APA regularly publishes task force reports and guidelines regarding many areas of diversity. It is expected that Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice authors, reviewers, and editors stay abreast of and adhere to the current guidelines and methods of demonstrating cultural competence and humility.
maliniak method pdf free 43
Prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association using the 7th edition. Manuscripts may be copyedited for bias-free language (see Chapter 5 of the Publication Manual). APA Style and Grammar Guidelines for the 7th edition are available.
Research-focused articles may report the findings of studies that use a variety of research methods and data, both qualitative and quantitative. CFP-RP welcomes articles with carefully selected research methods that are best fitted to answer the research questions. Research articles should not exceed a total of 30 pages, all inclusive.
Brief reports are encouraged for innovative work that may be premature for publication as a full research report because of small sample size, novel methodologies, etc. Brief reports also are an appropriate format for pilot studies, replications, and clinical case studies. Authors of brief reports should indicate in the cover letter that the full report is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Brief reports should be designated as such and should not exceed a total of 20 pages, all inclusive. References should not exceed 8 pages.
The method section also must include a statement describing how informed consent was obtained from the participants (or their parents/guardians) and indicate that the study was conducted in compliance with an appropriate Internal Review Board.
Prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association using the 7th edition. Manuscripts may be copyedited for bias-free language (see Chapter 5 of the Publication Manual).
Authors should review the APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. The standards offer ways to improve transparency in reporting to ensure that readers have the information necessary to evaluate the quality of the research and to facilitate collaboration and replication.
The method section also must include a statement describing how informed consent was obtained from the participants (or their parents/guardians), including for secondary use of data if applicable, and indicate that the study was conducted in compliance with an appropriate Internal Review Board.
In a subsection of the discussion titled "Constraints on generality," authors should include a detailed discussion of the limits on generality (see Simons, Shoda, & Lindsay, 2017). In this section, authors should detail grounds for concluding why the results are may or may not be specific to the characteristics of the participants. They should address limits on generality not only for participants but for materials, procedures, and context. Authors should also specify which methods they think could be varied without affecting the result and which should remain constant.
In both the author note and at the end of the Method section, specify whether and where the data and material will be available or note the legal or ethical reasons for not doing so. For submissions with quantitative or simulation analytic methods, state whether the study analysis code is available, and, if so, where to access it (or the legal or ethical reason why it is not available).
Articles must state whether or not any work was preregistered and, if so, where to access the preregistration. Preregistrations must be available to reviewers; authors may submit a masked copy via stable link or supplemental material. Links in the method section and the author note should be replaced with an identifiable copy on acceptance.
The present study provides additional evidence that higher BMI is strongly associated with the detection and density of CLS-B [16,17,18,19,20,21,22] and provides new evidence that this association is similar in both White and African-American breast cancer patients. Race was not observed to be independently associated with detection or density of CLS-B. When we examined clinical outcomes over a median follow-up of 8 years, we found no difference in progression-free survival or overall survival by detection of CLS-B in unadjusted or adjusted models, contrary to two previous studies [19, 24]. However, estimates for these associations were imprecise, necessitating further research in larger study populations.
This study further demonstrates the consistency and strength of association between BMI and detection and density of CLS-B in both African-American and White women diagnosed with breast cancer. Similar to previous studies, we did not find evidence that CLS-B was associated with tumor characteristics at diagnosis. However, in contrast to two previous investigations, we did not observe worse overall or progression-free survival among those with CLS-B present, raising questions related to differences in methodology in CLS-B assessment and whether CLS-B is in fact related to worse clinical outcomes.
Interviews with China experts, including former policy-makers, academics, think tankers, and for-profit consultants working in the China space. One hundred and seven experts were institutionally located in America, 14 in Australia, and 12 in the UK, although many had experience in more than one field. Interviews were conducted between late 2016 and early 2021. Interviews totaled over 100 hours. Interviewees ranged in age and experience, and were identified using the snowball sampling method.
Parents were more likely to consent passively than actively. This difference was greater among the more deprived: OR 16.9 (95% CI 5.7 to 50.2) in the least and 129.6 (95% CI 39.9 to 420.6) in the most deprived quintile (test for interaction: method of consent by level of deprivation, p=0.02). For all children eligible, completion was more likely if passive consent was used (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2 to 3.7). When only children who gave consent are considered, completion was less likely when passive rather than active consent was used (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9). Completion rate decreased as level of deprivation increased; we found no evidence that the OR for the method of consent varied by level of deprivation. There was no evidence that the quality of dietary data, as measured by an assessment of under-reporting, differed by method of consent (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.2).
A central tenet of health and social research is that no one should be recruited to a study without providing informed consent. When the research involves children, the situation is further complicated by the need to obtain consent from the child's legal guardian. While the main concern is that recruits should be fully informed and free to make their choice, all researchers are conscious of the effect of a low recruitment rate on the representativeness of the sample obtained1 2 and thus the generalisability of findings. In any particular context, there may be several equally acceptable ways by which consent may be obtained. If the proportion of those approached who agree to participate varies with the method used, then this is likely to have implications for the usefulness of the inferences that are ultimately made.
Four logistic regressions were performed. In each, a binary outcome was related to factors indicating IMD quintile, the method of obtaining consent and the interaction of these factors, all adjusted for gender. The outcome in the first analysis was whether or not each eligible child's parent gave consent to be in the study. In the second, the outcome was whether or not each eligible child provided a complete dietary diary. These analyses give estimates of the probability of giving consent and of the probability of providing a complete dietary diary, respectively. The third analysis also considered whether or not a child completed their dietary diary but only among children who agreed to participate in the study: this gives an estimate of the conditional probability that a child provided a complete diary, given that they agreed to participate in the study. The outcome in the final analysis considered data quality, that is, whether or not children providing diaries were classified as an under-reporter or not.
Table 1 shows the number (percentage) of all eligible children for who consent was given (parental), and who completed by method of consent and level of deprivation. Tables 2 and 3 present the ORs and 95% CI for the method of consent, level of deprivation and the interaction (method of consent by level of deprivation) relevant to the outcomes. Table 4 presents the ORs and 95% CI for the method of consent and level of deprivation in children who under-reported.
We found a higher percentage of children's parents consented using passive (96%) compared with active consent (41%). With passive consent a similar percentage of children's parents consented in each deprivation quintile, whereas when active consent was used the consent rate decreased as level of deprivation increased (table 1). We found evidence of an interaction between the method of consent and level of deprivation for the proportion of children's parents that consented (p=0.023). When using passive consent, children's parents in IMD quintile 1 (least deprived) were 16.9 times more likely to consent than when using active consent in IMD quintile 1 (OR 16.9, 95% CI 5.7 to 50.2), while in IMD quintile 5 (most deprived) this value rose to 129.6 (95% CI 39.9 to 420.6; table 2). 2ff7e9595c
Comments