So, last week we were able to identify the weak points of my
question. Ultimately, I have decided to leave in the comparison of adult and
child in my question. I wanted to do this because this is where the gap is in
the research. Research has already been done on whether neurofeedback therapy works,
albeit controversial still. But no one has looked at whether it is beneficial for children and adults or
for what age group it would be most beneficial, and thus what symptoms it best
treats, because symptoms manifest differently in children and adults. This has
to be included to ensure that my research question is asking something new and
relevant.
I am feeling most confident about my background information and
sources, which sounds kind of lame. But I have all the relevant and needed
sources to explain what ADHD is and what neurofeedback therapy entails. I have
collected numerous credible sources to back up my definitions and to help put
my research into context. I think at this point this introductory part of my
paper is strongest, because I can clearly detail all the groundwork for
readers. And in this way, it has made me very knowledgeable about my topic
itself, versed enough to be able to explain it to someone else through all
these simplified, but accurate ways I have learned to look at my topic. The
sources I have collected have been a great help in allowing me to look at the
issue from other perspectives and other points of view. I think we are
inherently biased, but researching and reading all these different articles and
books has helped me realize that all sides of the argument of neurofeedback
therapy have relevance and significance. All these counterarguments
have to be addressed, because they bring up understandable criticisms. All my
sources have played a huge role in making me more knowledgeable about my topic.
I feel most neutral about probably my question’s wording? I know I
have to do some justifying and work on it in regards to why children and adults have to
be looked at some more. Right now I think it is okay, but can be made better
and more specific. In the coming weeks, I will try to work on phrasing or later
justification in the literature review itself instead of the question.
I am feeling most terrified about my method. The way I analyze
success rates might have to involve complicated statistics and I am not sure if
I am ready for that. Right now, the plan I have for my method is confusing to
say the least? I know I have to incorporate the “scores” that are calculated by
the computer at the end of the session to determine whether the patient has
consistently and effectively trained their brainwaves. But, I also wanted to
incorporate other means like looking at brain maps and seeing if the patient
has truly able to make permanent changes on their brain, or their performance
at school or work through interviews to see the real world applications of this
therapy. And then there is the TOVA (Tests of Variable Attention) means of
determining success of a session. This uses a 11-22 minute test which involves
patients clicking to respond to a target. There are so many different ways to
measure the success of this therapy, but I need to pick the best way that will
communicate the results most effectively. So, the method seems really
complicated and daunting and like I am going to have to do math and lots of
work so ew? I mean fun times?
Overall, I know there is a lot more work to be done and a lot more
to be proud of. Research, more than anything else, is a process. Sometimes
a painstakingly arduous process, but probably also rewarding and satisfying as
a result.
(643)
