Free Anxiety Essay Sample
Buy Cheap Anxiety Essay
The availed documents were of great importance for purposes of questioning, observing and deriving conclusions from the results. The research was based on non-definite results which were basically collected through focus group interviews. The mode of determining the end-product was through issuance of written questionnaires.
This research was seeking to identify relationships among the distorted cognitive processing in youth, negative cognitive errors and anxiety. For example the question being: do some recognized traits in children and the adolescents raise some apprehensive moments within this group? And if so how do this happen? When does it strike most and certainly what are the expected outcomes?
The said exercise conducted its own appraisal parameters within which to ascertain the veracity of the results. The objective here was to come up with appropriate research models that can be defensible in any environment.
Here the general purpose for this project only had a cosmetic touch. It was not given a critical look as the ‘specific one’. This is due to the weight the latter carries. However, this is the epitome of every research expert which plays a vital role.
This exercise involved identifying the target group, designing the suitable techniques for data collection and collation. Data analysis was also to be used for verification of precise outcomes. My view of the data presentation is that, there were some mixed up in the techniques employed.
Research is normally conducted on a specific topic or item in anticipation for results which can be used for a definite purpose. The overriding factors here are: to ascertain the truth of previous findings, to critique a foregone assumptions made and finally to provide solutions to a perceived problem. In our case here the autopsy has been principally conducted with a view to confirm the genuineness of the previous work done. Why?
According to the authors of our research material here, there seem to be an overlap in the previously conducted research about methods used to identify the four errors normally experienced in the youth’s thinking. Of course this is their principal focus; which drives them to seek for thorough and above board results. With such an eventuality, the presumed techniques in confirming the problem can now be defended beyond any reasonable doubt. This is what is termed as justification. The research paper presented by the authors here is looking for none other than defensible claims. It therefore seeks to justify the methods used to confirm the errors in conducting the subject matter.
According to the article, the Children’s Negative Cognitive Error Questionnaire (CNCQ) has often been used to ascertain four errors in the youth’s thinking. It is found however, that this is indefensible; its factorial validity cannot be measured! Because of the aforesaid, the authors have been propelled to look at the factor structure of an extended and refined version of CNCQ as their primary focus. According to the article this involve removal of items seen as contaminated, inclusion of items which measures cognitive errors that are intimately associated with anxiety. The anxiety here refers to conclusion of perceived threat and under estimation of the cope up ability.
In an attempt to justify this beyond any trace of doubt, the reviewers came up with a second objective. The objective zeroed in the relationship between anxiety and the negative cognitive errors. This exercise was conducted through interpersonal link with the data providers; who are the youths.
The authors of this article, who are also playing the role of reviewers, were using the data provided by the previous research on the same subject. The principal reason here is to have valid results without any contamination from unwanted materials. Some of the books and articles used here include: the ‘Children’s Attribution Style Questionnaire Revised; the ‘Children’s Dysfunctional Attitude Scale and finally, ‘Anxious Youth’ (Barrett 1996).
The methodology used here was interviews. The researchers identified the principal targets; who are the young people with ability to provide the data required. The reason being, the research was based on the main subject as the youth. The interviews were conducted by issuing written questions; questionnaires to be answered by the targeted respondents.
The data collected from the interviews were done by identifying four hundred and eighty one (481) children and adolescents. These were tested on: underestimation of the cope up ability, personalizing without reading the mind and selective abstraction. A further two ninety five (295) respondents, basically children and adolescents yielded positive results to the five factor solution.
All cognitive errors with exception of selective abstraction correlated to anxiety. However, multiple regression analysis showed strong prediction of anxiety being necessitated by mind reading and underestimation of the cope up ability.
Limitations of the Results/ Research
My personal analysis of this exercise has found some flaws to have been unearthed by the reviewers. The respondents had to only deal with the literate group. The illiterate ones were left out. This lead to submission of raw data which is not all inclusive as required of a valid research. There was also contention about the use of CNCQ which was designed for adults but is used here for children and youth!
Although the results could seem detailed, the magnitude of the work with so many characters could eventually compromise everything. The doubting of incorrect use of CNCQ design undermines the final outcome of the exercise.