FEELINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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)