Health Psychology Assignment

OPTION 1: Individual submission (begin with this template and use it to submit your draft)
Structured 3,500 word essay maximum
excluding the words of these
questions and your list of references. Expand the explanation boxes as
required. This template contains approximately 1464 words.
You must use this worksheet to complete the assessment and
submit it through Turnitin.
Pair number
Name and
student
number
Second
reviewer, name
and student
number
Date draft
submitted
through
TurnitIn.
Word count (not
including the words for
the form and the
references):
Date of
exchange
individual work
and discussion
with partner
Study assessed as described in:
Wilson, Dawn K., et al. "Results of the “Active by Choice Today”(ACT) randomized
trial for increasing physical activity in low-income and minority adolescents." Health
Psychology 30.4 (2011): 463.
Remember, you are assessing the study which is described, and not this single
publication. You will need to check and identify if additional information about
this study is available. If so then you can incorporate the information into the
responses. Please be aware that sometimes the information may conflict.
QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR QUANTITATIVE STUDIES
Please complete these the questions presented as structured
paragraphs as you would in an essay. Highlight your selection
or cross-out the choice not applicable. Demonstrate your
knowledge of epidemiological principles within each section and
support your statements.

Part 1: (Initially undertaken on your own)
Show the structured PICO question of the study
The study by (Wilson et al., 2011) aimed to evaluate the factors affecting long-term
increase in physical activity in underserved children during middle schools. The main
reason for conducting the study was that although many school-based interventions
has been implemented to increase physical activity of the children, however there
was little evidence of its impact on all school days. Hence, the aim of the ‘Active by
Choice Today’ was to investigate about the impact of motivation and life skills
intervention on increasing physical activity outside of program in under served
children. The PICO question may be framed for the study in the following ways:
P (Population)- Underserved adolescents in middle school years
I (Intervention)- 17 week motivational and life skills intervention
C(Comparison)- general health education
O (Outcome)- Increase in long term physical activity outside schools
PICO question-‘What is the impact of 17 week motivational and life skills
intervention (I) in increasing long terms physical activity (O) in underserved school
children (P) compared to those who received general health education (C)?
COMPONENT RATINGS
A) SELECTION BIAS
(Q1) Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target
population?
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3.Not likely
4. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
The sample selected by Wilson et al., (2011) is representative of the target
population because schools were randomly selected according to condition of the
study. The schools were paired on the basis of school size, white and non-white
ethnicity, percentage of free and reduced lunch in the school and urban or rural
setting. The confounding elements were also eliminated by randomization to
condition and consideration of baseline measures. Secondly, to ensure that middle
school children were selected, the study mainly recruited participants from 6th
grade. In addition, exclusion criteria of the study further ensures that sample of the
study represented target population. Hence, sampling frame or the list from which
the sample is selected is more likely to represent target population and use of
inclusion and selection criteria avoids selection bias too (Bryman, 2015).
(Q2) What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate?
1. 80 - 100% agreement
2. 60 – 79% agreement
3. less than 60% agreement
4. Not applicable
5. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:

All most all participants agreed to participate in the study. This can be said because
in the research by Wilson et al., (2011), agreeing to study participation and random
assignment was one of the eligibility criteria for including adolescents in the study.
RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
In terms of selection bias, it can be said that the study is strong in minimizing
selection bias and selecting sample that is appropriate for the representing the
target population of interest. This is mainly understood because the word
randomised assignment has been used in the article. This word itself implies that
researcher considered minimizing the biasness in the research study by random
allocation. However, the only limitation is that the Wilson et al., (2011), did not
elaborated regarding the randomization method and allocation concealment
method. Ideally, in RCT studies, allocation concealment is done to minimize
selection. It prevents researcher from knowing which participants are assigned to
which group and it eliminates all possible biases in research work (Kim & Shin,
2014).
B) STUDY DESIGN
Indicate the study design
1. Randomized controlled trial
2. Controlled clinical trial
3. Cohort analytic (two group pre + post)
4. Case-control
5. Cohort (one group pre + post (before and after))
6. Interrupted time series
7.Other, please specify:
8. Can’t tell
Was the study described as randomized? If NO, go to Component C.
No Yes
If Yes, was the method of randomization described? (See dictionary)
No Yes
If Yes, was the method appropriate? (See dictionary)
No Yes
Provide your explanation:
The study clearly described that that the sample group were randomized to
condition. The intervention group included those getting physical activity
intervention and the control group included receiving general health education.
However, the main limitation of the study is that the author only mentioned about

the method and no detail regarding allocation sequence was provided. The validity
of a randomized controlled trial is understood by the explanation of proper random
allocation process. For instance, random allocation process mainly generates
unpredictable random sequence and the sequencing is done in way that conceals
the treatment from participants unless they have been formal assigned to different
groups (Dettori, 2010). However, such specification was missing in Wilson et al.,
(2011) work. The study by Kipping et al., (2014) however gave adequate detail
about the method of randomization in the study. The study aimed to evaluated the
effect of intervention targeting increase in physical activity, reduced sedentary
behaviour and increased vegetable and fruits consumption in school children. To get
appropriate data related to the research question, appropriate randomization
method was employed by the researcher. This included involving that person in
randomization task who was not aware of the characteristic of each school.
Secondly, schools were given identification numbers to relate to the stratifying
variables. The randomization was also concealed by using appropriate tool (Bristol
Randomised Trials Collaboration’s automated (remote) system.
RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
The research article by Wilson et al., (2011) has a strong study design and this can
be said because randomized cohort controlled study design was used to investigate
about the research question. In the strength of evidence, RCT comes under Level II,
which indicates that is a strong piece of evidence. RCT studies are considered high
level of evidence because their design is such that it eliminates all sorts of biasness
in the study and the study design has little risk of systematic errors too. The process
of randomizing subjects to treatment and controls groups removes all confounding
factors in the study. The ultimate outcome is that RCT studies gives accurate results
and they are reliable too as they are not biased by researcher’s opinion (Burns,
Rohrich, & Chung, 2011).
C) CONFOUNDERS
(Q1) Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention?
1.Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
The following are examples of confounders:
1. Race
2. Sex
3. Marital status/family
4. Age
5. SES (income or class)
6. Education
7. Health status
8. Pre-intervention score on outcome measure