This week was dedicated to fully writing out our results section and starting to outline our discussion section. The discussion section is a vital part of the research and brings necessary explanations and context to the results section. Especially for my project, the discussion section can serve as a place for reasons why my hypothesis was proved wrong, why males and females did exhibit an observable difference, and the fact that age and improvement from neurofeedback therapy were not linearly dependent like I thought. These nuances and contradictions that the results bring forth can be investigated and tied back to the very beginning of the research, the literature review. I analyzed the same three studies from last week to see what I could specifically include in my discussion that would follow the model of successful papers.
The study, "Efficacy of Neurofeedback treatment in ADHD: The effects on Inattention, Impulsivity, and Hyperactivity: A meta-analysis" by Arns, Ridder, Strehl, Breteler, and Coenen, was a paper that served as an exemplar for creating my own discussion section. Their section begins with a reiteration of the purpose of the research and a concisely explained method, in order to refresh readers. Then the greater conclusion is described in references to the results. Then the limitations are sectioned off to show that while this research did have fruitful results, improvements to the sampling and method could be made. This leads into the future research that would mitigate such limitations. The previous explanation about the hazardous effects of medication is mentioned once more to provide significance to the efficacy of neurofeedback therapy. This is a way I can organize my own discussion section, in a way that everything flows and transitions seamlessly. Starting with the quick recap, description of results and reasons why, limitations of the research, and then future questions and directions for the research.
The second study, "Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adulthood: Concordance and Differences between Self- and Informant Perspectives on Symptoms and Functional Impairment" by Morstedt, Corbisiero, Bitto, had a similarly organized structure to the first study, but incorporated more explanation. For the conclusion about the consistency of the use of diagnostic ADHD measures, the authors provided possible explanations for the results, such as the possible influence of comorbidity, lack of awareness of patients with ADHD, and gender psychological differences. These explanations are then supported with other sources that indicated similar conclusions or lend justification for what happened. This study, in this unique way, not only explained the study's interesting results, but found other studies that more or less corroborated their conclusion. While my study is in a realm of new psychological treatments that has not been heavily researched, I can find more general scientific discoveries that may have resulted in my own results. For example, while the link between neuroplasticity and ADHD has not been explored extensively, I can explain the greater improvement of teenagers/young adults group as possibly due to greater neuroplasticity of younger brains affecting the reduction of the ADHD symptoms.
The third study, "The Effect of Neurofeedback Therapy on Reducing Symptoms Associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Case Series Study" by Deilami, Jahandidedh, et al., showed that while its results corroborated other studies, it was still significant in the research world because of how the research was conducted on just 12 children, so there was more focus on specific ADHD symptoms and the specifics of the training. Similarly, my study also used a relatively small number of samples, so justifying its importance in showing the efficacy of neurofeedback therapy in general, especially for adults, is key to ensuring its significance. Like this study, I can show the limitation of my research without sacrificing the merits and conclusions it does present.
Right now I have broken it up into very general sections, but looking at these studies and my outline, I see that there probably is a better way of organizing my discussion section. Seeing how other studies divided the section in a way that each previous part flowed into the next, I wanted to replicate a similar structure. I think starting off with my most significant and nuanced conclusion (that there is a prime age bracket for which neurofeedback therapy decreased ADHD scores the most and thus leads to the most improvement) should go immediately after I restate the purpose of the study. Then I can connect back to my literature review, by presenting my hypothesis and previous studies that would indicate that children should have improved more than adults. I can further provide an explanation of why this wasn't the case (children are less incentivized, motivated, and dedicated) and tie this the significance of the research. Now that it has been evidenced that neurofeedback therapy leads to great improvement, especially for young adults/teens, it is supported as a better treatment method than medication. This is particularly useful as young adults/teens, according to my literature review, are more likely to become addicted and abuse ADHD medication, so this treatment method is a crucial alternative. My conclusions about the age bracket can be grouped into one section and I can have a separate section dedicated to the differences in improvement based on gender. I can reference my literature review as other studies did not find an obvious difference in ADHD exhibited by the genders, but my study indicates one group does better with neurofeedback treatment, which can be attributed either to differences in ADHD, the way the therapy is conducted, or general personalities/instincts of each gender. Then I can go into the limitations of the research (such as not having an equal number of participants for each gender) and then conclude with future directions/questions that would mitigate these limitations and further attempt to explore/support the conclusions of my study.
Overall, I think this discussion section will prove to be extremely pivotal in presenting my research.
(982)
The second study, "Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adulthood: Concordance and Differences between Self- and Informant Perspectives on Symptoms and Functional Impairment" by Morstedt, Corbisiero, Bitto, had a similarly organized structure to the first study, but incorporated more explanation. For the conclusion about the consistency of the use of diagnostic ADHD measures, the authors provided possible explanations for the results, such as the possible influence of comorbidity, lack of awareness of patients with ADHD, and gender psychological differences. These explanations are then supported with other sources that indicated similar conclusions or lend justification for what happened. This study, in this unique way, not only explained the study's interesting results, but found other studies that more or less corroborated their conclusion. While my study is in a realm of new psychological treatments that has not been heavily researched, I can find more general scientific discoveries that may have resulted in my own results. For example, while the link between neuroplasticity and ADHD has not been explored extensively, I can explain the greater improvement of teenagers/young adults group as possibly due to greater neuroplasticity of younger brains affecting the reduction of the ADHD symptoms.
The third study, "The Effect of Neurofeedback Therapy on Reducing Symptoms Associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Case Series Study" by Deilami, Jahandidedh, et al., showed that while its results corroborated other studies, it was still significant in the research world because of how the research was conducted on just 12 children, so there was more focus on specific ADHD symptoms and the specifics of the training. Similarly, my study also used a relatively small number of samples, so justifying its importance in showing the efficacy of neurofeedback therapy in general, especially for adults, is key to ensuring its significance. Like this study, I can show the limitation of my research without sacrificing the merits and conclusions it does present.
Right now I have broken it up into very general sections, but looking at these studies and my outline, I see that there probably is a better way of organizing my discussion section. Seeing how other studies divided the section in a way that each previous part flowed into the next, I wanted to replicate a similar structure. I think starting off with my most significant and nuanced conclusion (that there is a prime age bracket for which neurofeedback therapy decreased ADHD scores the most and thus leads to the most improvement) should go immediately after I restate the purpose of the study. Then I can connect back to my literature review, by presenting my hypothesis and previous studies that would indicate that children should have improved more than adults. I can further provide an explanation of why this wasn't the case (children are less incentivized, motivated, and dedicated) and tie this the significance of the research. Now that it has been evidenced that neurofeedback therapy leads to great improvement, especially for young adults/teens, it is supported as a better treatment method than medication. This is particularly useful as young adults/teens, according to my literature review, are more likely to become addicted and abuse ADHD medication, so this treatment method is a crucial alternative. My conclusions about the age bracket can be grouped into one section and I can have a separate section dedicated to the differences in improvement based on gender. I can reference my literature review as other studies did not find an obvious difference in ADHD exhibited by the genders, but my study indicates one group does better with neurofeedback treatment, which can be attributed either to differences in ADHD, the way the therapy is conducted, or general personalities/instincts of each gender. Then I can go into the limitations of the research (such as not having an equal number of participants for each gender) and then conclude with future directions/questions that would mitigate these limitations and further attempt to explore/support the conclusions of my study.
Overall, I think this discussion section will prove to be extremely pivotal in presenting my research.
(982)
Sunskruthi,
ReplyDeleteAs I said last time I read your blog, PICTURES!! You need pictures to make your blog more digestible. Anyways, now I'll go on to the actual research. It seems like you found very interesting results and have a good idea on how to present them. Make sure to use other sources to explain what you found rigorously throughout the discussion. Also what future questions does your research leave? I'm excited to see how it all turns out.
Sunskruthi,
ReplyDeleteI never knew I would be saying this, but I think Max is right. A little more pictures here and there would make your blog more digestible.
Like I said two weeks ago, I think it is very important that you are able to find why your results went against your prediction. Although it is important that you know how to organize your discussion section, it is more important that you are able to find and cite sources that help you in your conclusions, especially since they go against your hypothesis.
Overall, your blog is as always detailed, and I can see all the work you are putting into your research project. Good luck and I am very excited to find out what your conclusions are.
Sunskruthi,
ReplyDeleteI liked the details you put in to describe each of the three studies you examined... the trends you found in your papers were similar to those I found, especially the starting with the main purpose and then transitioning to the most significant finding of your paper.
One thing I think you should emphasize when you talk about the contradiction between your results and some previous studies is putting the methodology and samples directly in conversation. That direct comparison would allow you to explain a lot and make some solid inferences. Moreover, I would make sure to differentiate between your conclusions about neuro-feedback therapy as a whole compared to your conclusions based upon age.
I scrolled through your past blog posts, since I hadn't commented for a while, and your stats look really nice and solid.
My question to you is, since your research investigates a new therapy, what questions remain to be answered? That part of your discussion section should be very detailed and would really contribute to the field as a whole. Additionally, what limitations do you anticipate talking about other than sample size?
Good job on the awesome progress, and I'll be excited to read about what conclusions you drew!
Yash
(206)
I think you've done a great job reflecting on your approach for your discussion after an analysis of the other discussion sections. I agree with Yash that you'll definitely want to have a robust explanation of future direction, given the novelty of your topic.
ReplyDelete