Jenna recently presented her Honor’s Thesis Defense Prep Presentation entitled “Exploring Military Experiences: Clarifying the Relationship Between Resiliency and Posttraumatic Growth.” The purposes of her research are to clarify the relation(s) between resiliency and posttraumatic growth (PTG), to examine respective relations among related variables, and to compare two measures of resiliency: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and Workplace Resiliency Inventory (WRI). Jenna assessed growth motivation, altruistic attitudes, and several other variables to clarify the relationship between resiliency and PTG. Among many significant results, she found that growth motivation positively correlates with PTG and both measures of resiliency. She addressed issues surrounding the literature’s differing conceptualizations of resiliency by analyzing the similarities and differences between the CD-RISC and WRI, as well as their respective relations to other variables of interest. More specifically, she found key areas of differentiation between the two measures when comparing against other variables such as social support and coping. Jenna plans to use the results from this study to guide her future research. She hopes to replicate her results in other populations and incorporate longitudinal research designs in her field of research. Jenna is conducting her research with the ultimate goal of developing and implementing a Resiliency/Posttraumatic Growth Training Program. Good luck Jenna!
Author Archives: acorille
Lauren recently gave a presentation entitled “Improving the Review Process and its Integrity.” The purpose of her presentation was to share lab member feedback regarding the current revision process and to open discussion about the process of revising fellow lab members’ work in efforts to improve efficiency. Lauren accomplished this by gathering all of the lab members’ perspectives on the current review process and compiling it to propose changes to improve the process going forward. These overarching changes include focusing on content-related revisions, being clear and concise with suggestions, and creating a timeline for the review process. The presentation also included suggestions to improve the integrity of responding to revisions. In particular, Lauren stressed the importance of helping the reviewer to understand how their comments were received by being clear with responses to revisions by avoiding ambiguous responses comments such as “It’s strange/ I’m confused” and providing clear suggestions in order to improve the work overall. She used examples of revisions from empirical journals to demonstrate a professional model of the revision process. This included thoroughly acknowledging each comment, explaining how the comment was addressed, and providing rationale for why the comment was accepted or rejected. Using this, she was able to make applications to the PTG lab’s process. The ultimate product was a structured paper revision rubric on which lab members can organize constructive criticisms in addition to positive feedback. The lab plans to implement this rubric into all revisions processes throughout the lab. Thank you, Lauren!