This assignment is about research methods (statistics) in psychology. Please read the article and answer all of the 4 questions in the assignment and keep to the word limit for all questions. I have a

This assignment is about research methods (statistics) in psychology. Please read the article and answer all of the 4 questions in the assignment and keep to the word limit for all questions. I have a
  Copyright Warning Notice  This material is protected by copyright and has been copied by and solely for  the educational purposes of the University under license.  You may not sell,  alter or further reproduce or distribute any part of this material to any other  person.  Where provided to you in electronic format,  you may only print  from it for your own private study and research.  Failure to comply with the  terms of this warning may expose you to legal action for copyright  infringement and/or disciplinary action by the University. ACC OUNTIN G FO R NON-SPE CIALISTS 8.20 L02 8.21 L06 8.22 L06 Refer back to Rea l World 8.1 . Why wou ld the ROE be different for a business like Wesfarmers as compared with Microsoft? Refer back to Real Wor ld 8.3. Discu ss the importance of dividend yie ld on PE ratios and share price. Discu ss the reason s why PE ratios for some companies are much higher than others . Critical ly evaluate the statement that ‘financ ial reports are largely based on historica l cost information and are, the1·efore, usefu l in assessing the stewardship (accountability) of management, but of little use to external decision-makers when it comes to allocating scarce resources’. APPLICATION EXERCISES EASY 8.1 LOl/7 8.2 L04 Prepare common size (vert ical ana lysis) reports for the statement of financia l posit ion and income statement shown below . What can you learn from this analysis? – Accounts receivable Inventories Total current assets Non-current assets Tota l assets Statement of financial position extracts as at 30 June 3,000 100,000 120,000 223,000 240,000 463,000 Income statements for the year ended 30 June 16,000 45,000 68,000 129,000 210,000 339,000 20,000 35,000 65,000 120,000 198,000 318,000 2016 2017 Net sales (all credit) Less cost of sales Gross profit Less other expenses General Interest Profit for the year Less tax Profit for the year after tax 600 ,000 (360,000) 240,000 (170,000) (25,000) 45,000 (13,500) 31,500 Complete the following table for the requested ratios and account balances . 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Cash $5,200 $? $5,800 $4,200 $1,700 Accounts receivable 1,600 100 7 4,200 7,600 Inventory 2,800 7,300 8,400 9,900 7 Prepayments 300 2,000 8,500 7 8,100 Total current assets $9,900 $? $? $? $? 500,000 (280 ,000) 220,000 (140,000) (15 ,000) 65,000 (19,500) 45,500 2017 $3,000 2,200 8,700 2,600 $16,500 CHAPTER 8 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRET ATION OF FIN ANCI AL STATEMENTS Accounts payable $1,800 $8,500 $5,800 $4,700 $8,900 $? Accrued liabilities 2,000 2,000 3,400 5,700 1,600 4,000 Wages payable 1 500 5 200 2,200 5 600 9 100 7,900 Total current liabilities $5,300 $15,700 $11,400 $16,000 $19,600 $? Current ratio ? 1.07 ? 1.76 1.09 ? Quick ratio ? 0.48 1.31 ? ? 0.26 8.3 L06 Nu Rise Ltd reported the fol lowing figures in its statement of comprehensive income for the yea r ended 30 June 2017. $ Sales 540,000 Cost of goods sold 290,000 Gross profit 250,000 Selling expenses 68,000 General expenses 97,000 Financi al expense (interest) 15,000 Comprehensive income for the year 70,000 Dividends 45,000 Average number of shares 175,000 Share price at year-end $5.60 Compute : • P/E ratio • earn ing s yield • dividend yield • dividend payout ratio • earnings per share • dividends per share . 8.4 L03 Complete the following table for the requested ratios. 2014 2015 2016 2017 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 Cash sales 1,500 1,600 1,800 2,200 Credit sales 3,500 4,000 4,500 6,000 Total sales revenue 5,000 5,600 6,300 8,200 Average accounts receivable 210 240 290 400 Cost of sales 3,000 3,800 4,050 5,030 Cash inventory purchases 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,400 Credit inventory purchases 3,000 3,380 3,840 5,160 Total inventory purchases 4,000 4,480 5,040 6,560 Average accounts payable 350 400 390 450 Average inventory held 320 340 365 447 Average total assets less current liabilities 4,200 4,400 4,700 6,000 Average number of employees 111 121 125 133 Inventory turnover period (# of days) ACCOUNTING FOR NON -SPECIALISTS Debtors average settlement(# of days) Creditors average settlement(# of days) Sales revenue to capital employed (times) Sales revenue per employee 8.5 L03/4 An analysis of liquidity and efficiency for ABC Ltd yields the following results : Industry average Ratio Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Current 1.8:1 1.95:1 2.1 :1 2.1 Quick (acid test) 0.9:1 0.85:1 08:1 1: 1 Inventory turnover period 67 days 76 days 94 days 60 days Accounts receivable turnover period 42 days 36 days 32 days 35 days Critically evaluate the liquidity position of ABC Ltd. INTERMEDIATE 8.6 L0l/6 Complete the following table for: • ratio name • ratio focus • ratio formula Name Focus Formula (a) Return on ordinary shareholders’ funds/return on equity Profitability (b) Average inventory x 365/Cost of sales (c) Gearing (d) Asset turnover ratio (e) (f) (g) (h) Average sett lement period for accounts receivable (i) Acid test ratio U) Dividend s per share (k) Gross profit margin (I) (m) Dividend yield ratio Efficiency Current assets/Current liabilities Operating profit/Interest expense Profitability (Operating profit/Average long-term capital employed) x 100 Investment Market price per share/ Earnings per share 8.7 L0l/2/3 Business A and Business B are both retailers, but seem to take a different approach to this trade according to the information available, which consists of a table of ratios: Ratio Return on capital employed Return on owners’ equity Average settlement period for accounts receivable Business A 20% 30% 63 days Business B 17% 18% 21 days 8.8 LO4/5/6 8.9 LO3/4/5 8.10 LO3/4/5 CHAPTER 8 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Average settlement period for accounts payable Gross profit percentage Profit percentage Inventory turnover period (a) Explain how each ratio is calculated. 50 days 40% 10% 52 day 45 days 15% 10% 25 days (b) Describe what this information indicates about the differences in each bus iness’s approach. If one of them prides itself on persona l service and the other on competitive prices, which do you think is which, and why? (a) The managers of Rebus Transport Ltd discovered that a motor lorry, which was purchased on the last day of the financial year, had been charged to motor running expenses . This discovery was made after the draft annual financial statements had been prepared and after the managers had calculated the follow ing ratios based on these statements: 1 . Gross profit margin 2. Interest cover ratio 3. Sales to capital employed 4. Current ratio. Which TWO of the above ratios wil l change after the error has been corrected in the financial stateme nts? (b) The managers of Carter Engineering Ltd discovered that a long-term loan, which was taken out during the year, had been misclassified as a current liability. Thi s discovery was made after the annual financial statements had been prepared and after the managers had calculated the fol lowing ratios based on these statements: 1. Dividend yield ratio 2. Gearing ratio 3. Current ratio 4. Return on ordinary shareholders’ funds. Which TWO of the above ratios will change after the error has been corrected in the financial statements? Gamma Plastics Ltd made a 1-for-2 bonus issue of ordinary shares during the year. Which ONE of the following changes to the financia l ratios of the business will occur as a resu lt of this share issue? A. A decrease in the gearing ratio B. An increase in the acid test ratio C. A decrease in the return on ordinary shareho lders’ funds D. A decrease in earnings per share (a) Camus Company has an operating profit margin of 5% and a return on capital employed of 20%. The capital employed in the business is $80 million . What is the sales revenue for the business? (b) Clouseau Co began trading on 1 January and, after only eight months’ trading, a fire in one of its two warehouses destroyed all the inventories being held there. The owner of the business reported that sales revenue and purchases to the date of the fire were $180,000 and $160,000 respective ly. Furthermore, there were stil l $40,000 of inventories held in the second warehouse that were not affected by the fire. The business makes a constant gross profit margin of 40% on its sales. What is the value of the inventorie s destroyed by the fire? ACCOUNTING FOR NON-SPECIALISTS . 8.11 L02/5 8.12 L02/5 A common size analysis of the income statements of Justine Ltd is presented below: Answer the following questions, referring to the above inde x analysis : JUSTINE LTD Income statement 2015 2016 2017 Sales 100 100 100 Cost of goods sold 65 63 61 Expenses 28 31 34 Profit 7 6 5 (a) What is a common size report? (b) From the above analysis, which two obvious trends explain the change in profit margin over the three periods? (c) Identify factors that might give rise to these trends. The following details concern the business of N. Shakey, who is worried about the profitability and financial structure of his business at 30 June 20 17, especia lly since the bank is requiring repayment of his overdraft Sales (credit) Cost of sales All other expenses Cash at bank Inventory Accounts recei vab le (net) Non-current assets (net) Accounts payable N. Shakey, cap ital (The balance as at 1 July 2015 was $56,000) Non-current liabilities Inventory at 1 July 2015 was $15,000 Accounts receivable at 1 July 20 15 were $10,000 (a) Calculate the fol lowing rati os for 2016 and 2017: operat ing profit margin ii rate of return on owners’ equity iii current ratio iv acid test ratio v gearing vi inventory turnover period . (b) Write a short report to the owner about: profitability ii short-term liquidity iii long-term solvency. 30 June 2016 30 June 2017 $ $ 60,000 90,000 39,000 63,000 12,000 21,000 12,000 (18,000) 18,000 ~ 33,000 12,000 30,000 24,000 48,000 6,000 9,000 60,000 72,000 12,000 8.13 L05/ 6 CHALLENGING 8.14 LOl-7 CHAPTER 8 ANALYS IS AND INTERPRETATION OF FIN ANCIAL STATEMENTS The following finan cial info rmat ion is provided for Metal Recyclers Ltd . Non-current liabilities Paid-up capital ($1 )* Retained profit and reserves -start of year Operating profit for the year Interest Taxation Dividends per share (cents) Average market price per share * All shares initially issued at $1 . (a) Calculate for each year : gearing or leverage level ii earnings per share iii price/earnings (PIE) ratio 2015 $’000 1,200 800 80 270 120 45 5 $1.08 2016 $’000 1,600 800 145 294 160 40 6 $1.12 iv dividend yield (assume that the income tax relating to corporations is 30%) v dividend payout ratio . 2017 $’000 1,600 800 191 325 160 51 7 $1.23 (b) Calculate the historical return on owners’ equity for 2016 and 2017, and compare this with the earnings yie ld. (c) Discuss any significant trends or anomalies. Conday and Co. Ltd , in operation for three years, produces antique reproduction furniture for the export market. Its most recent set of accounts is set out below. CONDAY AND CO. LTD Statement of financial position as at 30 November 2017 $’000 $’000 820 I 600 Current assets Accounts receivable Inventory Non-current assets Plant and machinery at cost Less accumulated depreciation Freehold land and buildings Q 1,420 762 Total assets Current liabilitie s Bank overdraft Accounts payable Taxat ion Non-current liabilitie s 12 % debentures Shareholders’ equ ity Paid-up capital (issued at $1 eac h) Retained profits 385 665 95 228 990 2 410 1,145 200 700 365 1065 Total liabilitie s and sha reholder s’ ec;uity_ 2,410 ‘—————=======II 339 . . I , ! ACCOUNTING FOR NON -SPECIALISTS 8.15 L07 CONDAY AND CO. LTD Statement of comprehensive income for t,he year ended 30 November 2017 $’000 Sales 2,600 . Less cost of sales (1,620) G~p~rt ~ Less other expenses (660 Profit for the year 320 Income tax (95 Profit for the year after tax 225 Proposed dividends (160) Retained 12rofit for the y_,,.;e;,:;a.:…r —————–~=== 6=5~ =1 Notes: The debentures are secured on the freehold land and buildings. The company has asked an investor to invest $200,000 by purchasing 50,000 new ordinary shares at $4 each. Conday wishes to use the funds to finance further expansion. (a) Assess Conday’s financial position and performance, and comment on any features you consider to be significant. (b) State, with reasons, whether or not the investor should invest in the company on the terms outlined. A trend percentage analysis of Damien Ltd is presented below: 2014 2015 2016 2017 Current assets Cash 100 86 73 45 Accounts receivable 100 105 111 123 Inventories 100 101 96 85 Other 100 99 102 101 Non-current assets Property, plant & equipment 100 110 123 145 Investments 100 95 89 79 Intangibles 100 95 90 85 Other 100 98 97 85 Total assets 100 (a) What is trend percentage analysis? (b) From the above, identify potential strengths and weaknesses in the financial management of Damien Ltd over the four-year period. (c) Identify factors that might cause these trends . (d) What are the potential deficiencies in this index (percentage) tool? Convert the above analysis into a ‘percentage change’ (horizontal analysis) table. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)CHAPTER 8 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 341 · 8.16 LOl-7 You are presented with the following financial report extracts for WeRHere4U Ltd : 2017 2016 2015 2014 $ $ $ $ Income statement Sales 370,000 310,000 270,000 Cost of sales 174,000 140,000 116,000 Interest 17,000 9,000 4,000 Taxation 30% Other expenses 60,000 56,000 54,000 Statement of financial performance Current assets Inventory 18,000 15,000 17,000 18,000 Accounts receivable 62,000 41,000 31,000 29,000 Total current assets 110,000 72,000 62,000 Non-current assets Property, plant and equipment 140,000 120,000 110,000 Total non-current assets 210,000 190,000 150,000 Total assets 320,000 262,000 212,000 180,000 Current liabilities Accounts payable 30,000 17,000 12,000 11,000 Total current liabilities 70,000 52,000 42,000 Total non-current liabilitie s 110,000 80,000 30,000 Total liabilities 180,000 132,000 72,000 Total shareholders’ funds 140 ,000 130,000 140,000 You should note that there are also other current assets, non-current assets, and current liabilities that are not specifically listed in the extracts shown above. (a) For the income statement section, prepare a ‘vertical analysis’ for the three years (2015-2017) . (b) For the statement of financial position extract, prepare a ‘trend percentage’ analysis for the three years (2015-2017), the base year being 2015 . (c) Prepare as many ratios as possible from the available information to cover profitability, liquidity, efficiency and gearing . (d) Prepare a report indicating potential strengths and weaknesses in the management of this business, basing it on the analysis of parts (a)-(c). (e) Identify additional information you wo uld require to impro ve your analysis of this company over the period specified. 8.17 LOl-7 Follow up on Real Wor ld 8.2 by updating what you know about Glencore, Arrium, Fortescue or South 32.
This assignment is about research methods (statistics) in psychology. Please read the article and answer all of the 4 questions in the assignment and keep to the word limit for all questions. I have a
PSYC105 – 21SU2 Written Assignment This assignment is based on the following original research paper (available on Learn) : Ward‐Griffin, E., Klaiber, P., Collins, H. K., Owens, R. L., Coren, S., & Chen, F. S. (2018). Petting away pre‐exam stress: The effect of therapy dog sessions on student well‐ being. Stress and Health , 34 (3), 468 -473. M ake sure you read the paper (available on Learn) , watch the Research Methods lectures ( Week 2 ), and complete the Week 2 lab , before attempting the assignment. There are two submission points for this assignment. • You are expected to submit a draft version by 5pm Wednesday 1 December. This draft submission is worth 5% of your total grade. Your draft can be presented in bullet point or note format; you will not be graded on presentation or grammar. The purpose of the draft submission is to encourage you to make an early start on your assignment, and to create an opportunity for you to receive early feedback. • Your final submission is due by 5pm on Sunday 19 December and is worth 35% of your final grade. • Please refer to the marking rubrics on Learn to see the relevant grading criteria for your draft and final submissions. In both your draft and your final submissions, p lease complete your answers on a single Word document that is named with your FULL NAME and STUDENT ID ( e.g. , John Smith_12345678). Please clearly identify your answer for each question. Note: you are not required to use APA formatting or provide references for this assignment. Question 1. In your own word s, a) describe the aim of the study, and b) explain why the authors consider the research to be important. To answer this question, you should focus on the introduction section of the paper. Your answer should be no more than 200 words. Question 2 . In your own words a) describe the research design and method , and b) explain why this design would help the researchers test their hypotheses . To answer Part A , you should focus on the methods section of the paper. You answer should include mention of the par ticipants, the timeframe s, and the main variables of interest. To answer Part B, you should refer to content from the Research Methods lectures and assigned readings (Week 2). Your answer should be no more than 400 words. Question 3. Briefly state the researchers’ main findings. Note: you do not need to refer to the statistical tests used or their results; you should simply need to state in your own words what the researchers found. You should focus on the first two paragraphs of the discussion section of the paper to answer this question. Your answer should be no more than 100 words. Question 4. You see the following social media post from a nationwide pet -store: Pets help students boost their grades A recent study has shown that when university students have dogs in their lives, they have lower stress, more energy, and better overall happiness. And we all know what that’s likely to lead to: better grades. If you’re a student, or have a student in your household, perhaps it’s time to introduce a furry friend to the family! The post includes a link to an online version of the Ward -Griffin et al. article Your task is to respond to these claims made by the pet store, based on your in-depth reading of the article as well as your knowledge of scientific research methods. Hint: you should consider whether the research article provide s sufficient evidence for the claim s being made . You should take the introduction, method, and discussion section s of the paper into consideration when answering this question. You may want to give extra focus to the limitations outlined in the discussion section. You could also refer to the Research Methods lectures and assigned readings (Week 2) to help inform your response . Your response should be no more than 400 words.
This assignment is about research methods (statistics) in psychology. Please read the article and answer all of the 4 questions in the assignment and keep to the word limit for all questions. I have a
  Copyright Warning Notice  This material is protected by copyright and has been copied by and solely for  the educational purposes of the University under license.  You may not sell,  alter or further reproduce or distribute any part of this material to any other  person.  Where provided to you in electronic format,  you may only print  from it for your own private study and research.  Failure to comply with the  terms of this warning may expose you to legal action for copyright  infringement and/or disciplinary action by the University. SHORT COMMUNICATION Petting away pre‐exam stress: The effect of therapy dog sessions on student well‐being Emma Ward‐Griffin 1 |Patrick Klaiber 1,2 |Hanne K. Collins 1 |Rhea L. Owens 3 | Stanley Coren 1 |Frances S. Chen 1 1Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 2Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany 3Counseling Psychology and Community Services, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA Correspondence Frances Chen, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 3521‐2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. Email: [email protected] Funding information Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Grant/Award Number: 430-2015-00412 Abstract Recently, many universities have implemented programmes in which therapy dogs and their han- dlers visit college campuses. Despite the immense popularity of therapy dog sessions, few ran- domized studies have empirically tested the efficacy of such programmes. The present study evaluates the efficacy of such a therapy dog programme in improving the well‐being of university students. This research incorporates two components: (a) a pre/post within‐subjects design, in which 246 participants completed a brief questionnaire immediately before and after a therapy dog session and (b) an experimental design with a delayed‐treatment control group, in which all participants completed baseline measures and follow‐up measures approximately 10 hr later. Only participants in the experimental condition experienced the therapy dog session in between the baseline and follow‐up measures. Analyses of pre/post data revealed that the therapy dog sessions had strong immediate benefits, significantly reducing stress and increasing happiness and energy levels. In addition, participants in the experimental group reported a greater improve- ment in negative affect, perceived social support, and perceived stress compared with those in the delayed‐treatment control group. Our results suggest that single, drop‐in, therapy dog ses- sions have large and immediate effects on students’ well‐being, but also that the effects after sev- eral hours are small. KEYWORDS animal‐assisted stress reduction, social support, university students, well‐being 1 | INTRODUCTION The new social and academic challenges that students face as they enter and progress through university often lead to heightened stress. Indeed, university students have been found to have higher rates of psychological distress than the general population (Eskin et al., 2016; Stallman, 2010). Students’ levels of stress rise upon entry to university and do not return to their preuniversity levels through- out their time in university (Bewick, Koutsopoulou, Miles, Slaa, & Barkham, 2010). Furthermore, stress is the most commonly reported barrier to students’ academic success (American College Health Asso- ciation, 2016a, 2016b). University students also commonly face emotional and social diffi- culties. A survey of American college students revealed that in the past year, 59% felt very lonely, 65% felt very sad, and 37% felt so depressed that they found it difficult to function (American College Health Asso- ciation, 2016a, 2016b). Furthermore, students with lower quality socialsupport tend to have more depressive symptoms (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2009). Considering the many challenges university students face, and the negative consequences of these challenges, interventions to reduce student stress and improve health and well‐being are of utmost importance. Animal‐assisted stress reduction programmes have become increasingly popular on university campuses as a means of promoting student well‐being. These programmes involve bringing animals and their handlers to college campuses to interact with students. A recent investigation found that 62% of surveyed universities in the United States reported having such programmes, the majority of which exclu- sively involved dogs (Haggerty & Mueller, 2017). Previous research has revealed that interacting with dogs reduces physiological indicators of stress, loneliness, and depression (see Katcher & Beck, 2010; Wells, 2009, for reviews), reduces anxiety and increases positive affect (Crossman, Kazdin, & Knudson, 2015), and encourages the initiation of contact between people (Bernstein, Friedmann, & Malaspina, 2000). Received: 29 July 2017 Revised: 30 January 2018 Accepted: 3 February 2018 DOI: 10.1002/smi.2804 468Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Stress and Health. 2018;34:468–473. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smi A common format for university therapy dog programmes involves a large group of students interacting with dogs and their handlers dur- ing a single drop‐in session (e.g., Logan, 2016; Rollit, 2016). This format has the advantage of being able to reach a much larger number of stu- dents over a shorter period of time than other more time‐and resource‐intensive programmes that have been found to have positive effects on students’ well‐being (e.g., an 8‐week intervention with ther- apy dogs, Binfet & Passmore, 2016). On the other hand, the brief group format might dilute the immediate and longer lasting benefits of such interventions. Empirical evidence regarding the effects of the single drop‐in therapy dog session format has only recently begun to emerge. Initial studies have provided evidence that a single drop‐in group therapy dog session temporarily relieves stress and homesickness, increases students’ feelings of connection to their campus (Binfet, 2017), improves mood and well‐being, and decreases anxiety (Grajfoner, Harte, Lauren, & McGuigan, 2017). These effects were documented immediately following the therapy dog session but seem to be rela- tively short‐lived: No detectable effects were found 2 weeks after the sessions (Binfet, 2017), although qualitative evidence suggests that, 3 months later, students believe that therapy dog sessions pro- vided lasting benefits (Dell et al., 2015). Adamle, Riley, and Carlson (2009) found that students perceive their pets as sources of social support and suggest that therapy animals may act as temporary sources of social support while students establish new relationships. Therapy dog sessions have also been shown to benefit female stu- dents more than male students (Dell et al., 2015), suggesting the need for research into gender differences and demographic moderators. 1.1 | The present study In light of the prevalence of therapy dog sessions on university cam- puses and the large body of evidence showing many benefits of inter- actions with dogs, we conducted a systematic investigation into the potential benefits of a single on‐campus drop‐in therapy dog session on students’ well‐being. In this study, we operationalize“high levels of well‐being”as including low perceived stress and negative affect, and high levels of positive affect, happiness, and perceived social sup- port. We used an ecologically valid design in which our participants’ experiences were similar to that of a student attending one drop‐in session. These therapy dog sessions took place during midterm exam season, a time when students are particularly stressed (Abouserie, 1994; Ansari et al., 2011). Using a pre/post design, we investigated immediate effects of these sessions on students’ happiness, stress, and energy levels. To address open questions regarding the longevity of effects, we also experimentally investigated the effects of the ther- apy dog sessions on students’ well‐being approximately 10 hr after the experimental group had attended a therapy dog session. On an explor- atory basis, we examined possible gender differences. The following primary hypotheses were tested: H1:Students will report decreased stress, and increased energy and happiness immediately after attending a ther- apy dog session compared with immediately before the session.H2:Students randomly assigned to attend the therapy dog session will experience greater decreases in stress and negative affect, and larger increases in positive affect, happiness, life satisfaction, and perceived social support relative to delayed‐treatment control participants up to 1 day after the experimental group’s therapy dog session. 2 | METHODS 2.1 | Participants Participants (78% female, 45.5% first year students,M age =19.4,SD=3.7) were recruited from several introductory psychology classes at a large Canadian public university. Participants received course credit for par- ticipation. Students were deemed ineligible to participate if they reported being allergic to dogs, afraid of dogs, unwilling to interact with trained therapy dogs, and/or unavailable during the scheduled therapy dog session times. A total of 357 students were deemed eligible to par- ticipate; of these, 246 (124 control) participated at all time points and were included in the analyses. Dropout rates did not differ between groups,χ 2(1) = 0.69,p= .405, and participants in the experimental condition did not differ from those in the control condition on key demographic variables (ps > .05; see the Supporting Information for more information). The study was approved by the local institutional ethics board. The data can be found on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/erjh9/). 2.2 | Procedure 2.2.1 | Overview Participants were randomly assigned to the experimental or delayed‐ treatment control group using a random number generator. All partic- ipants first completed the baseline questionnaire. Participants in both conditions were then emailed identical messages inviting them to a therapy dog session. The only difference between the emails received was the date that the participants were asked to attend. During their session, participants (in both conditions) completed a brief survey prior to entering the therapy dog session space, interacted with the dogs, and then completed one more brief survey after exiting the ses- sion; these served as our within‐subject pre/post measures. Following the experimental group’s therapy dog session (but prior to the delayed‐treatment control group’s session), participants in both con- ditions completed follow‐up questionnaires on the same timeline. This procedure allowed us to assess differences across the two conditions: one with, and one without, exposure to the therapy dog session. Figure 1 provides an overview of the study procedures and timeline. 2.2.2 | Baseline (T1) At T1, all participants completed the consent form and eligibility sur- vey. Then, they completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL .469 Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983), Medical Outcomes Study Social Sup- port Survey (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991), and demographic survey online. More information on the measures can be found in the Supporting Information. 2.2.3 | Therapy dog session All therapy dog sessions took place in a large room at a student union building on campus. At each 90‐min session, between 7 and 12 ther- apy dogs and their handlers, from the Vancouver ecoVillage Therapy Dog Programme, were present. All therapy dogs had passed standard- ized training and assessment criteria, including rigorous veterinary checks, no history of aggression or biting, good obedience, and friendly interaction with strangers. The flow of participants entering the space was monitored to ensure that all participants had the opportunity for contact with the dogs. Participants were not given specific instructions regarding what to do during the session and were instead free to talk to other students or handlers, as well as interact with the therapy dogs. Casual observa- tion revealed that most students spent a significant portion of the time touching, petting, looking at, and talking to the therapy dogs. On aver- age, participants spent 30.92 (SD= 15.83) min in the space, including completing the brief surveys, waiting in line to enter, and interacting with the therapy dogs. As participants left the session, they completed the post‐session survey. 2.2.4 | Therapy dog session surveys Before entering the room and again as they left the session, all partic- ipants completed a 3‐item questionnaire assessing how stressed, happy, and energized they currently felt on a visual analogue scale (see Supporting Information for more information). 2.2.5 | Follow‐up survey (T2) Following the experimental participants’ therapy dog session, both delayed‐treatment control and experimental participants were emailed follow‐up questionnaires that included the same measures as the base- line questionnaire. Participants could complete these questionnaires at any point over the next 24 hr. On average, participants completed the survey 9.8 hr (SD= 9.92) after the session. 3 | RESULTS 3.1 | Analysis strategy To test the efficacy of the therapy dog session, repeated measures anal- yses of variance (ANOVAs) were used. For the immediate (short‐term)effects, Step 1 was a model with one within‐subject factor (time). For the effects at follow‐up, Step 1 was a model with one within‐subject factor (time) and one fixed factor (condition). For both sets of analyses, Step 2 consisted of the addition of another fixed factor (gender) to the models to examine possible interaction effects with gender. 3.2 | Immediate (short‐term) effects To test changes in participants’ happiness, stress, and energy levels, repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted comparing all participants’ (both delayed‐treatment control and experimental) responses immediately before and after their therapy dog session (see Figure 2). Participants’ stress levels were significantly lower after the therapy dog session,F(1, 218) = 344.97,p< .001,η 2= .613, and participants’ happiness,F(1, 223) = 84.26,p< .001,η2= .274, and energy levels,F(1, 222) = 113.10,p< .001,η 2= .338, were significantly higher after the therapy dog session, all with large effect sizes. 3.2.1 | Gender differences and immediate effects There was no moderating effect of gender on immediate results (stress, happiness, and energy; allps > .05, see Supporting Information for full statistics). 3.3 | Effects at follow‐up (T2) In Step 1, we tested for differences between the experimental and delayed‐treatment control groups, using repeated measures ANOVAs including participant condition as a fixed factor and the follow‐up scales as repeated measures factors. FIGURE 1 Data collection timeline and procedure FIGURE 2 Means for stress, happiness, and energy immediately before and after attending the therapy dog session 470WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL . The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of time on negative affect and positive affect, but not on the other dependent variables. Specifically, participants in both conditions showed a decline in both negative and positive affect across time. The ANOVA did not reveal a significant main effect of condition on any of the dependent variables (see Table 8.1 in Supporting Information). Most critically to our hypotheses, there was a significant interac- tion between time and condition on negative affect, perceived stress, and social support. That is, the effect of time on participants’ levels of negative affect, perceived stress, and social support depended on the participants’ condition. Participants in the experimental group reported significantly greater reductions in negative affect (ΔM= 0.50 on a 7‐point scale) than those in the delayed‐treatment control group (ΔM= 0.27). Experimental participants’ perceived stress decreased (ΔM= 0.11 on a 7‐point scale), whereas stress of the control partici- pants increased slightly (ΔM= 0.06). Additionally, participants in the experimental condition increased in social support across time (ΔM= 0.10 on a 7‐point scale), whereas control participants decreased slightly in perceived social support (ΔM= 0.03). Analyses revealed that the effect of the therapy dog sessions on perceived social support was primarily driven by the affectionate support subscale (see Table 1). In contrast to our hypotheses, no significant interactions between time and condition were observed for happiness, positive affect, or satisfac- tion with life (allps > .29), suggesting that the effects of therapy dog sessions are somewhat selective in nature. 3.3.1 | Gender effects at follow‐up In Step 2, gender as a fixed factor was added to the models. We did not find a significant interaction between time, condition, and gender (all ps > .05, see Supporting Information for full statistics), indicating no gender effects for the efficacy of the therapy dog session. 4 | DISCUSSION Consistent with past research, the results of this study provide evi- dence that therapy dog sessions on university campuses have positiveeffects on students’ well‐being. We found considerable reductions in stress and increases in happiness and energy levels immediately after the therapy dog sessions. We also found evidence of several benefits of the therapy dog sessions approximately 10 hr later. As predicted, participants in the experimental group experienced a greater reduction in negative affect and perceived stress, as well as an increase in perceived social support following the experimental group’s session compared with the delayed‐treatment control group. Overall, differences in social support, perceived stress, and negative affect were small. The ther- apy dog sessions did not have a lasting effect on happiness, positive affect, or life satisfaction, suggesting that the effects are somewhat selective. Our results are in line with previous research showing short‐term psychological benefits of therapy dog sessions (Binfet, 2017; Crossman et al., 2015; Crump & Derting, 2015; Grajfoner et al., 2017; Katcher & Beck, 2010; McDonald, McDonald, & Roberts, 2017). However, unlike much previous research on this topic (e.g., Binfet & Passmore, 2016), our study was designed to mirror the con- ditions of a typical single drop‐in group therapy dog session (e.g., Logan, 2016; Rollit, 2016). Our study also fills a research gap regard- ing the longevity of therapy dog session benefits, as it examines effects at a time point between the immediate effects of a single drop‐in therapy dog session (Grajfoner et al., 2017), the lack of effects 2 weeks later (J. Binfet, 2017), and the qualitative perceived effects 3 months later (Dell et al., 2015). Although past research has found evidence of women benefitting more from therapy dog sessions than men (Dell et al., 2015), our results did not replicate this finding. The present study does have several limitations. First, the use of a pre/post design does not allow us to make causal claims about the short‐term effect of a therapy dog session. Second, the design of our study does not enable us to separate which factor (therapy dogs, dog handlers, and/or peers) contributed to the observed benefits. How- ever, given that past research has found benefits of therapy dog ses- sions, and not handlers alone (Grajfoner et al., 2017), it seems probable that the dogs were the primary contributor to these effects. TABLE 1 Results of repeated measures analyses of variance with T1 (baseline) and T2 (follow‐up) as repeated measures factor and condition as fixed factor Dependent variableM(SD) control T1 (n= 124)M(SD) experimental T1 (n= 122)M(SD) control T2 (n= 124)M(SD) experimental T2 (n= 122) Effect of time * condition PANAS—negative affect 2.33 (0.70) 2.50 (0.76) 2.06 (0.66) 2.00 (0.81)F(1, 244) = 7.45,p= .007,η 2= .030 PANAS—positive affect 3.40 (0.73) 3.41 (0.63) 2.96 (0.83) 2.89 (0.76)F(1, 244) = 0.95,p= .330,η2= .004 Perceived Stress Scale 1.98 (0.54) 2.06 (0.61) 2.04 (0.69) 1.95 (0.71)F(1, 244) = 4.68,p= .031,η2= .019 Subjective Happiness Scale 4.57 (1.20) 4.58 (1.11) 4.54 (1.13) 4.57 (1.06)F(1, 244) = 0.01,p= .940,η2= .000 Satisfaction with Life Scale 4.76 (1.23) 4.84 (1.23) 4.79 (1.15) 4.76 (1.22)F(1, 244) = 1.10,p= .294,η2= .005 Social support—total 3.78 (0.81) 3.83 (0.76) 3.75 (0.81) 3.93 (0.74)F(1, 244) = 4.64,p= .032,η2= .019 Social support—emotional support 3.72 (0.95) 3.76 (0.82) 3.68 (0.95) 3.83 (0.79)F(1, 244) = 1.64,p= .201,η2= .007 Social support—tangible support 3.76 (1.06) 3.77 (1.01) 3.76 (1.06) 3.91 (1.03)F(1, 244) = 2.18,p= .141,η2= .009 Social support—affectionate support3.80 (1.02) 3.82 (1.08) 3.72 (0.97) 3.95 (1.07)F(1, 244) = 6.81,p= .010,η2= .027 Social support—personal interaction 3.94 (0.88) 4.06 (0.84) 3.90 (0.87) 4.11 (0.84)F(1, 244) = 1.33,p= .249,η 2= .005 Note. Allη 2’s are partialη 2’s. Inferential statistics on the main effects of time and condition are provided in Table 8.1 of the Supporting Information.M= mean; SD= standard deviation; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL .471 Third, although the use of a delayed‐treatment control allowed us to analyse the benefits of a therapy dog session as compared with the regular activities of university students, we are unable to compare these benefits with other stress management interventions (see Klainin‐Yobas, Oo, Ying, Yew, & Lau, 2015, for a review). Future research should consider implementing an active control group in which control participants participate in other stress management interventions to avoid potential demand effects. Overall, the results of this study suggest that single, drop‐in, group therapy dog sessions on campus likely benefit students’ well‐being and reduce stress in the immediate period following the session. The results also provide support of some weaker effects lasting for several hours afterwards. These results are consistent with past research that indicates that campus therapy dog programmes have beneficial effects on students but that these effects diminish over time (Binfet, 2017). Thus, it may be especially useful for such sessions to take place during particularly stressful periods of the school year, such as exam periods, or even for ther- apy dogs to be present during stressors, such as while students com- plete assignments. Future studies should also investigate the specific aspects of therapy dog sessions on university campuses that may lead to strong long‐lasting effects, such as the optimal length of time for students to be engaged in the session, or the optimal ratio of students to therapy dogs. Given the high levels of stress and emotional difficulties in univer- sity students, it is important to design accessible interventions to reduce stress and improve well‐being. The results of our study indicate that therapy dog sessions considerably reduce stress and improve aspects of student well‐being. Although these effects are strong imme- diately after the session, the effects after a short period of time are small. We hope that this study will help to inform future best practices in designing therapy dog interventions, which will in turn facilitate well‐being in university students. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by a grant (430‐2015‐00412) from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank Quille Kaddon and Vancouver ecoVillage for organizing and coordinat- ing the therapy dog sessions and making this study possible. A special thank you to all the Vancouver ecoVillage therapy dog handlers and their canine companions for volunteering their time. We gratefully acknowledge the University of British Columbia Alma Mater Society for providing space for the sessions and for helping us to advertise the study, and the instructors who allowed us to recruit students from their classes. Finally, we thank Nandini Maharaj, Kiana Maeda, Sara Ahmadian, Sarah Woolgar, Parky Lau, and the entire research team for assistance with data collection, contacting participants, and ensur- ing the therapy dog sessions ran smoothly. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest. ORCID Emma Ward‐Griffin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0717-0673Patrick Klaiber http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1957-1140 Frances S. Chen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2322-1095 REFERENCES Abouserie, R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of con- trol and self esteem in university students.Educational Psychology,14, 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341940140306 Adamle, K. N., Riley, T. A., & Carlson, T. (2009). Evaluating College Student Interest in Pet Therapy.Journal of American College Health,57(5), 545–548. https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.57.5.545‐548 American College Health Association (2016a). American College Health Association‐National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2016. American College Health Association (2016b). American College Health Association National College Health Assessment 2015–2016 annual report. Ansari, W. E., Stock, C., UK Student Health Group: Sherrill Snelgrove, Hu, X., Parke, S., Davies, S.,…Mabhala, A. (2011). Feeling healthy? A survey of physical and psychological wellbeing of students from seven univer- sities in the UK.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,8, 1308–1323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8051308 Bernstein, P. L., Friedmann, E., & Malaspina, A. (2000). Animal‐assisted ther- apy enhances resident social interaction and initiation in long‐term care facilities.Anthrozoös,13, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.2752/ 089279300786999743 Bewick, B., Koutsopoulou, G., Miles, J., Slaa, E., & Barkham, M. (2010). Changes in undergraduate students’ psychological well‐being as they progress through university.Studies in Higher Education,35, 633–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903216643 Binfet, J. T. (2017). The effects of group‐administered canine therapy on uni- versity students’ wellbeing: A randomized controlled trial.Anthrozoös, 30, 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2017.1335097 Binfet, J. T., & Passmore, H. A. (2016). Hounds and homesickness: The effects of an animal‐assisted therapeutic intervention for first‐year uni- versity students.Anthrozoös,29, 441–454. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of per- ceived stress.Journal of Health and Social Behavior,24, 385–396. Crossman, M. K., Kazdin, A. E., & Knudson, K. (2015). Brief unstructured interaction with a dog reduces distress.Anthrozoös,28, 649–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1070008 Crump, C., & Derting, T. L. (2015). Effects of pet therapy on the psycholog- ical and physiological stress levels of first‐year female undergraduates. North American Journal of Psychology,17, 575–590. Dell, C. A., Chalmers, D., Gillett, J., Rohr, B., Campbell, L., Hanoski, R.,… Brydges, M. (2015). PAWSing student stress: A pilot evaluation study of the St. John Ambulance Therapy Dog Program on three university campuses in Canada.Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 49, 332–359. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.Journal of Personality Assessment,49,71–75. Eskin, M., Sun, J., Abuidhail, J., Yoshimasu, K., Kujan, O., Janghorbani, M.,… Voracek, M. (2016). Suicidal behavior and psychological distress in uni- versity students: A 12‐nation study.Archives of Suicide Research,20, 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2015.1054055 Grajfoner, D., Harte, E., Lauren, P. M., & McGuigan, N. (2017). The effect of dog‐assisted intervention on student well‐being, mood, and anxiety. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,14, 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050483 Haggerty, J. M., & Mueller, M. K. (2017). Animal‐assisted stress reduction programs in higher education.Innovative Higher Education. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10755‐017‐9392‐0 Hefner, J., & Eisenberg, D. (2009). Social support and mental health among college students.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,79, 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016918 472WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL . Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)Katcher, A. H., & Beck, A. M. (2010). Newer and older perspectives on the therapeutic effects of animals and nature. In A. H. Fine (Ed.),Handbook on animal‐assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice(3rd ed.) (pp. 49–58). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Klainin‐Yobas, P., Oo, W. N., Ying, P., Yew, S., & Lau, Y. (2015). Effects of relaxation interventions on depression and anxiety among older adults: A systematic review.Aging & Mental Health,19, 1043–1055. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.997191 Logan, A. (2016). Cuddle time: Adorable puppies help fight the wintertime blues away. Retrieved June 12, 2017, from http://www.metronews. ca/features/vancouver/vancouvering/2016/10/28/adorable‐puppies‐ help‐fight‐the‐wintertime‐blues‐away.html Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation.Social Indicators Research,46, 137–155. McDonald, S., McDonald, E., & Roberts, A. (2017). Effects of novel dog exposure on college students’ stress prior to examination.North Amer- ican Journal of Psychology,19, 477–484. Rollit, L. (2016). UBC studies effects of dog therapy on homesick, lonely students. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from http://charlatan.ca/2016/ 09/ubc‐studies‐effects‐of‐dog‐therapy‐on‐homesick‐lonely‐students/ Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social Science & Medicine,32, 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277‐ 9536(91)90150‐bStallman, H. M. (2010). Psychological distress in university students: A com- parison with general population data.Australian Psychologist,45(4), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067.2010.482109 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54 , 1063. Wells, D. L. (2009). The effects of animals on human health and well‐being. Journal of Social Issues,65, 523–544. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional Supporting Information may be found online in the supporting information tab for this article. How to cite this article:Ward‐Griffin E, Klaiber P, Collins HK, Owens RL, Coren S, Chen FS. Petting away pre‐exam stress: The effect of therapy dog sessions on student well‐being. Stress and Health. 2018;34:468–473. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/smi.2804 WARD‐GRIFFIN ET AL .473
This assignment is about research methods (statistics) in psychology. Please read the article and answer all of the 4 questions in the assignment and keep to the word limit for all questions. I have a
PSYC10 5-21SU2 Written Assignment draf t su bmission r ubric Poor (1) Good (3) Excellent (5) Draft submitted but a nu mber o f aspects of assignment are missing/not yet attempted /poorly addressed. We suggest you drop into an online office hour to discuss your assignment! Draft submitted; most aspects of assignment addressed; draft is mostly on right track. Keep at it! Draft addresses all aspects of assignment; Clear evidence that questions are understood; draft answers contain appropriate content – draft is right on track! Grade : /5 Comments: (Note – your score is a measure of progress on your draft. This score is not indicative of your likely overall score on your final submission ).