Computer Science Department
CS 2413 Data Structures
Fall 2019
Mario A. Pitalua Rodriguez, PhD.
CS 2365
OBJECT-ORIENTED
PROGRAMMING
In the U.S. wild west, the eternal battle between the law and the outlaws keeps
heating up. Suddenly, a rain of arrows darken the sky: It's an Indian attack!
Are you bold enough to keep up with the Indians?
Do you have the courage to challenge your fate?
Can you expose and defeat the ruthless gunmen around you?
Take one arrow before you can reroll
You cannot reroll this dice. With 3 you lose one point of life,
No more rerolls, if any is left in this turn.
Yet, you can resolve other symbols to finish your turn.
You can shot once the next person , to the right or to the left
With 3 of these you can, use the Gatling gun to shot
everyone once,
and then, dispose of any arrows.
You can shot once the second person to the right or to the
left
If there are only 3 person left, this is the same as Bull’s eye
1.
You can or someone you choose recovers one point of life.
• By turn each players roll the 5 dices.
• You can reroll two times the dices you
do not want to keep.
• Resolve the result of the final roll to
finish your turn.
• Remember your character specific
exceptions to the rules of the dice.
• Be careful with Arrows and Dynamite.
THE DICES
This is you!
No rerolls,
Take two arrows!
Finish your turn!
This is you!
Take one arrow,
If you do not want to reroll,
You must shot four times,
Finishing your turn
This is you!
Take one arrow
If you choose to no reroll,
You must shot four times,
Finishing your turn
This is you!
On First Roll - Take one arrow
Reroll Arrow, Bull’s eye 1 & 2
Use Gatling Gun, Shoot everyone,
Drop your arrows
Take two beers to heal yourself or
someone else
NAME
LIFE POINTS
SPECIAL ABILITY
THE CHARACTERS (life points ranges from 7 to 9 bullets)
Each player has a role that define its goal card:
• Sheriff: must eliminate all Outlaws and the Renegade(s);
• Outlaws: must eliminate the Sheriff;
• Deputies: must help and protect the Sheriff;
• Renegade: must be the last character in play.
Roles present in game per number of participants.
4 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 2 Outlaws;
5 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 2 Outlaws, 1 Deputy;
6 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 3 Outlaws, 1 Deputy;
7 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 3 Outlaws, 2 Deputies;
8 players: 1 Sheriff, 2 Renegades, 3 Outlaws, 2 Deputies
THE ROLES
Let’s play!
• The game begins with the Sherriff revealing his role (this player get two additional life points) then rolls the dice
• The outcome is resolve according to the rules to finish its turn.
• After this, the game continues with the next player clockwise.
• The roles of the other participants in the game remain a secret until the moment they are eliminated.
• Every player adjust their strategy as the roles of the eliminated players are reveal.
• Complete rules of BANG! The Dice Game visit http://www.dvgiochi.net/ban.
Computer Science DepartmentCS 2413 Data StructuresFall.docx
1. Computer Science Department
CS 2413 Data Structures
Fall 2019
Mario A. Pitalua Rodriguez, PhD.
CS 2365
OBJECT-ORIENTED
PROGRAMMING
In the U.S. wild west, the eternal battle between the law and the
outlaws keeps
heating up. Suddenly, a rain of arrows darken the sky: It's an
Indian attack!
Are you bold enough to keep up with the Indians?
Do you have the courage to challenge your fate?
Can you expose and defeat the ruthless gunmen around you?
Take one arrow before you can reroll
You cannot reroll this dice. With 3 you lose one point of life,
No more rerolls, if any is left in this turn.
2. Yet, you can resolve other symbols to finish your turn.
You can shot once the next person , to the right or to the left
With 3 of these you can, use the Gatling gun to shot
everyone once,
and then, dispose of any arrows.
You can shot once the second person to the right or to the
left
If there are only 3 person left, this is the same as Bull’s eye
1.
You can or someone you choose recovers one point of life.
• By turn each players roll the 5 dices.
• You can reroll two times the dices you
do not want to keep.
• Resolve the result of the final roll to
finish your turn.
• Remember your character specific
exceptions to the rules of the dice.
• Be careful with Arrows and Dynamite.
THE DICES
This is you!
No rerolls,
Take two arrows!
Finish your turn!
3. This is you!
Take one arrow,
If you do not want to reroll,
You must shot four times,
Finishing your turn
This is you!
Take one arrow
If you choose to no reroll,
You must shot four times,
Finishing your turn
This is you!
On First Roll - Take one arrow
Reroll Arrow, Bull’s eye 1 & 2
Use Gatling Gun, Shoot everyone,
Drop your arrows
Take two beers to heal yourself or
someone else
4. NAME
LIFE POINTS
SPECIAL ABILITY
THE CHARACTERS (life points ranges from 7 to 9 bullets)
Each player has a role that define its goal card:
• Sheriff: must eliminate all Outlaws and the Renegade(s);
• Outlaws: must eliminate the Sheriff;
• Deputies: must help and protect the Sheriff;
• Renegade: must be the last character in play.
Roles present in game per number of participants.
4 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 2 Outlaws;
5 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 2 Outlaws, 1 Deputy;
6 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 3 Outlaws, 1 Deputy;
7 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 3 Outlaws, 2 Deputies;
8 players: 1 Sheriff, 2 Renegades, 3 Outlaws, 2 Deputies
THE ROLES
Let’s play!
• The game begins with the Sherriff revealing his role (this
player get two additional life points) then rolls the dice
• The outcome is resolve according to the rules to finish its
turn.
• After this, the game continues with the next player clockwise.
• The roles of the other participants in the game remain a secret
5. until the moment they are eliminated.
• Every player adjust their strategy as the roles of the
eliminated players are reveal.
• Complete rules of BANG! The Dice Game visit
http://www.dvgiochi.net/bang_the_dice_game/BANG!_dice_ga
me-rules.pdf
http://www.dvgiochi.net/bang_the_dice_game/BANG!_dice_ga
me-rules.pdf
Project
• Model the Game Bang! Dice Game using OOP.
• Document your OOAD using Use-Case Diagrams and Class
Diagrams.
• Code your Model in Java
• Use JavaDoc for all your classes
• Perform Testing on your Codefor Units and Integration
• Provide a GUI interface
• The implementation should provide the means for a person to
play
the game against 2 to 7 automated players that play according to
their roles and adapt their own strategy as the roles of the other
players are revealed upon elimination.
Deliverables
6. •Deadline, Wednesday, April 8th, 2020
•Pear reviews on Thursday, April 9th, 2020
• UML Diagrams
• Use Case Diagrams and their Specifications
• CDC Cards
• Class Diagrams
• Documentation
• Working Project
D
ow
nloaded
from
https://journals.lw
w
.com
/nursingresearchonline
by
B
hD
M
9. Background: Evidence suggests that behavioral, social, and
environmental factors may modify the effects of life stress on
health
and performance of new nurses as they transition to hospitals.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the methods
of a project designed to investigate the role of social,
behavioral,
and environmental factors in modifying the adverse effects of
stress on new nurses and to discuss demographic, health, and
life
stress characteristics of the cohort at baseline.
Methods: A prospective cohort design was used to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of health endpoints, life stress,
behaviors, personal traits, social factors, indicators of
engagement and performance, and environmental exposures in
nursing
students. Adjusted odds ratios and analyses of covariance were
used to examine associations between these factors at baseline.
Results: Health indicators in the cohort were comparable or
better than in the broader United States population, and lifetime
stress exposure was lower than among students from other
majors. Exposure to more lifetime stressors was associated with
greater risk for various health conditions, including
hypertension, diabetes, and depression. Conversely, better
social,
environmental, behavioral, and personal profiles were
associated with protective effects for the same health
conditions.
Discussion: These data comprehensively summarize the lives of
predominately Hispanic nursing students and highlight risk and
resilience factors associated with their health and well-being.
10. The findings are timely, as the nursing field diversifies in
preparation to care for a diverse and aging population.
Comprehensively assessing stress–health relationships among
student
nurses ought to inform the policies, practices, and curricula of
nursing schools to better prepare nurses to thrive in the
often-strenuous healthcare environment.
Key Words: childhood adversity � environmental exposure �
health disparities � inflammation � mental health
Nursing Research, November/December 2019, Vol 68, No 6,
453–463
A
s the largest group of healthcare professionals in the
world, nurses play a far-reaching role in healthcare sys-
tems. In hospitals, direct patient contact places nurses
in a position to directly affect the outcomes, safety, and satis-
faction of patients. However, chronic psychosocial stress can
negatively affect the capacity of nurses to provide quality care
by increasing risk for medical error (Elfering, Semmer, &
Grebner, 2006) and reducing job satisfaction (Roberts &
Grubb, 2014). Nurses experience stress as a result of demand-
ing work responsibilities, long shifts, frequentlychangingroles
(Moustaka & Constantinidis, 2010), and—in some instances—
incivility between coworkers (Oyeleye, Hanson, O’Connor, &
Dunn, 2013). This type of frequent and prolonged stress expo-
sure can cause biological deterioration (i.e., allostatic load)
that increases individuals’ susceptibility to numerous health
problems and cognitive decline (McEwen, 1998).
Among nurses, work-related stress has been associated
with health problems such as obesity, cardiovascular disease,
and Type 2 diabetes (McNeely, 2005), as well as with greater
11. risk for depression, burnout, and suicidality (Karasek &
Theorell,
1990). Chronic stress can also affect cognitive function, in-
cluding attention and memory, which among nurses could
increase their risk of committing medication errors, failing
to recognize life-threatening signs and symptoms, or missing
other critical patient safety issues (Karimi, Adel-Mehraban, &
Moeini, 2018; McEwen, 1998). Stress also increases turnover
(i.e., quitting current job) and attrition (i.e., quitting nursing)
(Hayes et al., 2012; Shader, Broome, Broome, West, & Nash,
Hector A. Olvera Alvarez PhD, is Associate Professor, School
of Nursing, Univer-
sity of Texas at El Paso.
Elias Provencio-Vasquez PhD, RN, FAAN, FAANP, is Dean,
College of Nursing,
University of Colorado, Aurora. At the time this research was
completed, he
was Dean, School of Nursing, University of Texas at El Paso.
George M. Slavich, PhD, is Associate Professor, Cousins Center
for Psychoneu-
roimmunology and Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral
Sciences,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Jose Guillermo Ceden~o Laurent, PhD, is Research Associate,
T. H. Chan School
of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Matthew Browning, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Department of
Recreation,
Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Gloria McKee-Lopez, PhD, RN, is Associate Professor, School
of Nursing, Uni-
versity of Texas at El Paso.
Leslie Robbins, PhD, APRN, FAANP, ANEF, is Associate
Professor, School of
Nursing, University of Texas at El Paso.
13. 2012), and experience more stress from experiences com-
mon to other college students, such as test anxiety (Turner
& McCarthy, 2017). The need to balance financial, family,
and other life issues, along with academic demands, can also
lead to severe stress among students. At this time, however,
little is known about how stress experienced in nursing
school is associated with susceptibility to stress in the work
environment. A better understanding of how students experi-
ence stress could improve the performance and well-being of
new nurses and, ultimately, the health of their patients.
The effect that stress has on the health and performance
of nursing students can be mediated by other life stressors,
as well as personal, behavioral, social, and environmental fac-
tors that are experienced during school or earlier in life. For
instance, the type, number, and severity of stressors experi-
enced during childhood appears to increase the sensitivity
and inflammatory response to stress experienced later in life
(Nusslock & Miller, 2016), which can in turn elevate risk for
depression, cardiovascular disease, and hypersensitivity to
chemicals and air pollutants (Bell, Baldwin, Russek, Schwartz,
& Hardin, 1998; Black, Okiishi, Gabel, & Schlosser, 1999;
Olvera Alvarez, Kubzansky, Campen, & Slavich, 2018). Person-
ality might also modify the stress experience of nursing stu-
dents (Aldwin, Spiro, Levenson, & Cupertino, 2001; Judge &
Ilies, 2002). Behaviors such as sleep, diet, and physical activity
lessen or amplify the effect of stress on health as a result of in-
flammation in the body (Cecil, McHale, Hart, & Laidlaw, 2014;
Gleeson et al., 2011; Minihane et al., 2015). The amount and
type of social support (Thoits, 2011) and attachment (Mattanah,
Lopez, & Govern, 2011) have also been associated with protec-
tive health outcomes. Although research on stress among
nurses and nursing students is abundant, no studies have
examined how behavioral, social, and environmental factors
interact in nursing students. This has occurred despite the fact
that comprehensive assessments of how these multilevel and
14. multidimensional factors interact could help us prepare the
next generation of nurses to thrive and deliver high-quality
care in often-challenging work environments.
The Nurse Engagement and Wellness Study (NEWS) ad-
dresses these important issues by examining how behavioral,
social, and environmental factors interact to modify the effects
of stress on the health and performance of nursing students.
NEWS also seeks to investigate how the stress experience in
nursing school transcends into the professional work environ-
ment. In this first article on NEWS, we provide an overview of
the study design and describe key associations between stress
and health-related characteristics in the cohort at baseline.
METHODS
Study Design
The NEWS is a prospective cohort study of nursing students
and early career nurses directed by a team of nursing, social,
and environmental health researchers. Data and biological
samples are stored at the Biobehavioral Research Laboratory
at University of Texas at El Paso. The study was approved by
in-
stitutional review boards at University of Texas at El Paso
(857149-1) and Harvard University (16-0080).
Sampling
Female and male individuals between 18 and 55 years old,
enrolled in the bachelor of science in nursing (BSN) program
at the University of Texas at El Paso, were eligible to partici-
pate. Participants were recruited via e-mails, posters, flyers,
me-
dia outlets (e.g., magazine, newsletter), and in-class information
16. Para-Pak vials: one containing 5 ml of RNAlater preservative
and another containing 10 ml of glycerol solution and 2 ml
of acid-washed glass beads. Participants placed a small,
teaspoon-sized sample in each tube, stored the samples in their
freezer in a designated package, and delivered the sample to
the laboratory within 24 hours. Then, serum, plasma, saliva,
and stool samples were stored at −80°C until analysis.
During each time point, participants also completed the
list of self-assessments described in Supplemental Digital
Content 1, http://links.lww.com/NRES/A321. Participants had
12 weeks, starting at the beginning of the academic semester,
to complete these instruments. They were required to com-
plete each assessment once enrolled in the cohort. The date
and time of completion of each assessment were recorded.
Study Assessments
Health Endpoints and Biomarkers Indicators of metabolic
health included systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood
pressure(DBP),bodymassindex(BMI), andfastinglevelsoftri-
glycerides, cholesterol (total, low-density lipoprotein [LDL],
high-density lipoprotein [HDL]), glucose, and glycohemoglobin
(A1c). Cardiovascular endpoints included carotid intima-media
thickness (CIMT) measured via ultrasound (Stein et al., 2008),
heart rate variability measured via electrocardiogram, and ret-
inal blood vessel caliber measured via fundus imaging (De
Boever, Louwies, Provost, Int Panis, & Nawrot, 2014). Retinal
arterial narrowing has been shown to predict hypertension,
and venular widening has been linked with systemic inflam-
mation, endothelial dysfunction, and atherosclerosis (Adar
et al., 2010; Louwies, Panis, Kicinski, De Boever, & Nawrot,
2013). Depressive severity was measured with the patient health
questionnaire for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9).
Symptoms of chemical sensitivity such as skin and eye irrita-
tion, dizziness, pain, fatigue, stomachache, asthma and allergies
17. diagnosis, headache, and balance problems were assessed using
a modified survey version of an existing environmental sensi-
tivities survey (Andersson, Andersson, Bende, Millqvist, &
Nordin, 2009; Nordin, Palmquist, & Claeson, 2013).
The health state of participants was assessed using the
following definitions. Hypertension Stage 1 was defined as
SBP between 130 and 139 mm Hg or DBP between 80 and
89mmHg (Wheltonet al., 2018). HypertensionStage 2 was de-
finedas SBP ≥ 140 mm Hg or DBP ≥ 90 mm Hg (Whelton et al.,
2018). Overweight was defined as BMI between 25 and 29 and
obese asBMI ≥ 30 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[CDC], 2016). LDL ≥ 130 mg/dl was considered high, and
HDL ≤ 40 mg/dl was considered low (Zwald, Akinbami,
Fakhouri, & Fryar, 2017). Triglycerides of ≥150 mg/dl were
considered elevated (Carroll, Kit, & Lacher, 2015). Prediabetes
was defined as fasting glucose between 100 and 125 mg/dl or
A1c between 5.7% and 6.4% (CDC, 2017). Diabetes was defined
as fasting glucose >125 mg/dl or A1c > 6.4% (CDC, 2017).
Mod-
erate or worse depression severity was defined as a Patient
Health
Questionnaire-9 score ≥10 (Brody, Pratt, & Hughes, 2018).
Systemic inflammation was assessed via serum levels of
C-reactive protein and the inflammatory cytokines interleu-
kin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α).
Serum levels of Fetuin A (FA) and Amyloid P (SAP) were also
assessed as markers of cardiovascular disease risk. Serum
samples were analyzed in duplicate wells using the Milliplex
MultiAnalyte Profiling Human CVD Panel 3 premixed kit
(EMD Millipore Corp., Billerica, MA) for C-reactive protein,
FA and SAP, and the Human High-Sensitivity T-Cell premixed
kit (EMD Millipore Corp., Billerica, MA) for IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8,
and TNF-α. The plates were read on a Luminex 200 analyzer
19. between different forms and types of stress, and accounting for
both “objective” exposure (i.e., counts) as well as “subjective”
experiences (i.e., perceived stress severity; Slavich & Shields,
2018). Because the STRAIN produces a set of indices for mul-
tiple types of stressors (e.g., work, education, financial), it is
ideally suited for the investigation of interactions between
education-related stress and non-education-related stress among
nursing students (see http://www.strainsetup.com).
Behaviors and Personal Traits The frequency of consump-
tion by food type (i.e., vegetables, fruit, sugary drinks), type
and duration of physicalactivity (e.g.,walking, swimming,run-
ning), smoking frequency, frequency of drug and alcohol con-
sumption, sleep duration, and sleep quality was obtained via
self-reports. Personality type, stress coping style, forgiveness,
empathy, and self-efficacy were measured with the psycho-
metric instruments listed in Supplemental Digital Content 1,
http://links.lww.com/NRES/A321. Emotional intelligence was
assessed using the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional
Intelligence
Test and cognitive ability was assessed using the overclaiming
technique (Paulhus & Harms, 2004).
Social Factors Socioeconomic status was assessed by mater-
nal educational attainment, household income, poverty level,
and median income of the census block group in which the
participant resides. Childhood adversity was measured with
the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) questionnaire (Felitti
et al., 1998). Social support (Mitchell et al., 2003) and
attachment
to parent and peers (Mattanah et al., 2011) were also assessed.
Engagement and Performance Endpoints Burnout was
measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach &
Jackson, 1981; Yavuz & Dogan, 2014). The student version of
the generalsurvey (Maslach Burnout Inventory-GeneralSurvey
20. for Students) was used at baseline and at first follow-up, and
the human services survey was used at second follow-up. Aca-
demic performance was assessed via course grades, grade
point average, and nursing licensure examination (NCLEX)
results. Voluntary attrition from nursing program was used as
a measure of engagement. After graduation, clinical perfor-
mance was tracked with the Six Dimension Scale of Nursing
Performance (Schwirian, 1978).
Environmental Exposures Frequency and quantity of use
of hazardous chemicals commonly encountered by nurses,
including drugs (e.g., aerosolized antibiotics, antineoplastic
drugs), sterilizers and disinfectants, anesthetic gases, and surgi-
cal smoke, was assessed with a modified version of the Health
and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers (Steege,
Boiano, & Sweeney, 2014). The type and frequency of per-
sonalcareproducts used in dailylife wereassessedwith a ques-
tionnaire modified from Wu et al. (2010). Exposure to green
spaces was assessed via satellite imagery (Browning & Lee,
2017) and Google Streetview images based on geocoded
addresses (Li, Deal, Zhou, Slavenas, & Sullivan, 2018). Serum
levels of cadmium, aluminum, iron, copper, and arsenic were
measured via inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
(CDC, 2012; Funk, Pleil, Sauter, McDade, & Holl, 2015;
Harkema et al., 2009).
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics (e.g., means, standard deviations, and
percentages) were used to describe the prevalence of com-
mon health conditions in the cohort, which in turn were com-
pared against the national prevalence for adults between
20 and 39 years of age using the most recent data from the
National Health and Nutrition Survey (CDC, 2018), unless oth-
erwise specified. Biomarker (e.g., IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, TNFα, FA,
and SAP) and metal levels were transformed with a logarith-
22. (79%) and vegetables (83%) at least twice a week. Although
86% of participants slept at least 7 hours on a typical night,
61% did not rate their sleep quality as good. Twenty-one per-
cent of participants had an ACE score equal or greater than 4,
which is 7 percentage points higher than in the general U.S.
population (CDC, 2015). Descriptive statistics are provided
in Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/
NRES/A322.
Lifetime Stress Exposure
Participants were exposed to an average of 14.8 stressors
across the lifespan (SD = 10.7; range, 1–60; possible range,
0–166) as assessed by the Adult STRAIN, with an average over-
all severity score of 35.3 (SD = 26.0; range, 0–115; possible
range, 0–265). When compared to students from the same
university but enrolled in other majors (n = 1,186), nursing
students experienced fewer total stressors over the life course,
F(1, 1807) = 102.4, p < .001, with relatively lower cumulative
lifetime severity, F(1, 1807) = 82.5, p < .001 (Figure 2).
Students
from other majors reported an average lifetime stressor count
of 20.0 (SD = 12.3; range, 1–111) and an average overall
cumulative lifetime stressor severity of 49.9 (SD = 30.3; range,
0–245). The variation of stressor count and severity scores
across the primary life domains and core social–psychological
characteristics assessed by the Adult STRAIN was similar and
consistent with prior results (Slavich & Shields, 2018); there-
fore, we focused the main results on stressor counts.
Women experienced an average of 15.3 stressors across
the lifespan (SD = 10.2) as compared to 13.2 experienced
by men (SD = 12.1, p = .15). The life stressors most commonly
endorsed were from “Other Relationships” (23% by women,
23. 25% by men) and “Marital/Partner” sources (21% by women,
18% by men; Figure 2A). With respect to the core social–
psychological characteristics, the stressors most commonly
experienced were “Interpersonal Loss” (27% by women, 30%
by men) and “Role Change/Disruption” (23% by women,
21% by men; Figure 2B).
Across the lifespan, Hispanic participants experienced an
average of 14.5 stressors (SD = 10.2) as compared to 17.3
(SD = 13.4) by non-Hispanics (p = .13). Participants with a
full-time job experienced an average of 19.2 stressors across
the lifespan (SD = 11.1) as compared to 15.5 (SD = 10.1) for
those with a part-time job (p = .22) and 14.2 (SD = 10.9) for
those without a job (p = .11). Participants younger than
25 years old experienced an average of 12.1 stressors across
the lifespan (SD = 8.8), whereas those 25 years of age or older
experienced an average of 19.6 stressors (SD = 12.0), with the
difference between these groups being significant, F(1,
326) = 42.53, p < .001. Participants with an ACE score of
0 reported a significantly lower lifetime stress exposure
(mean = 8.78, SD = 5.55) than participants with an ACE score
of ≥4 (M = 25.1, SD = 12.4), F(1, 158) = 128.1, p < .001. A sig-
nificant difference persisted when comparing the average life-
time stressor count of participants with ACE scores of ≥4 and
FIGURE 2. Comparison of lifetime stressor exposure by stressor
category for nursing and nonnursing male and female students.
(A) Nursing students ex-
perienced a lower average total exposure to stressors across the
lifetime than nonnursing students, F(1, 1511) = 49.63, p < .001.
With respect to the life
domains, female nursing students experienced more
marital/partner stressors, F(1, 326) = 4.21, p = .041, and
reproduction stressors, F(1, 326) = 8.35,
p = .004, than male nursing students. (B) With respect to stress
exposure across core social–psychological characteristics, there
25. oddsofhaving hypertension(Stage 1 or2), highLDL,low HDL,
beingoverweight,orhaving diabetes(forORs,seeFigure3;for
summary statistics, see Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://
links.lww.com/NRES/A323). Conversely, women had higher
odds of being obese or having moderate or worst depression
severity than men. Hispanics had lower odds of being diabetic
and of suicidal ideation than non-Hispanics.
Several patterns of associations between participants’ life
stress exposure and health conditions were observed (for
ORs, see Figure 3; for summary statistics, see Supplemental
Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/NRES/A323). Partici-
pants with high early life stress exposure (stressor counts in
the top tertile) or with ACE scores of ≥4 had lower odds of
having elevated triglycerides as compared to participants with
low early life stress exposure (stressor counts in the bottom
tertile) or to participants with an ACE score equal to zero,
respectively. Compared to low lifetime exposure to marital/
partner stressors, high lifetime exposure to marital/partner
stressors was associated with greater odds of both Stage 1
and Stage 2 hypertension (see Figure 3). Similarly, elevated tri-
glycerides were positively associated with lifetime exposure
to education, work, and reproductive stressors. Being over-
weight was positively associated with stress exposure during
adulthood, as well as with lifetime exposure to education,
work, marital/partner, and legal/crime stressors. Being obese
was positively associated with lifetime exposure to reproduc-
tive, legal/crime, and possessions stressors (see Figure 3).
Moderate or worst depression was positively associated
with total lifetime stress exposure, early life stress exposure
and ACE scores of ≥4, and lifetime stressors …
Guidelines for Critiquing a Research Report
Use these guidelines to critique your selected research article.
You do not need to address all the questions indicated in this
guideline, include only the questions that apply.
26. Remember a critique is purposed to identify strengths and
weaknesses of a research study as reported.
Prepare your report as a Paper with appropriate headings and
use APA format. See the web link: http://www.apastyle.org/
You may also want to consider tutor.com for optimum results in
writing and APA
Paper is to be no more than 6 pages in length, including the
cover and reference pages
When you submit your paper, please also include the full article
as a separate file/upload
Problem Statement/Purpose
What is the problem/and or purpose of the research study?
Does the problem or purpose statement reflect a relationship
between two or more variables? If so, what is the relationship?
Are the variables testable?
Does the problem statement and/or purpose specify the nature of
the population being studied? What is it?
What significance of the problem, if any, has the researcher
identified? Is it relevant to nursing and if so, explain?
Review of Literature and Theoretical Framework
What concepts are included in the review? Please note
especially those concepts that are the dependent and
independent variables and how they are conceptually defined
Does the literature review make the relationships among the
variables explicit or place the variables within a theoretical or
conceptual framework? What are the relationships?
What gaps or conflicts in knowledge of the problem are
identified?
Are the references cited by the author mostly primary or
secondary sources? Give an example of each.
What are the operational definitions of the independent and
dependent variables? Do they reflect the conceptual definitions?
Hypotheses or Research Questions
What hypothesis (quantitative) or research questions
(quantitative and qualitative) are stated in the study?
If research questions are stated, are they used in addition to
27. hypotheses or to guide an exploratory study?
What are the independent and dependent variables in the
statement of each hypothesis or research question?
If hypotheses are stated, is the form of the statement statistical
(also called null) or research?
What is the direction of the relationship in each hypothesis, as
indicated?
Are the hypotheses testable?
Sample
How was the sample selected?
What type of sampling method was used? Is it appropriate to the
design?
Does the sample reflect the population as identified in the
problem or purpose statement? Is the sample size appropriate?
To what population may the findings be generalized? What are
the limitations in generalizability?
Research Design
What type of design is used?
Does the design seem to flow from the proposed research
problem, theoretical framework, literature review and
hypothesis?
What type (s) of data collection method(s) is/are used in the
study?
Are the data collection procedures similar for all subjects?
How have the rights of subjects been protected?
What indications are given that informed consent of the subjects
has been ensured?
Instruments
Physiologic measurement: Is a rationale given for why a
particular instrument or method was selected? If so, what is it?
What provision is made for maintaining the accuracy of the
instrument and its use, if any?
Observational methods: Who did the observing? How were the
observers trained to minimize bias? Was there an observational
guide? Were the observers required to make inferences about
what they saw? Is there any reason to believe that the presence
28. of the observers affects the behavior of the subjects?
Interviews: Who were the interviewers? How were they trained
to minimize bias? Is there evidence of any interview bias? If so,
what was it?
Questionnaires: What is the type or format of the
questionnaire(s): e.g. Likert, open-ended? Is it or are they
consistent with the conceptual definition(s)?
Available data and records: Are the records that were used
appropriate to the problem being studied? Are the data being
used to describe the sample or to test the hypothesis?
What type of reliability is reported for each instrument?
What level of reliability is reported for each instrument?
What type of validity is reported for each instrument?
Does the validity of each instrument seem adequate? Why?
Analysis of Data
What level of measurement is used to measure the variables?
What descriptive or inferential statistics are reported?
Were these inferential or descriptive statistics appropriate to
the level of measurement for each variable?
Are the inferential statistics used appropriate to the intent of the
hypothesis?
Does the author report the level of significance set for the
study? If so, what is it?
If tables or figures are used, do they meet the following
standards: they supplement and economize the text, they have
precise headings and titles, they do not repeat the text?
Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations, and Utilization
for Nursing Practice
If hypothesis testing was done, was/were they hypotheses
supported or not supported? Are the results interpreted in the
context of the problem/purpose, hypothesis, and theoretical
framework/literature reviewed?
What relevance for nursing practice does the researcher
identify, if any?
What generalizations are made?
29. Are the generalizations within the scope of the findings or
beyond the findings?
What recommendations for future research are stated or
implied?
Are there other studies with similar findings?
What risks/benefits are involved for patients if the research
findings would be used in practice?
Is direct application of the research findings feasible in terms of
time, effort, money, and legal/ethical risks?
How and under what circumstances are the findings applicable
to nursing practice?
Should these results be applied to nursing practice? Why?
Would it be possible to replicate this study in another clinical
practice setting? specify
With appropriate credit to:
Tzeng, H-M., Duffy, S.A., Low, L. K. (2008). Major Content
Sections of a Research Report and Related Critiquing
Guidelines. Retrieved https://open.umich.edu License link:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.o
Summative Assignment: Critique of Research Article
1. A research critique demonstrates your ability to critically
read an investigative study. For this assignment, choose a
research article related to nursing or medicine to critique.
· Articles used for one assignment can't be used for the other
assignments (students should find new research articles for each
assignment).
· The selected articles should be original research articles.
Review articles, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, and systemic
review should not be used.
· Mixed-methods studies should not be used.
30. Your critique should include the following:
Research Problem/Purpose
· State the problem clearly as it is presented in the report.
· Have the investigators placed the study problem within the
context of existing knowledge?
· Will the study solve a problem relevant to nursing?
· State the purpose of the research.
Review of the Literature
· Identify the concepts explored in the literature review.
· Were the references current? If not, what do you think the
reasons are?
Theoretical Framework
· Are the theoretical concepts defined and related to the
research?
· Does the research draw solely on nursing theory or does it
draw on theory from other disciplines?
· Is a theoretical framework stated in this research piece?
· If not, suggest one that might be suitable for the study.
Variables/Hypotheses/Questions/Assumptions
· What are the independent and dependent variables in this
study?
· Are the operational definitions of the variables given? If so,
are they concrete and measurable?
· Is the research question or the hypothesis stated? What is it?
Methodology
· What type of design (quantitative, qualitative, and type) was
used in this study?
· Was inductive or deductive reasoning used in this study?
· State the sample size and study population, sampling method,
and study setting.
· Did the investigator choose a probability or non-probability
sample?
· State the type of reliability and the validity of the
measurement tools.
· Were ethical considerations addressed?
Data Analysis
31. · What data analysis tool was used?
· How were the results presented in the study?
· Identify at least one (1) finding.
Summary/Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
· What are the strengths and limitations of the study?
· In terms of the findings, can the researcher generalize to other
populations? Explain.
· Evaluate the findings and conclusions as to their significance
for nursing.
The body of your paper should be 4–6 double-spaced pages plus
a cover page and a reference page. The critique must be
attached to the article and follow APA guidelines.
Need APA Help?
Visit the Student Resources tab or the WCU Library tab at the
top of this page.
Points 280
2. By submitting this paper, you agree: (1) that you are
submitting your paper to be used and stored as part of the
SafeAssign™ services in accordance with the Blackboard
Privacy Policy; (2) that your institution may use your paper in
accordance with your institution's policies; and (3) that your use
of SafeAssign will be without recourse against Blackboard Inc.
and its affiliates.
3. Institution Release Statement
4. I certify the attached paper is my original work and that I
acknowledge the institution's Academic Honor Code and
plagiarism statement located here.
Rubric
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Mostly Meets Expectations
Below Expectations
Does Not Meet Expectations
32. Research Problem/Purpose
Points Range:25.2 (9.00%) - 28 (10.00%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing
are clearly identified.
Points Range:21.28 (7.60%) - 24.92 (8.90%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing
are somewhat identified.
Points Range:16.8 (6.00%) - 21 (7.50%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing
are mostly absent or misidentified.
Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 16.52 (5.90%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing
are absent.
Review of the Literature
Points Range:37.8 (13.50%) - 42 (15.00%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are clearly identified.
Critique of the references is included and well developed.
Points Range:31.92 (11.40%) - 37.38 (13.35%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are somewhat
identified. Critique of the references is included, but may not be
fully developed.
Points Range:25.2 (9.00%) - 31.5 (11.25%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are misidentified.
Critique of the references is severely lacking.
Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 24.78 (8.85%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are absent. Critique
of the references is absent.
Theoretical Framework
Points Range:25.2 (9.00%) - 28 (10.00%)
A theoretical concept/framework is identified and well analyzed
for appropriateness. If the article lacks a concept/framework, a
suitable one is suggested.
Points Range:21.28 (7.60%) - 24.92 (8.90%)
A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and
analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a
concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested,
33. but it is somewhat inappropriate.
Points Range:16.8 (6.00%) - 21 (7.50%)
A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and
analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a
concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested,
is not identified or is grossly inappropriate.
Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 16.52 (5.90%)
A theoretical concept/framework is misidentified or not
analyzed for appropriateness.
Variables, Hypotheses, Questions, and Assumptions
Points Range:12.6 (4.50%) - 14 (5.00%)
IV and DV are identified and defined. Discussion on
measurability is included. Research question and hypothesis are
identified.
Points Range:10.64 (3.80%) - 12.46 (4.45%)
IV and DV are somewhat identified and or partially defined.
Discussion on measurability is somewhat included. Research
question and hypothesis are partially identified.
Points Range:8.4 (3.00%) - 10.5 (3.75%)
IV and DV identification and definition are absent or severely
lacking. Discussion on measurability is absent or inaccurate.
Research question and hypothesis are not identified or grossly
misidentified.
Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 8.26 (2.95%)
IV and DV identification and definition are absent. Discussion
on measurability is absent. Research question and hypothesis
are not identified.
Methodology
Points Range:50.4 (18.00%) - 56 (20.00%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling
method, and type of reasoning are properly identified.
Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical
considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are
discussed.
Points Range:42.56 (15.20%) - 49.84 (17.80%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling
34. method, and type of reasoning are somewhat identified.
Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical
considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are
discussed, but some information is inaccurate.
Points Range:33.6 (12.00%) - 42 (15.00%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling
method, and type of reasoning are absent or misidentified.
Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical
considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are
either absent or grossly inaccurate.
Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 33.04 (11.80%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling
method, and type of reasoning are absent. Reliability and
validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and
probability vs. non-probability sampling are absent.
Data Analysis
Points Range:37.8 (13.50%) - 42 (15.00%)
Data analysis tool is identified. An explanation on how the
results are presented in the study is included and accurate. At
least one finding is appropriately identified.
Points Range:31.92 (11.40%) - 37.38 (13.35%)
Data analysis tool is somewhat identified. An incomplete
explanation on how the results are presented in the study is
included. At least one finding is identified.
Points Range:25.2 (9.00%) - 31.5 (11.25%)
Data analysis tool is absent or misidentified. An explanation on
how the results are presented in the study is absent or grossly
unclear. Findings are not included or are grossly inaccurate.
Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 24.78 (8.85%)
Data analysis tool is absent. An explanation on how the results
are presented in the study is absent. Findings are not included.
Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
Points Range:50.4 (18.00%) - 56 (20.00%)
Strengths and limitations of the study are identified. A
discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is
included. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and
35. significance to nursing is included and appropriate.
Points Range:42.56 (15.20%) - 49.84 (17.80%)
Strengths and limitations of the study are somewhat identified.
A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is
included but may not be fully developed. An evaluation of the
findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing may not be
fully developed.
Points Range:33.6 (12.00%) - 42 (15.00%)
Strengths and limitations of study are absent or lacking. A
discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is
absent or lacking. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions,
and significance to nursing is absent or inappropriate.
Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 33.04 (11.80%)
Strengths and limitations of study are absent. A discussion on
whether or not the study can be generalized is absent. An
evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to
nursing is absent.
Mechanics and APA Format
Points Range:12.6 (4.50%) - 14 (5.00%)
Written in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner.
Responses are mostly error free. Information from sources is
appropriately paraphrased and accurately cited.
Points Range:10.64 (3.80%) - 12.46 (4.45%)
Writing is generally clear and organized but is not concise or
formal in language. Multiple errors exist in spelling and
grammar with minor interference with readability or
comprehension. Most information from sources is correctly
paraphrased and cited.
Points Range:8.4 (3.00%) - 10.5 (3.75%)
Writing is generally unclear and unorganized. Some errors in
spelling and grammar detract from readability and
comprehension. Sources are missing or improperly cited.
Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 8.26 (2.95%)
Writing is unclear and unorganized. Errors in spelling and
grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources
are missing.
