peer review
Empirical or non-empirical?
This research study is non-empirical. There is no evidence of peer review and it is a blog.
Article 9: Workplace Wellness Programs: Right or Wrong?
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
The research study is non- scholarly, it is published by the American College of Physician Executives, there is no evidence of peer review
Empirical or non-empirical?
This research study is non-empirical, because there is no evidence the author collects data to inform their article
Article 10: Why Your Workplace Wellness Program Isn’t Working
Scholarly or non-scholarly?
This article non-scholarly, because there is no evidence to show this article is peer reviewed
Empirical or non-empirical?
This study is non-empirical, there is no proof the writer gathered the information for this article
SECOND ARTIFACT: Research Study: Results of the Workplace Health in America Survey
The purpose of this research study is to give a summary and overview of the WHP and all of its practices in all worksites in the United States (Linnan, et al, 2019)
The relevance of the publication dates of the citations referenced for the research study is that all of the referenced citations are in the last 20 years, as early as 1993.
The type of claim this research study makes is a casual based claim. The study examined both large and small worksites. They also examined all of the programs provided by the worksites. It showed that the larger worksites provided more programs than the smaller worksites. The bigger the amount of workers, the more programs are provided for the workers
Quantitative was the research method used in this study. Numerical data was given in this study. The data collected for this research study included ratios and percentages.
The data collection method used for this study is surveys. a unique survey, just for this research study was made and given to those who wanted to participate in the study. The surveys were looked over by a team of Survey Developers.
The research study sample for this research is sample size. The sample size for this research was 35,584. 4721 of the worksites were eliminated from the survey because they were not eligible. The reason for most of the eliminated worksites was because those worksites had less than 10 workers employed.
One type of statistical analysis conducted in this research study is a that it had a multivariable logistic regression to assess workplace characteristics with or without a health program.
References
Linnan, L. A., Cluff, L., Lang, J. E., Penne, M., & Leff, M. S. (2019). Results of the WorkplaceHealth in America Survey.American Journal of Health Promotion,33(5), 652-665
Third ARTIFACT: Topic: The effect of resilience-promoting interventions on children’s mental health
In this study there were qualitative interviews done with eleven low-income urban families that have children and are experiencing adverse childhood adverse encounters with. The data that was taken was also evaluated. The details from the data were given to the parents to enhance its relevance. The themes of this study defined the possible intergenerational cycle of adverse childhood encounters. The study also presented ways to break that cycle (Woods-Jaegeret al., 2018). The study also gave its participants ways to cope with the issues found in this study. The study’s researchers thinks that encounters that are of adversity (trauma, mental disorders, and a dysfunctional family dynamic) in a parent’s childhood can lead to a disruption in brain development in their children. The results from the study revealed ways to enhance and build when one is creating a plan to enhance resilience among parents and children experiencing early adversities. The researchers found the participants through information that was given to them by the community’s shareholders. The participants were all considered to have an economic status of low-income.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (2012). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and psychopathology, 24(4), 345-361.Ungar, M. (2015). Practitioner review: Diagnosing childhood resilience-a systemic approach to the diagnosis of adaptation in adverse social and physical ecologies. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 56(1), 4-17.Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Interdisciplinary perspectives. European journal of psychotraumatology, 5(1), 1-14.
The plan aims to investigate the impact of interventions that promote resilience on children’s mental health. Resilience is defined as the ability to adapt and cope in the face of adversity, stress, or trauma. The importance of resilience for mental health has been well-documented in empirical and scholarly research studies. However, the effectiveness of interventions that promote resilience in children is still an area of ongoing research.Empirical and Scholarly Research Studies:One relevant empirical research study by Masten et al. (2012) explored the development of resilience in children who experienced adversity. The study found that protective factors such as positive relationships, supportive communities, and opportunities for skill-building can promote resilience in children. Another study by Ungar (2015) identified the importance of cultural and contextual factors in promoting resilience in children. The study suggested that interventions that take into account cultural and contextual factors can be more effective in promoting resilience.A scholarly research study by Southwick et al. (2014) explored the impact of resilience-promoting interventions on military service members. The study found that interventions that focus on developing skills such as optimism, cognitive flexibility, and self-regulation can enhance resilience and reduce the risk of mental health disorders.
Khanlou, N., & Wray, R. (2014).A whole community approach toward child and youthresilience promotion: A review of resilience literature. International journal of mentalhealth and addiction, 12(1), 64-79
This study reviewed child resilience focusing on mental health and social results. The study used resilience-based strategies. The research used two procedures to inform the third procedure. The first procedure reviewed studies from 2000. The second procedure reviewed grey case studies. A three-perspective approach was then used. The research report suggests a hybrid strategy to stand for the value of integrating several theoretical systems in studying resilience (Khanlou & Wray, 2014). The authors referred to resilience as a process. The study suggests that an intervention by the community can help close the gap in public health policy.
It is hypothesized that resilience-promoting interventions will have a positive effect on children’s mental health outcomes. This claim is based on previous research that has found a positive relationship between resilience-promoting interventions and mental health outcomes in children.
While acquiring participants for the study, it is important to consider the age range and gender of the children, as well as any potential confounding variables such as socio-economic status, prior mental health history, and cultural background. A diverse sample of children from different backgrounds should be included to ensure the results are generalizable.
FOURTH ARTIFACT: Research Study: It’s OK If “My Brain Made Me Do It”: People’s Intuitions About Free Will and Neuroscientific Prediction
The purpose of the study
How the article’s introductory content is relevant and how it logically leads into the study
The title of the article is “It’s OK If “My Brain Made Me Do It”: People’s Intuitions About Free Will and Neuroscientific Prediction.The study aimed to investigate how people’s beliefs about free will and neuroscientific prediction are related, and how they are influenced by different types of information. The introduction provides a clear rationale for the study, based on the growing interest in the neuroscience of decision-making and the potential implications for personal responsibility and moral judgment. The authors review previous research on free will and determinism, and argue that a better understanding of people’s intuitions and attitudes toward these concepts is needed to address ethical and social issues arising from advances in neuroscience. This leads naturally into the research questions and hypotheses of the study.
A. “Big idea” of the analysis: The analysis focused on comparing the mean scores on the dependent variables across the three experimental conditions, using ANOVA and post-hoc tests to identify significant differences.B. Support for the primary hypothesis: The results supported the primary hypothesis, as participants in the neuroscientific evidence condition rated the defendant as less responsible and deserving of punishment compared to those in the other conditions. The effect size was moderate, suggesting a practical as well as statistical significance.C. Analysis used for the primary hypothesis: The researchers used a 3 x 2 ANOVA to test the main effects of evidence type participant gender, as well as the interaction between them. Post-hoc tests were conducted to explore the differences between the three conditions.
ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS ARE TO BE ANSWERED FOR EACH ARTIFACT. SO THE ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED FOUR TIMES FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT
PLEASE NO WORK THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY ANYONE ELSE
REFERENCES ARE ABOVE WHICH IS THE FOUR ASSIGNMENTS I’VE LISETED AS FIRST ARTIFACT, SECOND ARTIFACT, AND SO ON. THERE IS 4
THE ASSIGMENT QUESTIONS ARE AT THE TOP, IN ALL BOLD
THE ARTIFACTS ARE ALREADY COMPLETED WORK, THEY ARE JUST REFERNCES FOR THE CURRENT ASSIGNMENT
THANK YOU KINDLY FOR YOUR HELP
