H​‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​ello, this is for editing the order #82672071 that you di

Too Tired? Too Anxious? Need More Time? We’ve got your back.

Submit Your Instructions

H​‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​ello, this is for editing the order #82672071 that you did for me in April. If you need anything please let me know I will try to get it for you. Attached is the lab report I uploaded, but you can also find the word you submitted on the order. The professor failed the lab report and he made the following notes; please edit the lab report with these changes:
While your writing style is excellent, there were some serious issues with the report:
– abstract is missing
– design & materials sections missing and procedure did not clearly describe the study that you conducted
– you mention that participants were “divided into four categories based on varying characteristics”, but never specify what that means; thus what your analysis actually shows remains unclear
– you conduct a linear and a logistic regression on the same data: predicting accuracy from reaction times. While linear regression would in principle be correct, it is unclear what this analysis shows in terms of mindfulness and mind-wandering; it simply shows that correct answers were more quick than incorrect ones
– you say you conducted an additional study 2, but it remains unclear what that study implied
INTRODUCTION
Your style of writing is brilliant. However, from paragraph 6, the motivation for conducting the present study becomes slightly unclear:
– you never mention that your study is a replication of Mrazek et al. (2012), so what I would have wanted to see is more discussion of the original study, its limitations and how your study builds on it.
– the only specific thing you mention is using logistic & linear regression instead of ANOVA and correlation, but you could have elaborated what are the benefits of using regression over ANOVA?
METHODS
Design & Material sections are missing and cannot be derived from the Procedure section.
Part​‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​icipants: typically you would also report some demographics, particularly age, but more importantly how were the participants recruited? Were there any exclusion criteria/attention checks? You say that they completed the dispositional questionnaire, but what was that questionnaire?
Procedure: unfortunately, there are some serious issues here:
– what were the pictures? what questions were participants asked? what were the “four random categories” that participants were divided into?
– why mind-wandering = time take to identify picture, and mindfulness = accuracy at identifying the pictures?
RESULTS
Unfortunately, we do not know what the 4 different categories were, were these mindfulness manipulations?
– did you use repeated-measures or independent-measures ANOVA?
– did any assumption checks were performed?
– Figure should have error bars
– you perform a linear and a logistic regression predicting accuracy based on reaction times? however, it remains unclear what the accuracy even is? Also, why perform two regressions?
You also report STUDY 2, but it remains very unclear what happens in study 2 and why it was performed?
DISCUSSION
While your discussion is well-written, I have a hard time seeing how it’s related to your own study as it was unclear whether and how did you manipulate mindfulness?
– in your introduction you predicted a negative relationship between mindfulness and mind-wandering; whereas where you sometimes say you found an inverse relationship or a positive relationship.
– you base your results on a regression analysis, which predicted accuracy on identifying some stimuli (which you never specify) from reaction times, but that simply shows that correct/incorrect responses are accompanied by faster/slower response, it says nothing about the relationship between mindfulness and mind-wandering​‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​.

Too Tired? Too Anxious? Need More Time? We’ve got your back.

Submit Your Instructions

Published
Categorized as Psychology

Leave a comment