SOLUTION: Example Critical Analysis | My Assignment Tutor

1HPS111 – Example Critical AnalysisThis document guides you on how to complete the AT1 Critical Analysis. This is only anexample. Refer to the AT1 Guide for information on the stimulus article you need to analyse.DO NOT COMPLETE YOUR ASSESSMENT ON THE ARTICLE BELOW.The article below is an informative, popular psychology piece reporting on the supposedbenefits of mindfulness for children. The article is divided into three major sections. The firstsection argues mindfulness may provide mental health benefits for children. The secondasserts mindfulness is best suited to young children. The third argues mindfulness is moreeffective when implemented by primary caregivers. One way to critically appraise the piece isto evaluate each claim sentence-by-sentence applying the CRAAP Test (currency, relevance,authority, accuracy, and purpose). Doing so will allow you to evaluate whether there isevidence to support the claim and the strength of that evidence. Where there is no evidence tosupport a claim, indicate that the claim is unsubstantiated. You can track your progress byrecording the outcome of your evaluation of each claim in the right-hand margins using thenew comment function in Word. We do not expect you to provide a marked-up version of thesource article highlighting each sentence as we have done below. We have added commentsin the right-hand margin (e.g. the comment labelled “unsubstantiated claim” or “expertopinion”) to make it easier to evaluate the strength and accuracy of the claims being made. Wethen use this information to generate a cohesive, integrated, written response to the claimsmade in the article. An example of the type of response we expect can be found at the veryend of this document.****************************************************************************************************************************FAKE Example Stimulus Article + Mark UpMindfulness for ChildrenURL: https://www.nytimes.com/guides/well/mindfulness-for-children?platform=hootsuiteBy David Gelles2UnsubstantiatedclaimsAnecdotalevidenceUnsubstantiatedclaimAnecdotalevidence3UnsubstantiatedclaimsUnsubstantiatedclaimExpert opinionRequiresevidence/sourceRequiresevidence/sourceExpert opinionUnsubstantiatedclaimExpert opinion?4****************************************************************************************************************************On the next page is my critical analysis of the online article written by Gelles (2017). The firstparagraph orients the reader to the issue under consideration, provides background information,definitions, outlines the importance of the area, an outline of the claims to be analysed, and overallthesis/contention. The next four paragraphs critically analyse the central claims in the source article.You will notice that the general structure for each paragraph is similar, in that:• they start with a topic sentence stating the claim to be analysed• contain an analysis of the stated claim underpinned by empirical evidence• they end with a concluding sentence linking the analysis back to the contentionFinally, a conclusion which summarises the strength of the available evidence, outlines the strengthof the claims, and suggests how to improve research outcomes in the area are made. We areexpecting a critical response similar in scope, depth, and length to the example provided below:****************************************************************************************************************************1Critical Analysis: Mindfulness for ChildrenMichael T. Do12345678HPS111 – Psychology A: Fundamentals of BehaviourDr Mathew Ling775 words1Critical Analysis: Mindfulness for ChildrenThe article by Gelles (2017) published in the New York Times is a popular psychology pieceadvocating the benefits of mindfulness-based training to increase psychological, and psychosocialwellbeing in children. Mindfulness is a psychological state of non-judgmental, moment-to-momentawareness of one’s phenomenological experience, with proponents claiming it can confer significantpsychological, and physiological benefits (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). The article, however, contains severalunsubstantiated claims and appeals to authority, which weakens the overall argument. This essayaims to critically analyse the major claims made by Gelles (2017) including his assertions thatmindfulness can increase wellbeing in young children, it is most effective when integrated from ayoung age, mindfulness induces structural changes in the prefrontal cortex, and it is most effectivewhen administered by primary caregivers. It is contended that there is limited evidence mindfulnessis beneficial for children.The first major claim is mindfulness can reduce anxiety whilst increasing wellbeing inchildren (Gelles, 2007). Currently, very few well designed randomised control trials (RCT) support theeffectiveness of mindfulness-based training to reduce anxiety or increase wellbeing in children(Black, 2015; Burke, 2010). For example, one of the largest RCT to date involving 228 non-clinicalchildren conducted by Napoli et al. (2005) showed mindfulness-based interventions (the AttentionAcademic Program) can lead to reductions in self-rated test anxiety. However, the teachers were notblinded to the conditions, thus, introducing potential bias. Another wait-list control trial by Saltzmanand Goldin (2008) conducted with 31 children using Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)failed to report the randomisation process and outcome measures. Finally, Lee et al. (2008)implemented an open trial in 25 children aged 9 to 12 years with training provided by mindfulnessinstructors. The authors reported no significant reductions in anxiety or depression. Therefore, thereis currently only weak evidence that mindfulness-based training reduces anxiety and increaseswellbeing in children.Another unsupported claim is children derive the most benefit from mindfulness training2(Gelles, 2017). Although direct comparisons between children and adults are difficult due todifferences in training programs, measurement outcomes, maturation, and follow-up periods (Black,2015; Burke, 2010; Chiesa & Serretti, 2009), the available evidence indicates mindfulness may bemore effective for adults than children. For instance, a meta-analytic study (which quantifiescomparable outcome measures across several studies) by Burke (2010) reported the effect size ofthe mindfulness program for children by Napoli et al. (2005) was low-to-medium. By comparison,another meta-analytic study by Chiesa and Serretti (2009) reported the effect size for RCT involvingmindfulness-based interventions to reduce stress in adults was large. In other words, the positiveeffects of mindfulness were greater for adults than children. Though hampered by small sample sizes(Black, 2015), the preliminary evidence indicates adults benefit more from mindfulness training thanchildren.Relatedly, Gelles (2017) claims the cognitive gains associated with mindfulness in childrenare underpinned by neurological changes in the prefrontal cortex, the foremost region of the humanbrain involved with complex cognitive functions (Miller & Cohen, 2001; Stuss & Alexander, 2000).Although there is some evidence that certain phases of mindfulness involve activation of theprefrontal cortex (Tang & Posner, 2012), the neurological changes (i.e. increases in grey matter)appear to occur in non-frontal regions including the insula, hippocampus, and anterior cortex (Tanget al., 2015). Moreover, the studies on structural changes have been conducted in adults, notchildren (Tang et al., 2015). Of those studies examining biological changes in children, almost allhave focused changes in the autonomic nervous system including blood pressure, and sodiumregulation, not the brain proper (Black, 2015).Finally, Gelles (2017) claims mindfulness is most effective for children when the training isprovided by primary caregivers such as parents. No studies directly comparing the effectiveness ofmindfulness programs implemented by primary caregivers versus trained professionals could beidentified (Black, 2015; Burke, 2010; Chiesa & Serretti, 2009). Though parents play an important rolein influencing children’s behaviour including weight change (Wrotniak et al., 2005), eating3behaviours (Savage et al., 2007), and mental health (Repetti et al., 2002), there is a lack of evidenceprimary caregivers can provide more effective mindfulness training than non-primary caregivers.As reviewed, there is weak evidence that mindfulness leads to tangible benefits forchildren’s psychological, and psychosocial wellbeing. Relatively few RCT have been conducted in thearea, and there is a dearth of research examining biological changes in children, as well asoptimisation strategies clearly showing primary caregivers are more effective than trained providers.Further research involving longitudinal RCT with larger samples sizes, extended age ranges,standardised training programs, and comparable outcome measures and follow-up periods arerequired before widespread adoption of mindfulness for children can be recommended.