User talk:PeterLouras3/sandbox

Hello Peter! I'm going to paste a list of references I will be examining. Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. C. (2006). The centrality of event scale: A measure of integrating a trauma into one’s identity and its relation to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.01.009 Chukwuorji, J. C., Ifeagwazi, C. M., & Eze, J. E. (2017). Role of event centrality and emotion regulation in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among internally displaced persons. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 30(6), 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2017.1361936 Reiland, S. A., & Clark, C. B. (2017). Relationship between event type and mental health outcomes: Event centrality as mediator. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.009 Johnson, S. F., & Boals, A. (2015). Refining our ability to measure posttraumatic growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 7(5), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000013 Hart, R. P., Bagrodia, R., Rahman, N., Bryant, R. A., Titcombe-Parekh, R., Marmar, C. R., & Brown, A. D. (2017). Neuropsychological Predictors of Trauma Centrality in OIF/OEF Veterans. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(June), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01120 da Silva, T. L. G., Donat, J. C., Lorenzonni, P. L., de Souza, L. K., Gauer, G., & Kristensen, C. H. (2016). Event centrality in trauma and PTSD: relations between event relevance and posttraumatic symptoms. Psicologia: Reflexão E Crítica, 29(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0015-y Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. C. (2006). Centrality of Event Scale [Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t12233-000 I'm sure this looks awful on the talk page. If you are unable to see this, I will e-mail it to you. I will also verify that you can see these. BrianSeo1 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. PeterLouras3 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Event Centrality Peer Review
After reviewing your page, we have some comments that we believe will help your page improve.

Lead Section This page does not have a Lead section. It seems like you all have the format of what your wiki page will be. Your lead section will generally include a brief summary of the sections in your contents box.

Structure In general, your page seems well thought out. We agree that your “Component Description” section and your “Rationale/Theory” section can be combined. Maybe, rationale comes first in that sense. We were wondering if you needed a separate section for validity and reliability and if this could be included with the scale items section. On its own, it might not be a power section.

Balanced coverage Overall, great balance of coverage! You go from explaining the definition of the theory and describe the rationale/history pretty thoroughly.

Neutral content It’s a little difficult to say if there is a lack of neutral content, but it might do well to have a section on contradicting findings? Or also limitations of the screener.

Reliable sources Reliable sources yes, but hard to say with the current amount. Also important to make sure that you are actually citing all of these sources.

Overall, the page looks promising and it seems like you guys are making great progress. Mainly, we think ironing out the lead section and structure will be the best next direction. It will be easier to give more in-depth help/reviews once you progress towards paper format.

--Gabe and Kai

Article Evaluation: Posttraumatic Growth The section on the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory seems a bit off. The author is stating Meichenbaum created the PGTI, however, I believe Tedeschi and Calhoun created it circa 1996. I'm also concerned that the author doesn't use citations much in this section, in fact they don't cite the original source at all, but use Meichenbaum's Posttraumatic Growth handbook from 2006. I think this section needs to be seriously revised because it is misleading and inaccurate. I added a "Citation Needed" to the section to alert the author to this point. I'm also going to add something in the talk page and see if they perhaps have a different standpoint.

Centrality of Events Model and Inventory Working on the entry for Event Centrality as well as the Centrality of Events Scale (CES) with BrianSeo1. Both topics fall under the header of 'Centrality of Events Model and Inventory,' so we'll need to decide whether we write both and link to one another, or cover both under one header. Maybe someone has some ideas/suggestions?

OUTLINE (as of 10/17/17):

Event Centrality Lead: Event Centrality is the... [cite].

Contents box Overview of Model Description Rationale/Theory Application and Evidence For Centrality of Events Scale (CES) Related References Overview of Theory and Model The briefest of background. Cite Berntsen and Rubin, (but I am unsure of how Wikipedia will feel about that since it seems to be their thing; consider meta analysis from one of the book citations). Looking at the CBT page, it seems like we can talk about the theory and say it is guided by empirical research (citations). Use/effectiveness currently. Component Description (We could potentially do rationale/theory before or even incorporate it) More details regarding Centrality of Events, and a breakdown of what it entails. Go into history; where it came from. This transitions to rationale + theory. Rationale/Theory This section can be the “lit review” area of Centrality of Events. Berntsen and Rubin article cite cognitive psychology study regarding emotional events being highly accessible and vividly remembered; Hunt & McDaniel 1993 and McGaugh, 2003 are references that B&R used. More citations regarding memories structuring life narratives. Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; McAdams, 2001; and Robinson, 1992; Pillemer, 1998. Availability heuristic. Rare events that are surprising and intensely emotional can lead to accessible memories (Brown & Kulik, 1977; Rubin & Kozin, 1984). Theory has 3 Components: 1) Reference points for everyday inferences; 2) turning points in life stories; and 3) components of personal identity. (We may want to just link to pages involving these instead of spending too much time explaining the concepts…..Or we can do a brief overview, then link it). Byrne, Hyman, and Scott (2001) looked at traumatic event and had participants rate 1-7 how important it was to their understanding of themselves. The ratings correlated with PTSD symptoms (r =.35). Used flashbulb memories for a theoretical background. We should look more at this study and what it cited for history of the theory before going into the CES. Autobiographical memory models (Bluck et al., 2005; Rubin, 1982); Entails cognitive processes involving the recollection of events that belong to an individual’s past; it’s different than episodic memory (more to do with an individual’s life narrative). Bigger heading regarding Application and Evidence For This should be leading into CES PeterLouras3 (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterLouras3 (talk • contribs)