Critique Prompt to AI  our professor had given us an assignment called: Scientif

Critique Prompt to AI 
our professor had given us an assignment called: Scientific Journal Article Critique. (Make the reply humanlike and use simple, readable, and understandable, human like sentences)
Here’s the STEPS & RESOURCES he had given us:
• Objective: Write a 2-3 page college-level paper in APA format, in which you analyze one scientific, peer-reviewed article in the discipline of psychology and discuss how the results of the study may benefit the surrounding community and/or society as a whole.
CRITERIA FOR JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE
FORMAT:
• You must use APA format. 
• APA format requirements include a cover page, reference page, in-text citations, etc.
STRUCTURE OF JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE:
• Introduction (PURPOSE: to educate the reader on the topic/concept)
○ will define topic and other key terms
○ will include symptoms, statistics of 
occurrence and current information in 
the field
• Main body (PURPOSE: to explain the research conducted in the article)
○ will state what you found in the journal 
article
 HYPOTHESIS or PURPOSE:
□What were the researchers 
trying to discover (i.e. what 
was the hypothesis or 
purpose)?
□ This is usually found                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
at the beginning of 
the article. Usually 
the hypothesis or             
statement of a                                                         
problem appears at 
the end of the review 
of the literature, 
most often in the 
last or next to last 
paragraph. The 
words that indicate 
that it is a                                                         
hypothesis are, “We 
will examine. . .” or 
“Our hypothesis is . . 
.” In a statement of a 
problem, the 
researcher may say, 
“We plan to see if a 
relationship…,” “We 
proposed to 
observe…,” or “The 
problem we 
proposed to study…” 
(You must use your 
own words—do NOT 
use quotes).
 METHODOLOGY:
How was the research conducted (research design or type of study)?
Is the research descriptive (case study, naturalistic observation, laboratory observations, surveys, tests), correlation, experimental, or developmental? For more information on research methods, refer to chapter 1 of your text.
When and where the research was conducted?
How long did the study take?
Who were the participants? (number [N], age, sex, criteria to be a part of study)?
 RESULTS/DISCUSSION:
What did the researchers actually find in relation to their hypothesis/purpose?
ARTICLE MAY STATE: The researchers found that . . .
What limitations did the researchers reveal?
•    Summary/conclusion (PURPOSE: to show critical thinking in regards to the research)
How does the information in the article integrate with information from class discussion, the text, and/or other information in the discipline?
 TIP: It is a good idea to use the subject index in your text to look up the topic in your text.
What is your opinion of the research findings?
Why is this topic/research important? (relevance/benefits to community and/or society)
In what ways does this topic relate to your own personal experience and how is your experience in agreement or disagreement with the outcome of this study?
How has your opinion of this topic changed since your review of the study?
•   Citations in Text of Paper: 
In APA style, in-text citations are placed within sentences and paragraphs so that it is clear what information is being quoted or paraphrased and whose information is being cited.
•   Reference Page
References are listed in alphabetical order by the author’s last name.
Double-space the references.
Use only one space after punctuation, not two spaces.
The first line of each reference is flush left. Indent the second and subsequent lines for each reference.
Do not add extra space between references.
below is the scientific, peer-reviewed article and everything with it, including the authors’ names and publication dates and everything:
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 2021, VOL. 69, NO. 3, 268–274 https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1664552
MAJOR ARTICLE
Early childhood experiences and cognitive risk factors for anxiety symptoms among college students
Danielle L. Taylor, MS, Hannah C. Espeleta, PhD, Jacob D. Kraft, MS, and DeMond M. Grant, PhD
Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
ABSTRACT
Objective: Data indicate that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are a risk factor for cognitive and attentional vulnerabilities. A vulnerability linked to these impairments is repetitive negative thinking (RNT), and data suggest that RNT and anxiety symptoms may be moderated by atten- tional control. The current study investigated the effect of these risk factors on symptoms of anx- iety. Participants: College students (N 1⁄4 376) were recruited from a university. Methods: Participants were administered questionnaires online to assess retrospective ACEs, current RNT, attentional control, and anxiety symptoms. Results: There was an indirect effect of ACEs on anx- iety symptoms through RNT. High attentional control moderated the indirect effects, such that high compared to low attentional control was associated with an increased effect of RNT on anx- iety symptoms. Conclusions: Increased ACEs may be a risk factor for RNT among college students. Combined with high attentional control, these may be risk factors for anxiety symptoms.
Introduction
Worry, the hallmark symptom of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), is a verbal-linguistic pattern of apprehen- sive thoughts of the future and for those with GAD this thinking style is chronic and uncontrollable.1,2 While worry is considered a style of repetitive negative thinking (RNT), there are some features that distinguish it from other forms of negative thought, such that individuals who worry exhibit deficiencies in inhibition and working memory, regardless of GAD status.3 Worry and its associated working memory deficits also have been linked to academic difficulties.4 Because of the chronicity and intrusiveness of worry, and its link to attention difficulties, it is imperative to further exam- ine risk factors for worry/anxiety symptoms within college student populations. College is often a time of increased stress and adjustment, and thus a better understanding of anxiety predictors in a college sample is warranted.
The cognitive control model (CCM) hypothesizes that heterogeneous anxiety responses and symptom patterns result as a function of varying levels of attentional control, which moderates the relationship between RNT and anxiety symptoms.5 This theory posits that low attentional control is associated with difficulties disengaging from RNT leading to increased anxiety, whereas high attentional control may be associated with fewer symptoms. Other theories suggest that early childhood experiences, particularly those that are adverse, may serve as a catalyst for RNT. Though theories have highlighted early adversity as a risk factor for cognitive
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 November 2018 Revised 6 June 2019 Accepted 12 August 2019
KEYWORDS
Repetitive negative thinking; anxiety; worry; attentional control; adverse childhood experiences; moderated-mediation
vulnerabilities and attentional control deficits,6 few studies have evaluated how child experiences and cognitive risk fac- tors collectively relate to psychopathology and more specific- ally, anxiety. The current study will evaluate the role of RNT and attentional control in the relationship between Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and the core symp- tom of GAD, worry, among a college sample.
ACEs, including experiences of child maltreatment (i.e., physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect) and household dysfunction (e.g., witnessing domestic vio- lence, caregiver incarceration, and caregiver substance abuse), have been linked to increased prevalence rates of anxiety disorders and worry in adulthood.7,8 Theory suggests that early experiences are fundamental to the development of transdiagnostic factors for psychopathology.6,9 Given that worry and RNT are considered transdiagnostic, ACEs may be a developmental precursor for these difficulties. In add- ition, childhood experiences are implicated in cognitive and affective development,10 and studies have found that emo- tion regulation difficulties (e.g., RNT) may mediate the rela- tionship between childhood trauma and adult psychological problems.11,12
Research has shown that childhood adversity leads to dif- ficulties with acceptance and understanding of emotion experiences,13,14 and theory implicates unpredictable envi- ronments in the development of emotion dysregulation.15 RNT (e.g. suppression, rumination, post-event processing, and worry) is often conceptualized as a dysfunctional emo- tion regulation strategy in response to problems or
CONTACT Danielle L. Taylor *************************** Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, 116 North Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/vach.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
experiences. It is intrusive, persistent, and causes significant distress.16 Theories suggest that RNT is a transdiagnostic process,17,18 and early experiences may activate RNT.6,9 Notably, a common factor between these theories is that they each suggest that RNT is a core component to the development and maintenance of psychopathology and increased anxiety.15
Evaluating RNT as an outcome of ACEs and as a risk factor for anxiety symptoms, such as worry, may aid in determining points for intervention among college students. In a longitudinal study, rumination mediated the relation- ship between adolescent stressful life events and adult anx- iety.19 Additionally, RNT is predictive of increased anxiety in adults.20,21 Early adverse experiences are posited to dis- rupt typical brain development due to the impact of chronic stress,22,23 which may in turn lead to maladaptive stress.24,25 This dysregulation has been highlighted as a potential mech- anism for heightened rates of anxiety in adults with histories of adversity.26 In fact, emotion dysregulation mediates the relationship between childhood emotional abuse and GAD symptoms.27 Therefore, chronic worry is a consequence of emotion dysregulation, as worry is used to minimize or avoid distressing emotional experiences.28
Additionally, recent literature has investigated factors that help explain the relationship between RNT and anxiety symptoms and suggest that decreased efficiency of the cen- tral executive (i.e., decreased attentional control) may facili- tate the development of anxiety symptomology when experiencing RNT. Theories of attentional control suggest that RNT loads working memory capacity resulting in diffi- culties with directed attention.29 Additionally, studies have found that stressful events in youth are associated with biased attention,30 which in turn is linked to anxiety symp- toms.31,32 More recent data suggest that attentional control may moderate the relationship between RNT and anxiety symptoms, such that increased attentional control may facilitate disengagement from RNT or attention to symp- toms resulting in fewer enduring symptoms overall.5,32 On the other hand, other data indicate that high attentional control may facilitate avoidance and predict increased PTSD symptom severity.33 Hence, mechanisms between childhood experiences and adult anxiety symptoms are not quite clear and the moderating effect of attentional control on the rela- tionship between RNT and symptoms of anxiety also is equivocal. Therefore, investigating how these childhood experiences contribute to transdiagnostic factors related to anxiety may aid in parsing heterogeneous results.
The current study evaluated ACEs among a college popu- lation and its indirect effect on symptoms of GAD via RNT. This study also evaluated whether attentional control moder- ated the link between RNT and GAD symptoms in a moder- ated-mediation model. Evaluating this model directly in a college sample may point to attentional risk factors for emo- tional dysfunction that may result from exposure to ACEs. We hypothesized that increased ACEs in a college popula- tion would be associated with increased RNT, and that decreased attentional control would be associated with increased GAD symptoms among those with increased RNT.
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 269 Those with increased attentional control would have greater
capacity to disengage from RNT and show fewer GAD symptoms. We expected these results would have implica- tions for students and education professionals. Students and educators should be alerted to the factors that influence classroom attention and performance, and mental health awareness should be increased on campuses.
Methods
Participants
Five hundred and four participants were recruited online from a large Southwestern university. Participants had an average age of 19.83 (SD 1⁄4 1.810) with a majority being female (64.9%). Participants identified as 79.8% Caucasian, 7.7% African American, 3.7% Latino/a, 1.6% Asian, 0.5% Chicano/a, 0.5% Middle Eastern, and 6.1% “other” or chose not to respond. Participants were compensated with course credit for their time.
Measures
Demographics
Participants completed a demographic questionnaire indicat- ing their age, gender, and ethnicity.
Adverse childhood experience questionnaire – short form (ACEs-SF)
The ACEs-SF34 is a 10-item measure of whether individuals experienced adverse and potentially traumatic events in the first 18years of life. This measure includes dichotomous “Yes” or “No” responses to questions, such as “Did a parent or other adult in the household often swear at you?”. A total score is quantified by summing the number of affirmative responses. This measure has been previously utilized with a variety of populations, including college students. Test-retest reliability among a college sample is good (r 1⁄4 .71).35
Attentional control scale (ACS)
The ACS36 is a 20-item measure of executive control, which consists of two subscales: attention focusing and attention shifting.31 Research indicates that the focusing subscale is most closely associated with anxiety,31,37 and was therefore used in the current study. Individuals respond using a Likert-type scale from 1 (Almost Never) to 4 (Always) to statements, such as “It’s very hard for me to concentrate on a difficult task when there are noises around.” Responses are summed and higher scores indicate better attentional con- trol. Previous research has validated this questionnaire among a college population and has demonstrated good internal consistency for the focusing subscale (a 1⁄4 .81–.87).31 Internal consistency was good in the current study (a 1⁄4 .87).
270 D. L. TAYLOR ET AL.
Perseverative thinking questionnaire (PTQ)
The PTQ16 is a 15-item measure of retentiveness, intrusive- ness, disengagement difficulty, unproductiveness, and atten- tional capture of repetitive negative thinking. Individuals respond from 0 (Never) to 4 (Almost Always) regarding how strongly statements, such as “The same thoughts keep going through my mind again and again” relate to them. Again, responses are summed and higher scores indicate higher levels of negative thoughts. This measure has been validated with an undergraduate population, demonstrating excellent internal consistency (a1⁄4.94–.95), and good test- retest reliability (r 1⁄4 .69).16 Similarly, internal consistency was excellent in the current study (a 1⁄4 .97).
Penn state worry questionnaire (PSQW)
The PSWQ38 is a 16-item measure of an individual’s pro- pensity to worry. Individuals respond on a scale of 1 (Not at all typical) to 5 (Very typical) whether statements, such as “My worries overwhelm me”) are characteristic of them. Higher scores indicate increased levels of worry. Research has evaluated this measure among a college population and using online administration techniques, and found accept- able internal consistency (a 1⁄4 .73).39 Internal consistency was excellent in the current study (a 1⁄4 .94).
Procedure
Procedures and measures were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board. Participants were recruited to complete the study through psychology courses via the university’s online participant portal. Informed consent and questionnaires were completed through an online survey platform. Seven validity questions were included throughout the study to ensure valid responding. Validity questions required participants to respond in a way that necessitated they read the question prompt and that participants indicate the degree to which their responses were accurate.40 After completion of the questionnaires, participants were debriefed and received course credit for compensation. Those not intending to participate in research were offered alternatives to earn course credit by their course instructors.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Exclusion criteria included 5% or greater on missing analy- ses variables (N1⁄434). Invalid responders on validity ques- tions were also removed from analyses (N 1⁄4 94). This resulted in a final sample of 376. Total ACE scores ranged from 0-10, with the most prevalently endorsed ACEs includ- ing caregiver separation or divorce (32.7%), household member with a mental illness (23.9%), and household mem- ber with substance abuse (20.5%). All study variables were significantly correlated. ACEs showed a weak correlation with other measures. PTQ was moderately negatively corre- lated with AC-focusing and moderately positively correlated with PSWQ. Focusing was moderately negatively correlated
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the study’s sample.
M (SD) Range
Age
ACEs
PTQ AC-focusing PSWQ
Gender Male
Female Race/ethnicity
19.83 (1.81) 18–39 2.39 (1.92) 0–10 23.14 (14.77) 0–60 17.67 (5.13) 7–28 51.83 (15.43) 16–80
Caucasian 300 African American 29 Hispanic 14 Chicano/Chicana 2 Asian 6 Middle Eastern 2 Other 21
131 244
N Percentage
34.8% 64.9%
79.8% 7.7% 3.7% 0.5% 1.6% 0.5% 5.6%
Note: ACEs scores range from 0 to 10 with higher scores indicating more cumulative adverse childhood experiences. Scores for the PSWQ and PTQ indicate increased symptoms and higher scores on the AC-focusing subscale indicate increased attentional control.
Table 2.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Correlations between study variables.
Measure 1 2 3 4
ACEs — .304 .134 .195 PTQ — — .540 .603
AC-focusing — — — .452
PSWQ — — — — Significant at a 1⁄4 .01.
with PSWQ. See Table 1 for full demographic details, descriptive statistics, and Table 2 for bivariate correlations for the study’s measures.
Primary analyses
PROCESS software was utilized to examine the roles of RNT and AC-focusing on the relation between ACEs cumu- lative scores and PSWQ.41 Bias corrected bootstrapping techniques and linear regression was utilized to test moder- ated-mediation (Figure 1). Data were resampled and replaced 5,000 times, and confidence intervals were pro- duced to determine significance. Results of this analysis sug- gest that the overall model was significant, F(4, 344) 1⁄4 66.02, p<.001, accounting for 39.05% of the variance between ACEs and PSWQ. ACEs did not significantly predict PSWQ (b1⁄40.32. p1⁄40.37, 95% CI1⁄40.38 to 1.01), after control- ling for the indirect effect of PTQ. However, both PTQ scores and AC-focusing subscale scores significantly pre- dicted PSWQ scores (b1⁄40.54. p<.001, 95% CI1⁄40.42 to 0.66; b1⁄40.55. p<.01, 95% CI1⁄40.88 to 0.22, respect- ively), with higher RNT relating to higher worry and higher focusing scores relating to lower worry. Furthermore, PTQ scores demonstrated a significant indirect effect between ACEs and PSWQ (b1⁄41.15, 95% CI1⁄40.64 to 1.78), such that higher cumulative ACE scores were linked to increases in RNT, which subsequently predicted increased worry.
Results examining the interaction of AC-focusing and PTQ on PSWQ were significant (b 1⁄4 0.02, p < .05, 95% CI1⁄40.004 to 0.035). Additional results suggested that
Figure 1. Predicted moderated-mediation model and coefficients.
Note: ACEs – cumulative adversity score, PTQ – total score on repetitive negative trol, and PSWQ – anxiety symptoms.
thinking, Focusing – focusing subscale of the ACS as a measure of attentional con-
including parental depression and attachment styles, which are associated with decreased attentional control and increased risk for psychopathology.9,43,44 Furthermore, because RNT and worry have increasingly been linked to decreased efficiency of attentional control, these results sug- gest that although at-risk students may not perform poorly, they may have to utilize more cognitive resources or may perform more slowly in the classroom.
Our data also are in line with findings from recent stud- ies which have suggested that high attentional control may be associated with increased symptoms of PTSD and increased avoidance.33 According to theory, we would expect that increased attentional control may mean more cognitive resources are “freed up.” Whereas this would be beneficial for increased efficiency of the central executive or for increased ability to disengage from external threat stimuli, our results, however, support the notion that increased attentional resources do not necessarily lead to cognitive dis- engagement from threat information.45 In fact, our data indicate that under certain circumstances higher attentional control is associated with increased symptoms of anxiety. Increased attentional control among those who utilize RNT as an emotion regulatory strategy may direct resources to rigid response styles, including increased attention to their symptoms or cognitive threat information.
A great deal of research has demonstrated that low atten- tional control is often a consequence of anxiety symptoms, and some research has been dedicated to treating these attentional impairments. Our results, however, indicate that attentional control may not always be a protective factor and targeting impairments may not necessarily have the intended effects, as studies are demonstrating that its rela- tionship with symptoms is not entirely linear. Though poor attentional control may be a risk factor for anxiety symp- toms, some data suggest that treating these deficits may not be associated with symptom improvements.46 Therefore, tar- geting RNT or cognitive distortions may be more effective in alleviating symptoms and impairments in the central executive that may follow. Additionally, recent studies have found that negative anxiety response styles are a predictor of anxiety and depression symptoms.21,47,48 Individuals with increased attentional control and other risk factors (ACEs;
PTQ
b = 0.32, p = .37
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 271
Focusing
ACEs
PSWQ
Figure 2. The moderated effect of AC-focusing on the relation between PTQ and PSWQ.
focusing moderated the overall indirect effect of ACEs on PSWQ through PTQ (i.e., moderated-mediation; b1⁄40.04, 95% CI1⁄40.012 to 0.088). Examination of the conditional effects (Figure 2) indicated that this relation was significant at low (b 1⁄4 0.94, 95% CI 1⁄4 0.26 to 0.50), moderate (b 1⁄4 1.15, 95% CI 1⁄4 0.29 to 0.64), and high levels of focusing (b 1⁄4 1.37, 95% CI 1⁄4 0.35 to 0.76), suggesting that increased attentional control was associated with a stronger relationship between repetitive negative thinking and anxiety.
Discussion
The results of this study add to a growing body of literature which highlights the significance of childhood experiences in the development of cognitive vulnerabilities that may lead to symptoms of psychopathology.6 ACEs lead to negative affect and emotional distress, and RNT is often used to mitigate these effects, albeit ineffectively, leading to increased symp- toms of psychopathology. However, few data have investi- gated this pathway, and in particular its relation to anxiety symptoms. Our data indicate that ACEs may lead to increased RNT, which in turn may lead to increased symp- toms of anxiety. Anxiety symptoms are linked to ACEs and have been associated with increased stress and maladaptive stress responses,42 which can result in a variety of negative consequences, including RNT and decreased efficiency of the central executive. Studies have found emotion regulation strategies may be implicated by other childhood experiences,
272 D. L. TAYLOR ET AL.
RNT) may demonstrate increased capacity to engage in negative anxiety response styles, including anxious rumin- ation and anxious hopelessness.
ACEs, worry, and RNT are linked to a variety of aca- demic difficulties. ACEs, for example, are associated with difficulties in attention, social skills, literacy, and math skills as early as kindergarten,49 and worsening of mental health difficulties among college populations.50 ACEs are also linked to substance use in college populations, perhaps as a means of maladaptive coping. Psychopathology symptoms are linked to difficulties with the transition to college,51,52 but not necessarily performance.53 However, psychopath- ology, along with RNT and worry in particular are linked to poor efficiency of the central executive,29 meaning individu- als with these problems have poorer inhibition, process information more slowly, and may have difficulties multi- tasking (e.g., taking notes and listening to an instructor), highlighting how ACEs and psychopathology can lead to “hidden” dysfunction. While campuses should increase men- tal health awareness, students should be encouraged to seek services, and may be more likely to if they are aware of how mental health difficulties influence academics and attention. Furthermore, universities would benefit from screening stu- dents who are at risk for mental health difficulties, and trauma-informed instructors and academic advisors should be encouraged to reach out to these students in need of add- itional support.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. First, our college sample reported relatively few ACEs. Future studies should replicate these findings amongst a sample with clinical symptoms of GAD or those with a wider range of trauma exposure. However, we would expect findings to be more robust with increased endorsement rates, and our results are encouraging considering few students endorse significant difficulties. Additionally, the ACEs measure is simply a checklist of adverse experiences, and future research should utilize a validated measure that offers more contextual infor- mation about the negative childhood experiences and/or traumas, including age and frequency of exposure. Supplementary data should be gathered regarding the symp- toms associated with childhood experiences. In addition, some data suggest that retrospective accounts of childhood experiences are not entirely accurate;54 although this review indicated that false negatives are more likely than false posi- tives. Therefore, if a prospective design was used, we might expect more robust results. Finally, this study was cross-sec- tional in design, so the assumptions of mediation were not fully met, and we cannot assume that there is a temporal effect of RNT on anxiety symptoms.
Conclusions
Our study adds to a growing body of literature which sug- gests that childhood experiences are associated with a variety of consequences that may be associated with increased risk
for psychopathology. Our data indicate that ACEs may lead to cognitive vulnerabilities, including RNT in young adult- hood and that RNT has an indirect effect on the relationship between ACEs and the frequency and uncontrollability of worry. However, the findings regarding attentional control were not as we expected. Theory suggests that low atten- tional control leads to increased anxiety symptoms,5 though our data suggest that high attentional control was associated with an increased effect of RNT on GAD symptoms. Targeting cognitive distortions and associated negative thinking styles may be most helpful in mitigating anxiety symptoms and their effects on academics, as opposed to uti- lizing programs which modify attentional impairments or biases. Whereas studies have found low attentional control may be a risk factor, our data suggest high attentional con- trol also may be problematic. Nonetheless, ACEs and RNT are two risk factors which are unequivocally associated with increased anxiety symptoms among college students.
Conflict of interest disclosure
The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Oklahoma State University.