Assignment 1 FAQ 2024
(1) I have never seen or written a professional letter in any capacity to a parent. What should
I do?
You do not need to have seen or written a professional letter in any capacity to a parent to do
this assignment. It is recommended that you read the Assignment Information document
carefully for this assignment, including the marking criteria. It is also useful to refer to Lab 1
slides and the group presentations.
(2) How do I write a letter in APA 7th format?
You can use this letter format:
Dear (parent’s name - for example Ms. Apple),
Body of the letter. For example, you can start with addressing their question (for
example - Thank you for asking my opinion about using (intervention choice) for your
son/daughter.
Use paragraphs as you would in an essay.
End your letter with your professional opinion of the intervention based on your review of
evidence for it.
Yours sincerely,
(Name)
APA 7th edition formatting applies to the following: in-text citations, reference list, font size-
12pt and double spacing.
(3) Where does the word count start and stop?
It starts from “Dear… and ends at Yours sincerely, Name”. Reference list is not included in
word count.
(4) What is the child’s background information? What is the parent’s background
information?
You should create the profile of a child for this assignment. This is intentionally left for
students to make up so that they can decide the gender, age, and their particular symptoms.
This allows students to evaluate the intervention for the specific presentation of ADHD that
the child has. Do not go beyond this level of detail.
Do not create the profile of the parents for this assignment. It is not necessary for this
assignment. The parents can be any person so there should be no prior judgment of the
parents, including their background or educational level or family setting.
(5) What if I want to state that the child has ADHD comorbid with X?
It is recommended that you focus on ADHD. You can state comorbidity if you really want to
but it is not necessary and not a focus (i.e., do not focus on studies examining a population of
ADHD comorbid with X).
(6) I have only written lab reports before. How do I structure the content/body/argument of
the letter?
Look carefully at the marking criteria to guide you on how you may want to structure your
content/argument of the letter. You should also refer to Lab 1 slides, in particular, the
structure for the presentation is one example that you can modify for your use accordingly.
(7) What does ‘professional opinion’ mean? Am I arguing for the intervention?
The letter should provide your professional opinion of the intervention based on your critical
analysis and evaluation of appropriate and relevant scientific evidence for and against the
intervention. It does not have to provide support for the intervention. This means you can
recommend or do not recommend or recommend with caveat (specify the caveats clearly e.g.,
there is some evidence, but it is insufficient because reasons X, Y, Z). What guides your
recommendation is the scientific evidence evaluated.
(8) If I do not recommend the intervention, should I recommend other interventions?
No, that is not necessary.
(9) There are different forms of meditation/exercise intervention, can I specify the form of the
intervention (e.g., specific type of meditation or exercise)?
The answer is, yes you are welcome to specify the form if you want. However, at the start of
the letter, you need to address the intervention more generally (note that the assignment states
‘exercise’ and ‘meditation’) before specifying the form if you are evaluating. Please also
consider carefully if narrowing the scope is useful for you (i.e., evidence reviewed) or not
particularly useful (i.e., evidence reviewed). If you are focusing on a specific form, remember
to state this clearly in your letter.
(10) If I recommend the intervention, can I specify the form of the intervention (e.g., specific
type of meditation or exercise)?
The answer is, yes you are welcome to specify the form, especially if that is what most of the
evidence supports.
(11) Do I need to compare the chosen intervention to other interventions? Do I need to
compare meditation and exercise? Do I need to look at both meditation and exercise?
The answer is no. Please choose only one intervention (i.e., meditation or exercise) and focus
on that chosen intervention.
(12) Should I assume that the parent is asking about the chosen intervention because they
want to use it, OR they want to use it exclusively OR they do not want to use medication as
an intervention for their child?
No, you should not assume that the parent is asking about the chosen intervention because
they want to use it, or they want to use it exclusively or they do not want to use medication. It
is not necessary to assume the intentions of the parents; you should focus on the chosen
intervention.
(13) The first criteria in the marking guide states: Conceptual understanding of the nominated
intervention and ADHD. Should we not assume that the parents already understand ADHD
and/or the intervention?
No, please do not assume what the parents know. Look closely at the marking criteria. It
states: ‘Describes concepts of the intervention and ADHD clearly’. You are expected to
describe ADHD and the intervention, and the rationale for the use of the chosen intervention
for ADHD. (Note that this is not the rationale why parents are asking about intervention. You
should not assume what is the parents’ reasons. This is the rationale for this intervention for
ADHD from the scientific literature.)
(14) What do you mean by ‘empathic’ or ‘tone is appropriately empathetic’?
It means that the tone of the letter is formal but warm. Write professionally and respectfully.
Do not make judgments about the parents or child. Do not write patronizingly (e.g., “I am so
very sorry for your child’s condition, and you must be devastated to receive the
diagnosis….”; “your child will recover from ADHD after undertaking this intervention…”.
(15) What do you mean by ‘language is accessible’ or ‘writing is appropriate, accessible’?
It means that you are writing for the layman so use language that the general public
understands (i.e., a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular
subject). But do not ‘dumb it down’ – do not write in a casual manner and do not write
patronizingly.
Examples:
 Do not give data/statistics from studies to parents – explain the findings in words.
 Language used in research such as ‘significant’, ‘large effect size’ etc.
 The general public can understand ‘significant’ or you can use other accessible
wording. For example, “significant/measurable/remarkable reduction in
symptoms”.
 The general public is unlikely to understand concepts such as ‘effect size’ and
you may need to explain/define. For example, “the effect size is small which
means that some may have had no change in their symptoms and therefore we
should be cautious about the effectiveness of this intervention.”
 Should I define/explain everything?
 Think about general knowledge and specific knowledge. If you write, “a test
of cognitive control found…” and explain further as needed, the general public
is likely to understand this.
 The general public is unlikely to have knowledge of what Flanker effect is.
This would be an instance where you will either phrase this differently to
communicate what Flanker effect measures or define it accordingly.
 In some instances, it is more communicative to refer to what the task measures
rather than the task itself. For example, ‘children’s ability to inhibit responses
improved’ is easier to understand compared to ‘children scored higher on the
flanker task’.
You should be able to make a reasonably good judgment on the accessibility of the language.
(16) How critical should I be when reviewing the intervention studies?
You should be critically analyzing all the studies you have selected as appropriate and
relevant literature for the chosen intervention (refer to Lab 1). As a guide, you should include
anything that is relevant to the evaluation of the intervention including limitations of the
study.
For example, sample size might be relevant – small sample size limits the inferences you can
make of the effectiveness of the intervention; large sample size might provide more
confidence. Subjective ratings might make you more cautious about the findings (i.e., is there
a bias here?). Conflict of interest from funding might make you be more cautious of the
findings. A randomized controlled trial study might give you more confidence over other
studies that are less stringent.
(17) What is considered as “limitations”?
Limitations can be threefold:
1. Issues with the research/study/methods – in other words, this is a challenge of the study
itself. E.g., drawing conclusions from a small sample of participants, loose definition of
ADHD (e.g., self diagnosed).
2. Results – in other words, the findings do not find the intervention effective.
3. Difficulties that may exist in using the intervention. This is the practicalities of the
intervention – for example, using mediation/exercise as the intervention example, you may
note that it might not be practical for a child to able to engage in 2 hours of the intervention
every morning.
(18) Other questions:
 Is there +/- 10% on the word count? - Yes.
 Is in-text citation included? - Yes.
 Why do we need in-text citation if it is a letter to parents? - Do not assume that the
parents are not interested in looking up the research for themselves. Plus, we need to
know that you are referencing appropriate evidence as this is still a graded
assessment. Be aware not to do secondary referencing; this means do not just cite the
references from a particular paper, you should go to those papers and review them
before deciding if you should use them as your reference.
 Is reference list included in word count? – No.
 Why do we need a reference list if it is a letter to parents? - We still need to know
whether you have referenced appropriately and adhered to APA 7th edition style.
 Do I need to include an fictious address in the letter? - No.
 If this is a critical analysis/evaluation of scientific evidence for an intervention, why