Improving Comprehensive Carefor OEF and OIF Vetsby Aslie.docx

Improving Comprehensive Care
for OEF and OIF Vets
by Aslie Burnett
FILE
T IME SUBMIT T ED 20- MAR- 2015 10:4 4 AM
SUBMISSION ID 51867 4 598
WORD COUNT 64 25
CHARACT ER COUNT 39906
DISSERT AT ION_PROPOSAL.DOC (125.5K)

18%
SIMILARIT Y INDEX
17%
INT ERNET SOURCES
16%
PUBLICAT IONS
15%
ST UDENT PAPERS
1 3%
2 2%
3 1%
4 1%
5 1%
6 1%
7 1%
8 1%
Improving Comprehensive Care for OEF and OIF Vets
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
vets.arizona.edu
Int ernet Source
www.ejpt.net
Int ernet Source
Karen H. Seal. "VA mental health services
utilization in Iraq and Af ghanistan veterans in

the f irst year of receiving new mental health
diagnoses", Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2010
Publicat ion
www.f as.org
Int ernet Source
Submitted to Maryville University
St udent Paper
store.samhsa.gov
Int ernet Source
yellow-f ever.rki.de
Int ernet Source
cstsf orum.org
Int ernet Source
9 1%
10 1%
11 1%
12 1%
13 <1%
14 <1%
15 <1%
16 <1%
17 <1%
18 <1%
19 <1%
20
Submitted to Laureate Higher Education Group
St udent Paper

Submitted to EDMC
St udent Paper
akf sa.org
Int ernet Source
iris.lib.neu.edu
Int ernet Source
www.acpmh.ipag.f r
Int ernet Source
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Int ernet Source
Submitted to University of Western Australia
St udent Paper
Submitted to University of Southern Calif ornia
St udent Paper
scindeks.nb.rs
Int ernet Source
cdn.intechopen.com
Int ernet Source
www.healthemotions.org
Int ernet Source
Submitted to Palo Alto University
<1%

21 <1%
22 <1%
23 <1%
24 <1%
25 <1%
26 <1%
27 <1%
28 <1%
29 <1%
St udent Paper
Submitted to La Trobe University
St udent Paper
amhi-treatingpreventing.oup.com
Int ernet Source
Submitted to Capella Education Company
St udent Paper
www.mindf ully.org
Int ernet Source
Submitted to Pennsylvania State System of
Higher Education
St udent Paper
www.rand.org
Int ernet Source
gradworks.umi.com
Int ernet Source
patriotoutreach.org

Int ernet Source
Ticknor, Bobbie and Tillinghast, Sherry. "Virtual
Reality and the Criminal Justice System: New
Possibilities f or Research, Training, and
Rehabilitation", Journal of Virtual Worlds
Research, 2011.
Publicat ion
30 <1%
31 <1%
32 <1%
33 <1%
34 <1%
35 <1%
Michael E. Smith. "Bilateral hippocampal
volume reduction in adults with post-traumatic
stress disorder: A meta-analysis of structural
MRI studies", Hippocampus, 2005
Publicat ion
etd.lib.f su.edu
Int ernet Source
digital.library.adelaide.edu.au
Int ernet Source
cdn.govexec.com
Int ernet Source
Yelena Bogdanova. "Cognitive Sequelae of

Blast-Induced Traumatic Brain Injury: Recovery
and Rehabilitation", Neuropsychology Review,
02/17/2012
Publicat ion
Nanda, U., H. L. B. Gaydos, K. Hathorn, and N.
Watkins. "Art and Posttraumatic Stress: A
Review of the Empirical Literature on the
Therapeutic Implications of Artwork f or War
Veterans With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder",
Environment and Behavior, 2010.
Publicat ion
EXCLUDE QUOT ES OFF
EXCLUDE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OFF
EXCLUDE MAT CHES < 8 WORDS
Improving Comprehensive Care for OEF and OIF Vetsby Aslie
BurnettImproving Comprehensive Care for OEF and OIF
VetsORIGINALITY REPORTPRIMARY SOURCES
Section 1. Learner and Program Information (to be completed
by learner)Learner Name
Learner Email
Mentor Name
Mentor Email
Specialization (Delete all specializations except for your own)
Area of Specialization Program Chair
· General Human Services Dr. Charles Lorbeer
· Health Care Administration Dr. Lonnie Wederski
· Management of Nonprofits Dr. Yvonne Kochanowski

· Social and Community Services Dr. Charles Lorbeer
· Criminal Justice Dr. Steven Barthelmeus
· Emergency Management Dr. Michael Kemp
· Public Safety Leadership Dr. Steven Barthelmeus
Program Chair Email
Section 2. Research Problem & Contributions to Research
Theory
2.1 Research Problem
Describe the scientific problem. This paragraph goes beyond the
social problem. E.g. We know X from the literature, we also
know Y, but we don’t know Z and that is why this study’s
research question is important.
The treatment approaches to the OEF and OIF veterans greatly
impacts on the effectiveness of the treatment outcomes. As
affirmed by Kracen et al. (2013), only 57% of the100 OEF and
OIF veterans preferred individual over the group therapy.
Moreover, Chard et al. (2010) describes that there is a major
problem regarding the insufficient studies on the different
treatment outcomes between the study populations.
Furthermore, the current inaccurate diagnosis of the PTSD has
become a significant contributor the emerging problems. As
such, this study research strives to bridge the gap between the
improper diagnostic criteria as well as illustrate the variables
that might have a significant influence over the diagnosis and
treatment outcomes in order to improve the VA health care for
OEF and OIF veterans.
2.2 Advancing the Scientific Knowledge Base
Specifically describe how this research will advance scientific
knowledge in your specialization area by answering all of these

3 questions using bullet points and in-text citations.
1. Does the study address something that is not known or has
not been studied before—How is this study new or different
from other studies?
· Yes, the study differs from the other studies that have been
conducted since it majors on bridging the existing gap on the
improper diagnostic procedures on the veterans suffering from
the PTSD. Additionally, the study intends to bring fourth the
multiple variables that affect the treatment and diagnosis
outcomes.
2. If your research questions are studied, how could your
findings impact your field of interest—“So What?”
· If my research questions are studied, the findings could impact
my field of interest by influencing the diagnostic procedure for
PTSD that is currently being used since it depicts that it is
inaccurate.
3. What possible practical implications do you predict the
results of your research will have? For instance, what will be
the impact of these results on your sample, your site location, or
your workplace—“Who Cares?”
· The possible practical implication that my research will have
is the change of the existing diagnostic procedure and
adaptation of more improved technology which will be more
accurate.
2.3 Theoretical Foundation
List the major theory or theories that serve as the backbone of
the study. List each theory, briefly describe it, and list a
reference for each immediately below the theory.
Behavior Modeling Theory
The behavior modeling served as the backbone to the study.

This theory stipulates that we obtain a sufficient amount of
knowledge by not only doing but also by watching what other
people do. It is noted that model looks at the need, enabling and
the predisposing factors that tend to influence the veterans
access to health care for the PTSD (DiClemente & Crosby,
2011).
Reference
DiClemente, R. J., & Crosby, R. A. (2011). Health behavior
theory for public health: Principles, foundations, and
applications. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Cognitive Behavior Theory
The cognitive behavior theory illustrates that the people’s
perceptions or their spontaneous thoughts regarding a situation
tend to influence their emotional and behavioral reaction. It is
crucial to note that these perceptions are often distorted when
the individuals are distressed (Kendall & Hollon, 2013).
Reference
Kendall, P. C., & Hollon, S. D. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive-
behavioral interventions: Theory, research, and procedures.
Academic Press.
Cognitive Theory
The cognitive theory tends to explain the mental processes of an
individual when influenced by extrinsic and intrinsic factors. It
illustrates that analyzing the mental processes plays a major
role in understanding the different processes in an individual
(Rector et al., 2011).
Reference
Rector, N. A., Stolar, N., & Grant, P. (2011). Schizophrenia:
Cognitive theory, research, and therapy. Guilford Press.
2.4 Contribution to Research Theory
Explain how your study answers one of these 4 questions.
Provide a detailed explanation for at least one of the following
questions.
· In what ways does the research test to confirm or refute

theory?
The research confirms the behavior modeling by stipulating that
the theory is often employed for identifying the veterans who
might need PTSD treatment intervention. It is noted that the
model looks at the need, enabling and the predisposing factors
that tend to influence the veterans access to health care for the
PTSD. Basically, these factors are used in determining if the
veteran with PTSD will seek help for his/her mental issue.
2.5 Research Questions
List the research questions. The questions should align with the
research problem. Be very specific here. PSL dissertations
typically have between 2-6 research questions.
· What are the effects of the inaccurate diagnostic procedure
that is currently being used?
· What is the effectiveness of the existing treatment methods
that are administered to the OEF and OIF veterans?
· What variables might influence the diagnosis as well as the
treatment outcome of PTSD?
· What new strategy can be employed to aid in an improved
diagnosis of PTSD?
SCIENTIFIC MERIT REVIEW FORM
SCIENTIFIC MERIT REVIEW FORMSchool of Public Service
Leadership
Scientific Merit Process
Dissertation researchers will use this form to go through the
process of scientific merit review (SMR). The goals of this
process are to:
(1) Facilitate the planning of the details of your dissertation

research project.
(2) Allow for scientific merit review.
(3) Facilitate your progress through the dissertation.
This is not an addition to your dissertation but rather a step to
assist you in obtaining mentor, committee, school, and IRB
approval more efficiently. You must obtain scientific merit
approval before writing your full dissertation proposal.
Scientific merit approval is part of Dissertation Milestone 3,
Mentor Approval. Scientific Merit Criteria
The following criteria will be used to establish scientific merit.
The purpose of the review will determine if the study:
· Advances the scientific knowledge base.
· Makes a contribution to research theory.
· Meets certain “Hallmarks” of good research methodology.
Scientific Merit Approval**
Your SMR completed form will be approved, not approved, or
deferred for major or minor revisions. The Scientific Merit
Reviewer will use a check list to determine if the study meets
the criteria for scientific merit and the reviewer will provide
specific feedback designed to identify any issues that need to be
resolved related to the scientific merit or the proposed
methodology for the SMR form to be approved. You will have
up to three opportunities to submit this form for SMR approval.
Scientific Merit approval does not mean you will obtain IRB
approval. The IRB review will focus on ethical issues.
** Obtaining Scientific Merit approval does not guarantee you
will obtain IRB approval. A detailed ethical review will be
conducted during the process of IRB approval.
Recommendations for How to Use This Form
This SMR form is intended to help you plan the details of your
dissertation. It provides a space for you and your mentor to
work out all the details of your design. Then it allows you to
submit your design plan for Scientific Merit Review. Once you
have obtained Scientific Merit approval, you should be able to
easily expand on the information you have submitted here and

write the dissertation proposal because the methodology section
follows the Dissertation Chapter 3 outline. It is recommended
that you use this form in a step-by-step way to help you plan
your design. Expect that you will go through several revisions
before your mentor approves this form.When you are completely
done with your form and it has Mentor approval, your Mentor
will submit it to your Scientific Merit Reviewer for approval.
Dos and Don’ts
· Do prepare your answers in a separate Word document, as
editing and revising will be easier.
· Set font formatting to Times New Roman, 11 point, regular
style font or Arial, 10 point, regular style font. Use the
“Format” menu.
· Do set paragraph indentation (“Format” menu) for no
indentation, no spacing.
· Do copy-paste items into the right-hand fields when they are
ready.
· Do not delete the descriptions in the left column!
· Do not lock the form. That will stop you from editing and
revising within the form.
· Do complete the “Learner and Program Information” (Section
1).
· Do not skip items or sections. If an item does not apply to
your study, type “NA” in its field; i.e., leave no blank spaces in
the form.
· Do read the item descriptions and their respective Instructions
carefully. Items request very specific information. Be sure you
understand what is asked (Good practice for your IRB
application!).
· Do use primary sources to the greatest extent possible as
references. Textbooks (Patton, Leedy and Ormrod, et cetera) are
not acceptable as the only references supporting methodological
and design choices. Use them to track down the primary
sources.
· Do submit a revised SMR form if, after approval, you change

your design elements. It may not need a second review, but the
mentor should send any revisions to the Scientific Merit
Reviewer before your IRB is submitted.
Section 1. Learner and Program Information (to be completed
by learner)Learner Name
Learner Email
Mentor Name
Mentor Email
Specialization (Delete all specializations except for your own)
Area of Specialization Program Chair
· General Human Services Dr. Charles Lorbeer
· Health Care Administration Dr. Lonnie Wederski
· Management of Nonprofits Dr. Yvonne Kochanowski
· Social and Community Services Dr. Charles Lorbeer
· Criminal Justice Dr. Steven Barthelmeus
· Emergency Management Dr. Michael Kemp
· Public Safety Leadership Dr. Steven Barthelmeus
Program Chair Email
Dissertation Title
Section 2. Research Problem & Contributions to Research
Theory
2.1 Research Problem
Describe the scientific problem. This paragraph goes beyond the
social problem. E.g. We know X from the literature, we also
know Y, but we don’t know Z and that is why this study’s
research question is important.

2.2 Advancing the Scientific Knowledge Base
Specifically describe how this research will advance scientific
knowledge in your specialization area by answering all of these
3 questions using bullet points and in-text citations.
not been studied before—How is this study new or different
from other studies?
2. If your research questions are studied, how could your
findings impact your field of interest—“So What?”
3. What possible practical implications do you predict the
results of your research will have? For instance, what will be
the impact of these results on your sample, your site location, or
your workplace—“Who Cares?”
2.3 Theoretical Foundation
List the major theory or theories that serve as the backbone of
the study. List each theory, briefly describe it, and list a
reference for each immediately below the theory.

2.4 Contribution to Research Theory
Explain how your study answers one of these 4 questions.
Provide a detailed explanation for at least one of the following
questions.
· In what ways does the research generate a new theory?
· In what ways does the research refine or add to an existing
theory?
· In what ways does the research test to confirm or refute
theory?
· In what ways does the research expand theory by telling us
something new about application or processes?
2.5 Research Questions
List the research questions. The questions should align with the
research problem. Be very specific here. PSL dissertations
typically have between 2-6 research questions.
Section 3. Methodology, Sampling, Ethics
3.1 Identify the variables (quantitative) or the concepts
(qualitative)
How do the variables or concepts align with the theories?
Variables Measured:
Concepts Measured:

3.2 General Methodology
Choose the methodology you believe is most appropriate for
this study.
Indicate methodology by checking it below.
____ Quantitative
____ Qualitative
____ Mixed Method
3.3 Methodological Approach
Choose the specific approach you believe is appropriate for this
study. If a mixed methods design, choose one approach in each
category.
Qualitative Approaches: (Case Study; Ethnography; Grounded
Theory; Phenomenology)
Chosen Approach:
Quantitative Approaches: (Experiment, Quasi Experiment,
Correlation)
Chosen Approach:
3.4 Rationale for Methodology
Write a 1-2 sentence rationale describing how your design is
best suited to answering your research questions.
3.5 Assumptions
Identify the key (A) theoretical, (B) topical, and (C)
methodological assumptions of the study; provide citations to
support their adoption.

3.6Limitations
Evaluate the weaknesses of your study at this time. Indicate
areas to be improved before start of the study and areas that
cannot be improved. Give reasons for not redesigning to address
any of the limitations identified.
3.7 Measures/Instruments
List and describe each data collection instrument or
measurement tool you will use. This includes questionnaires,
formal interview protocols, forms, etc. Include (A) alignment
with variable or concept (E.g., Qualitative—interview question
3 will elicit information about stress when providing care for
elderly who have downs syndrome, OR Quantitative—questions
4-10 on the XX survey are summed to create a measure of
happiness)
(B) data type(s) generated by each measure (Qualitative—
coded themes, lived experiences or Quantitative—nominal,
ordinal, interval, or ratio level data),, and (C) available
psychometric information (Qualitative—rich, thick descriptions,
OR Quantitative—validity & reliability coefficients). Attach a
copy of each instrument you plan to use as an appendix to your
SMR.
3.8 If modifying an instrument:
Describe any pilot test or field test that may be required for any
instruments. Field tests must be done (A) for new instruments or
questions developed by the learner, and (B) with expert
panelists. Field tests require no IRB review required. A pilot
test requires IRB review.
3.9 Population and Sampling Plan
Describe the population of people OR data (e.g. newspaper

articles, schools, neighborhoods) in which your study is
interested. Briefly describe the characteristics of this sample,
including (A) demographics, (B) inclusion criteria if any; (C)
exclusion criteria if any. Describe how you plan to select the
sample. Include the steps you will take to recruit participants.
Provide enough detail so that someone else would be able to
follow this recipe to conduct the study.Provide rationale for
your decisions.
3.10 Sample Size
What is the expected sample size needed? How do you know?
Provide citations (primary sources) to support the sample size
decision, (e.g., a power analysis, articles indicating effect size
of scales, or citations justifying your qualitative sample size).
3.11 Expected Site
Describe the site(s) or source from which you expect to draw
your sample.
3.12 Site Permission
Who is authorized to provide permission to use this site or
source? Does the site have an IRB? What do you need to do to
obtain permission to access the population or data source?
3.13 Participant Contact
How will potential participants first be contacted? How will
participants be contacted following the study?
3.14 Data Collection
Describe the exact procedure that will be used to carry out the
study. This is a step-by-step description of exactly how the

research will be conducted. This should read like a recipe for
conducting your study. Be sure to include all the necessary
details so that someone else should be able to follow this and be
able to replicate the study.
3.15 Data Analysis
Describe analysis procedures for each distinct data type:
specific statistical analysis for quantitative studies; audiotapes,
transcripts, video tape, field notes, photos, etc. for qualitative
studies; or describe a combination of procedures for a mixed
methods design. Ensure that the analysis is consistent with your
chosen methodological approach.
Describe all methods and procedures for data analysis
including: (a) types of data to be analyzed, (b) organizing raw
data, (c) managing and processing data, (d) preparation of data
for analysis, and (e) storage and protection of data. For each
research question or sub-question, detail the actual data
analyses to be conducted to answer each specific question or
how you plan to test each hypothesis.
3.16 Ethical Considerations.
Describe any ethical considerations given the sample population
and/or topic. Please explain as fully as possible. E.g., How do
you plan to protect human participants while identifying the
sample, while collecting the data, while analyzing the data,
after data are collected, when you store your data?
3.17 Risk Assessment.
Is your study more than minimal risk? Does the study examine
a vulnerable population? What special steps will you take to
protect your participants? Refer to your CITI course for more

information about minimal risk. Please explain.
No:
Yes:
Scientific Merit Status
Directions for Reviewers
The reviewer determines if the Scientific Merit Review (SMR)
form is approved, disapproved or deferred for major or minor
revisions. An SMR form is approved if the reviewer has been
able to answer “MET EXPECTATIONS” to all of the evaluation
questions. A researcher has 3 opportunities to pass scientific
merit review.
If any of the items have been checked as “BELOW
EXPECTATIONS,” then the reviewer is asked to comment
specifically and provide recommendations. Most of the time
recommendations will lead to the reviewer requesting major or
minor revisions. Minor revisions are things like needing to
include more detail. Major revisions are issues where there are
major design flaws, potential ethical concerns or inconsistency
in terms of the research questions, the design, and the proposed
data analysis. Disapproval occurs if the researcher fails to pass
the SMR review on the third attempt. Disapproval could also
occur earlier in the process if it is clear that the study 1.) does
not have any potential for scientific merit or 2.) the study has
major ethical or methodological flaws that can’t be corrected.
Please indicate your decision for this review in the correct place
(First Review, Second Review, etc) and insert your electronic
signature and the date below. If the SMR has a Final Status of

“Approved” or “Disapproved”, please be sure to indicate this
Final Scientific Merit Review status below as well.
Scientific Reviewer Evaluation
Criteria
Met Expectations
Below Expectations
Reviewer Comments
1
Did the Specialization Chair approve the dissertation title,
topic, and problem as appropriate for the specialization area?
(2.1)
2
Will the study advance scientific knowledge in the field by
meeting one of these four criteria? (2.2)
not been studied before?
2. Is this study new or different from other studies in some
way?
3. Does the study extend prior research on the topic in some
way?
4. Does the study fill a gap in the existing literature?
3
Does the research make a contribution to research theory in one
of these ways? (2.3, 2.4)

1. Does the research generate a new theory?
2. Does the research refine or add to a new theory?
3. Does the research test to confirm or refute theory?
4. Does the research expand theory by telling us something new
about application or processes?
4
Do the research questions address the research problem? (2.5)
5
Does the basic methodology and rationale proposed seem
appropriate to answer the research questions? (3.2, 3.4)
6
Is the research design clearly and accurately described? Can the
design answer the research questions with the proposed sample,
design, and analysis? (3.5, 3.6, 3.7)
7
Are any concerns about using the particular population, sample,
site or how participants will be contacted, sufficiently addressed
by the methodology? (3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13)

8
Is participant involvement, selection, and recruitment fully
described and appropriate for the study? (3.13)
9
Are all data collection instruments, measures, scales, interview
questions or observations , appropriate for this study? Have
field tests (if necessary) been described? (3.1, 3.8)
11
Does the researcher describe in detail the procedure to be
followed in a step-by-step way so that it is completely clear
how the research will be conducted? (3.14)
12
Are the proposed data analyses appropriate? Is there alignment
between the research questions, proposed methodology, types of
data to be collected and proposed data analysis? Is the language
used to describe the type of design and data analysis plans
consistent throughout? (3.15)
13
Have any potentially serious ethical concerns been considered

and sufficiently addressed? (3.16)
14
Have risks been adequately identified? (3.17)
Scientific Review Information (to be completed by Reviewer
only)
Reviewer Name:
Date
Decision
First Review
|_| Date Approved ____________________
|_| Date Deferred _____________________
Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form)
|_| Minor Revisions |_| Major RevisionsSecond Review
(if needed)
|_| Date Approved ____________________
|_| Date Deferred _____________________
|_| Minor Revisions |_| Major RevisionsThird Review
(if needed)
|_| Date Approved ____________________
|_| Date Deferred _____________________

|_| Minor Revisions |_| Major RevisionsSent to Research
Chair for Review and Consultation (if needed)
Date:
Research Chair Process Review Outcome (see attachments if
needed)Conference Call
|_| Date Approved ____________________
|_| Date Deferred _____________________
Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form):
|_| Minor Revisions |_| Major RevisionsFINAL
SCIENTIFIC MERIT STATUS
|_| Approved
Date Approved:_____________________________
Appendix A
Sections of the Dissertation
(& Corresponding Sections of the SMR Form)
Elements from the Dissertation Guides Workbook prepared by
Drs. Curtis Brant, Bruce Fischer, Malcolm Gray, Randy Johnson
,
Kim Kostere, Tony Levinskas, Bill Percy, and Nancy Piotrowski
Dissertation Chapter One
A. Background of the Problem (Introduction) (2.1)
Identifies the wider issues underlying the research problem and
question. Essentially a brief synopsis of the literature review
(fully developed in Chapter Two of the dissertation) about the
problem itself and the theoretical framework the researcher has

chosen to evaluate the problem and the eventual data obtained
about it.
B. Statement of the Problem (2.1)
Clearly states the research problem–the form of the problem
that is the specific object of investigation in this study. The
research problem is not the general social or psychological
problem described in the Background section (which may
require many different components for solution), but a specific
problem that a research project is required to solve.
C. Purpose of the Study (2.2, 2.4)
The core purpose of the study is to answer the research
question, whose purpose is to solve the research problem. The
wider social or psychological problem (e.g., stopping or treating
childhood abuse or developing effective management techniques
for organizations) cannot be solved by a single research project.
The research project, however, should be, and that is the core
purpose of the study. Contributing knowledge toward a solution
of the wider problem can be a second purpose.
D. Significance of the Study (2.2, 2.4)
Significance of the research is related both to what is known in
the literature and the value of the training in research the
learner is receiving as a result of completing the study. This
section presents the argument that fulfilling the purpose of the
study is important to the field of pubic service leadership, to
some specialization within public service leadership, to a
community of persons interested in the problem, or to
researchers interested in the problem.
E. Research Design (3.2)
Describes the general blueprint for the study itself—how its
elements (overall methodology, sample selection and
assignment, data collection methods and procedures, data
analysis methods, data presentation methods) are aligned and

coordinated in order to maximize cogency and to reduce threats
to validity or credibility.
F. Research Question and Hypotheses (2.5)
States exactly the question that the study will answer,
including any sub-questions. The research question must include
the variables or phenomena being investigated and their
relationship (if any is sought). Hypotheses are predictive
statements of the expected answers to the research sub-
questions; qualitative projects do not use hypotheses.
This meets criteria for a respectable research question:
1. It is a question.
2. It can be answered.
3. Because it is closely linked to a viable research problem
(which in turn is linked to a wider problem which is important
to some stakeholders), it has significance and has not already
been answered.
4. It clearly identifies the variables and the relationships that
will be investigated.
5. The question, if reduced to its keywords (management,
management-by-objective, human potentials, worker morale,
etc.), will give readers a good idea of what the study
investigates and will bring up the study when others search
published dissertations.
G. Assumptions and Limitations (3.5, 3.6)
States the assumptions (constructs being taken as given, usually
four kinds: general methodological assumptions, theoretical
assumptions, topic-specific assumptions, and assumptions about
instruments or methods) being accepted for the study and the
limitations (things the study does not do either intentionally or
because of inherent design limitations).
H. Definitions of Terms (3.7)
Defines all constructs investigated in the study along with

characteristics of the sample and any other characteristics or
variables which are of importance in the research question. In
quantitative projects, define the construct variables
operationally. In qualitative projects, all constructs and
characteristics need to be clearly and fully described in
sufficient detail that readers can observe them in appropriate
contexts.
I. ExpectedFindings (3.15)
States the findings expected from the data analysis from a
conceptual standpoint, showing how the findings are expected
to answer the research question in terms of the theoretical
framework for the study.
Dissertation Chapter Two
A. The Introduction to the Literature Review
The introduction to the literature review states the overall topic
of the dissertation and provides an orienting paragraph or
passage so the reader knows what the literature review will
address. Describe how the chapter will be organized (what are
the main points and in what order do they appear?). Describe
(briefly) how the literature was surveyed, providing enough
information about search criteria (keywords used, databases
searched, libraries accessed and journals investigated, for
example) that the reader can evaluate the thoroughness of the
review.
B. Theoretical Orientation for the Study (2.3)
In this section of the literature review, cite the major references
to support your theoretical orientation and briefly describe the
orientation. Essentially, the "theoretical orientation" or

framework is one's "point of view" from which one writes the
paper or conducts the dissertation. When you intend to use more
than one theoretical framework, you need to synthesize and
integrate the different theories carefully.
C. Review of Research Literature and Methodological Literature
Specific to the Topic or Research Question (2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
This section has two sub-sections: Review of research on the
topic and Review of methodological literature. How this is
organized is important. It can be organized by variables, by
factors or constructs to be addressed, by elements of the
theoretical framework, by or elements of the research design.
D. Synthesis of Research Findings
This section will summarize the main points of Chapter Two,
showing both the strengths and the weaknesses in your
theoretical orientation and your project's relationship with the
previous research on the topic, both in content (research
findings) and methods (methodology).
E. Critique of previous research (2.2, 2.4)
In this section examine the quality of the research reviewed.
What are the methodological strengths and limitations of the
works you reviewed? How do those weaknesses, in particular,
affect your own argument? Consider things such a rigor of
designs, sampling errors, size of samples, quality or research
instruments, appropriateness of statistical procedures, and any
other issues related to the quality of research. At the end of this
section there should be a strong case for why the study will be a
step forward in terms of research rigor.
F. Summary
This should not be more than a page, and in general will
summarize the conclusions you have drawn from the previous
literature on your topic or methodology which support your own
project. This is of great importance in the dissertation, where

this section sums up Chapter Two and provides a transition into
Chapter Three.
Dissertation Chapter Three
A. Purposes of the Study (2.1)
This section repeats the information given in the opening
sections of Chapter One: the research problem, any background
relevant to the methods, the research questions and hypotheses
(if any) which are designed to gather information needed to
solve the problem, and what the study is meant to accomplish,
that is, its purpose. The objective is to reorient the readers so
that the methods to be described here will make sense.
B. Research Design (3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
Describes the research design with emphasis on methods and
procedures. Critical elements include methodology, sample
type, data collection methods and frequency, and data analysis
type(s). Emphasis should be placed on description of validity
threats (credibility issues in qualitative designs) and how the
design minimizes or eliminates them. Like the previous section,
you already outlined this in Chapter One from a conceptual
standpoint. Here you can repeat (rewritten, as above) much of
that material for the readers’ convenience, adding in greater
clarity and detail, with your focus being a concrete description
of your design. Again, the aim is to create a step-by-step recipe
to support possible replication in the future.
C. Target Population and Participant Selection (3.9, 3.11, 3.12)
Describes the characteristics of the larger population from
which the sample (study participants) will be drawn. Include in
this section, after the characteristics, a discussion of sample
size, including all steps taken to determine and justify sample

size (e.g., power analysis). In this section, you will first
describe the characteristics of the population. Next, describe the
sample, consistently with the description of the population.
Describe the size of your sample next.
D. Sampling Procedures (3.9, 3.10, 3.13)
Once you have described how you determined the sample size,
describe how you plan to select the sample. Include the steps
taken for recruitment of participants. Each procedure—
identifying potential participants, contacting that pool,
recruiting or inviting their participation, and organizing your
sample—requires its own procedural description (a recipe clear
enough that others can repeat your work).
E. Instruments (3.7)
Describe in detail all data collection instruments and measures
(tests, questionnaires, interview protocols, and so forth). This
section should include a description of each instrument or
measure, its normative data, validity and reliability statistics,
results of field tests conducted to determine validity, reliability,
or appropriateness of the instrument.
F. Data Collection Procedures (3.14)
The procedures section describes the procedures that will be
used to carry out all the major methods of the study. As before,
the terms “methods” and “procedures” mean different things.
“Methods” is a general term describing what you will do to
accomplish the task at hand. “Procedures,” on the other hand,
are step-by-step descriptions of how the methods will be carried
out.
The Procedures section should contain at least the following
subsections:
a) Methods and procedures for sample recruitment, sample
selection, and assignment to groups (if relevant);
b) Methods and procedures for obtaining informed consent and

for protecting the rights and well-being of the participants;
c) Methods and procedures adopted to maintain data securely,
including the length of time data will be kept and how they will
be destroyed;
d) Methods and procedures for data collection, including how
data will be organized and prepared for analysis;
e) Methods and procedures for data analysis; and
f) Methods and procedures for presentation of the data,
findings, and results.
G. Proposed Data Analyses (3.15)
Describe carefully the research question and sub-questions,
followed by the null and alternate or research hypotheses (in
quantitative studies) that predict the answer to each. Whereas
Chapter One was conceptual, this section should focus on the
empirical and statistical analysis. Describes all methods and all
procedures for data analysis including: (a) types of data to be
analyzed (see previous sections), (b) organizing raw data, (c)
managing and processing data, (d) preparation of data for
analysis, (e) actual analyses to be carried out, (f) storage and
protection of data. Procedures must be detailed and carefully
described. General statements should be avoided. Remember to
state not only what statistics will be used, but also to select the
level of significance for all significance tests.
H. Expected Findings
In quantitative studies, describe each outcome of the
hypotheses: Was the null accepted or rejected? What
correlations were found and at what significance level? In
qualitative studies, discuss biases in the researcher that have
been identified and how they will be accounted for. The focus
in Chapter Three should be on the actual expected results of the
analysis (particularly in quantitative studies).
I. Ethical Considerations (3.16, 3.17)
This section provides a discussion of ethical issues related to

the study and the population of interest. Anonymity,
confidentiality, privacy, lack of coercion, and informed consent
are all issues that should be addressed in this section.
Revised 7-28-11 -9-
DHA8013: Management Plan Task Worksheet
Management Plan Task Worksheet
List your project activities and related details. An example is
given in the first row.
Task or Activity
Person Responsible
Duration
Due Date
Resources Needed
Comments
Approximate Cost
Research Ethics Education Completion
Researcher
4 hours
July 2015
Description and nature of persons involved plus the kind of data
to be collected
Check address and directions
Travel: $20.00
1st Meeting with the Committee to Approve the Topic
Researcher
3 hours
August 2015

Description of research project
Check venue and direction
snacks $ 12.00
1st Meeting with the Mentor to approve Research Plan
Researcher
2 hours
August 2015
Description of the research plan
Check address and direction
Travel $ 15.00
2nd Meeting with the Committee to approved Research Plan
Researcher
2 hours
September 2015
Description of research plan
Confirm venue, time and direction
Snacks and Travel $ 21.00
1st Meeting with the School Dean to approved Research Plan
Researcher
2 hours
September 2015
Description of the research plan
Check the address and meeting room
Travel $ 10.00
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval
IRB
3 hours
October 2015
The research topic and plan
Check the registration and mobile number
Mail and printing $ 8.00
Pre-Data Collection Call
Mentor
30min
November 2015
-

-
-
2nd Meeting with the mentor to Approved Chapters 1 – 4
Researcher
3 hours
December 2015
Copies of chapter1-4
Check time and venue
Travel and printing $27.00
3rd Meeting with the mentor for Approval of Chapter 5 and
Final Dissertation
Researcher
11/2 hours
January 2015
Copies of chapter 5 and the final dissertation
Check address and venue
Travel $ 10.00
3rd Meeting with the Committee to Approved Dissertation
Committee
2 hours
January 2015
Copy of dissertation
Check mail and office desk
Mail $ printing $ 30.00
2nd Meeting with the School Dean to Approved Dissertation
School
2 hours
February 2015
Mail $ printing $ 30.00
Format Editing Completed
Researcher
4 hours
March 2015

Check mail and address
Mail $ 1.00
Final Conference Call
mentor
15min
March 2015
-
-
-
Final Manuscript Approved
Researcher
1hour
April 2015
Final manuscript
Manuscript Submitted for Publication
Researcher
1hour
April 2015
Final manuscript
Dean’s Final Manuscript Approval
Dean
2 hours
May 2015
Published manuscript
Check address and venue
Travel $ 11.0
1
Capella Proprietary and Confidential
Course_File_Template_Landscape.doc

Last updated: 5/31/2015 12:25 AM
DHA8013: Management Plan Task Worksheet
Management Plan Task Worksheet
List your project activities and related details. An example is
given in the first row.
Task or Activity
Person Responsible
Duration
Due Date
Resources Needed
Comments
Approximate Cost
Meet with organizational CEO to obtain permission letter for
research project
Researcher
2 hours
July 2012
Description of Research Project
Check address and directions
Travel: $10.00

1
Capella Proprietary and Confidential
Course_File_Template_Landscape.doc
Last updated: 5/31/2015 12:27 AM

Improving Comprehensive Carefor OEF and OIF Vetsby Aslie.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Improving Comprehensive Carefor OEF and OIF Vetsby Aslie.docx (20)

More from bradburgess22840 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Improving Comprehensive Carefor OEF and OIF Vetsby Aslie.docx