User talk:Isabella De Marchena/sandbox

Hi Isabella! Below is my peer review of your Wikipedia article improvements. I evaluated it based on the Wiki assignment rubric.:

Introductory Sentence - Excellent! Your first sentence was very concise and communicated what psychological resilience is. I think it was a good improvement from previous intro sentence.

Summary - Excellent/Good. The introduction section of your Wiki article functions well as a summary. The only thing I would say is your intro section is written kind of like an essay, especially b/c of transition words like First, Second, etc. I think for a Wikipedia article, it may be better to just use as plain language as possible.

Context - Excellent.

Organization - Good. Your writing is clear, but has some small grammar mistakes that you can fix by proofreading. Not sure how you are planning on organizing the rest of the article/where you will add in your new section so I can't really say anything about that.

Content - Excellent/Good. I think the content you have is well-presented and definitely relevant to the topic of psychological resilience! One thing I would suggest is possibly having some extra citations within your writing.

Tone - Excellent Most of your writing is neutral and appropriate for Wikipedia.

Images - N/A. I completely understand how this could be a hard topic to find images for! I would suggest maybe a diagram that could show how different coping methods could contribute to greater psychological resistance? This would also be fairly simple to make yourself so that it would not be copyrighted.

Citations - Good/Fair. This article could definitely benefit from a few more citations! There are places where you have a few sentences with no citation associated with them.

Sources - Excellent. The sources that you do have are appropriate for Wikipedia!

Completeness - Excellent.

New sections - I am not sure what you plan on doing with the "Building Resilience" section that you added into your sandbox, since the current Wiki article has a "Building" section already. If you plan on just adding your writing to that section, then it's good! However, if this was going to be a new section in the article it would be redundant.

Reorganization - N/A, don't know if you plan to reorganize article.

Gaps - Excellent.

Smaller additions - N/A.

Overall I think your additions are good! Definitely my main suggestion is to try to have more sources :)

Saramichha (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Psychological Resilience"

The selected Wikipedia article needs two primary upgrades. First it needs a more completed introduction that provides a better overview of what information will be covered. Second it needs a better summary of main points at the end of the article. These changes will provide better navigation guides and better take-away knowledge after reading the article.

Here is a list of relevant resources that can be used to enhance the article, "Psychological Resilience":

References

Kong, L., Liu, N., Liu, S., & Yu, N. (2018). Correlations among psychological resilience, self-efficacy, and negative emotion in acute myocardial infarction patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 1.

Sarkar, M. (2017). Psychological resilience: Definitional advancement and research developments in elite sport. International Journal of Stress Prevention and Wellbeing, 1(3), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.stressprevention.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IJSPW-1-3.pdf

Sharpley, C. F., Bitsika, V., Jesulola, E., Fitzpatrick, K., & Agnew, L. L. (2016). The association between aspects of psychological resilience and subtypes of depression: implications for focussed clinical treatment models. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 20(3), 151-156.

"Intelligence"

This article needs more details. Its main weakness is that it does not reflect the various types of intelligences that exist or how they are measured.

References

Baş, G., & Beyhab, Ö. (2017). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(3), 365-386.

Gardner, H. (2018). Multiple approaches to understanding. In Contemporary Theories of Learning (pp. 129-138). New York, NY: Routledge.

Martin, J. (2018). Profiting from multiple intelligences in the workplace. New York, NY: Routledge.

"Psychological Evaluation"

This is a broad topic, so the change needed is just more content. One category of assessments not mentioned are for specific conditions, such as anxiety or depression.

References

Brantley, P. R., & Phillip, J. (2017). Screening for Depression. Handbook of Psychological Assessment in Primary Care Settings, 245. Siu, A. L. (2016). Screening for depression in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals of internal medicine, 164(5), 360-366. Siu, A. L., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Baumann, L. C., Davidson, K. W., Ebell, M., ... & Krist, A. H. (2016). Screening for depression in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Jama, 315(4), 380-387.

Annotated Bibliography
Article Topic: Psychological Resilience Changes Proposed: I proposed two changes to the article. First, I needed a stronger introduction that provided background information and a better road map for the article. Second, it needed a stronger conclusion. Annotated Bibliography

Kong, L., Liu, N., Liu, S., & Yu, N. (2018). Correlations among psychological resilience, self-efficacy, and negative emotion in acute myocardial infarction patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 1. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00001

This peer reviewed journal article studied the relationship between resilience and outcomes of post-heart attack interventions. The study involved 88 heart attack patients. It was hypothesized that a positive correlation existed between psychological resilience and intervention outcomes. The findings supported this hypothesis. The implication is that resilience helps people to recover more effectively from medical crises, such as heart attacks. This information will be used in the revised introduction to support the position that resilience is important and impacts people’s recovery from crises.

Sarkar, M. (2017). Psychological resilience: Definitional advancement and research developments in elite sport. International Journal of Stress Prevention and Wellbeing, 1(3), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.stressprevention.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IJSPW-1-3.pdf

This article explored the definition of psychological resilience. Sarkar (2017) provided an advanced definition of psychological “the role of mental processes and behavior in promoting personal assets and protecting an individual from the potential negative effect of stressors” (p. 1). This definition will be added to the introduction so that readers will have a better understanding of the concept and what the article will be discussing.

Sharpley, C. F., Bitsika, V., Jesulola, E., Fitzpatrick, K., & Agnew, L. L. (2016). The association between aspects of psychological resilience and subtypes of depression: implications for focussed clinical treatment models. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 20(3), 151-156. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2016.1199810

This peer reviewed article presented a study that evaluated the relationship between depression and psychological resilience. The authors hypothesized that psychological resilience would minimize depression severity and longevity in individuals. The study surveyed 330 people in Australia with depression. The people were asked to complete Conners-Davidson Resilience Scale (CDRISC) and the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS). The scores were then correlated. The findings revealed that psychological resilience does have some mitigating effects on depression. This information will be used to highlight one of the advantages of developing psychological resilience in the introduction of the article.

Walton, A.G. (2015). Recovering resilience: 7 methods for becoming mentally stronger. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/03/02/growing-resilience-7-strategies-to-become-mentally-stronger/#4f64e0287193

This article demonstrates the importance of psychological resilience in the business sector and provides seven strategies for developing it. The seven methods were: (1) practice problem solving and being flexible, (2) learn to see both positive and negative things, (3) learn, (4) build physical health, (5) take a break when you are tired, (6) build a social network and remain socially active, and (7) practice positive self-talk. This information will be used in the revision of the introduction of my article to provide an overview of topics that will be discussed in the article, as well as to reinforce the perspective that psychological resilience is important to all sectors of life, including one’s professional life.

Waters, B. (2013). 10 traits of emotionally resilient people: Part 1 of 2 in this blog series, “cultivating resilience for total well-being." Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/design-your-path/201305/10-traits-emotionally-resilient-people

This blog from Psychology Today provides a discussion of ten traits that people with emotional resilience have. The ten traits are: (1) know your boundaries, (2) keep good company, (3) self-awareness, (4) acceptance, (5) ability to remove one’s self from the chaos of modern life, (6) acknowledge that you don’t know everything, (7) practice self-care, (8) have and use a support team, (9) flexibility, and (10) able to focus on nothingness. When revising the introduction, this information will be used for two purposes. First, to show that psychological resilience includes emotional resilience, and second, to provide a list of traits that people need to develop to have psychological resilience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabella De Marchena (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback Ishaan tiwari
Hi!

From what I've read, your page seems to be going well. there isn't too much information on your page as of now, but you seem to have a good grasp of what you are talking about and all your citations are in line. I do recommend structuring your information so it flows better. Sentences seem a bit choppy and don't build in to the next idea as well as the can. I do realize it is a working draft, so this might not be a concern later.

I9T1997 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Ishaan Tiwari