Week 6 Discussion
Write a 3- to 5-paragraph critique of the article, “Ho, W. K. Y., Ahmed, M. D., Leong, C. I., Chan, P., Van Niekerk, R. L., Huang, F., Chen, J., Chan, N., Silva, J., & Ip, P. (2019). An assessment of Body Mass Index and sensitive period for overweight development in Macao students at primary school age. Anthropological Review, 82(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.2478/anre-2019-0003´.
DOI.org/10.2478/anre-2019-0003
I will also attach the ABOVE article. However, the doi is noted above as well should the attachment not open appropriately
In your critique, include responses to the following:
• Which is the research design used by the authors?
• Why did the authors use this t test?
• Do you think it’s the most appropriate choice? Why or why not?
• Did the authors display the data?
• Do the results stand alone? Why or why not?
• Did the authors report effect size? If yes, is this meaningful?
Be sure to support your Main Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.
REQUIRED RESOURCES
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., Leon-Guerrero, A., & Davis, G. (2020). Social statistics for a diverse society (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Chapter 8, “Testing Hypothesis†(pp. 243-279)
Wagner, III, W. E. (2020). Using IBM® SPSS® statistics for research methods and social science statistics (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Chapter 6, “Testing Hypotheses Using Means and Cross-Tabulation†(previously read in Week 5)
• Chapter 11, “Editing Output†(previously read in Week 2, 3, and 4)
Walden University Library. (n.d.). Course Guide and Assignment Help for RSCH 8210. Retrieved from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/rsch8210
For help with this week’s research, see this Course Guide and related weekly assignment resources.
Document: Week 6 t test Scenarios (PDF)
Use these scenarios to complete this week’s Assignment.
Document: Walden University: Research Design Alignment Table
Discussion Posting Content 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail (including multiple relevant examples), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%)
Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow, and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Peer Feedback and Interaction 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%)
Response posting is excellent and fully contributes to the quality of interaction by offering substantive constructive critiques, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%)
Response posting is good and partially contributes to the quality of interaction by offering adequate constructive critiques, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%)
Response posting is fair and partially contributes to the quality of interaction but offers insufficient constructive critiques or suggestions, shallow questions, or provides poor quality additional resources. 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%)
Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the response posting does not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critiques, suggestions, questions, or additional resources.
Writing 3.6 (18%) – 4 (20%)
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA Style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style. 3.2 (16%) – 3.5 (17.5%)
Postings are mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA Style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors. 2.8 (14%) – 3.1 (15.5%)
Postings are somewhat below graduate-level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting versus original writing and paraphrasing. 0 (0%) – 2.7 (13.5%)
ostings are well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH NURSING TERM PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT
