For this assessment you will create a 5-10 minute video reflection on

Grading Criteria for Water: A Remarkable Liquid Lab Report Due: Friday, September

Grading Criteria for Water: A Remarkable Liquid Lab Report

Due: Friday, September 10th, uploaded by 11:59 p.m. [late reports will be penalized]

Value: 25 points

General Lab Report Guidelines:

1. Your paper must be written individually and submitted electronically. Upload to the appropriate Assignment folder in Canvas. You must submit a document in one of the following formats:

Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) Preferred

WordPerfect (.wpd)

Rich text format (.rtf)

Microsoft Works (.wps) is not acceptable. Portable document format (.pdf) is not encouraged.

The first part of your file name must be your Last Name; for example, “Neff Water”. If your paper has been properly submitted, then you will receive an email acknowledgement.

All reports will be submitted in APA (preferred) or MLA (not as preferred) format. This includes font (12 pt New Times Roman or Ariel) spacing (double), in-text citations, referencing, etc. Please see Canvas for additional information under the Informative Links announcement or in the Module section under Lab Report Instructions subheading.

2. Read, understand, and follow:

“Academic Integrity” section of the course syllabus

“Academic Integrity for Assignments and Reports” on the Canvas course website. Do not copy from any source (other students, textbooks, or websites) without providing proper credit or acknowledgement. Penalties for plagiarism and cheating are covered in the course syllabus.

Your paper will automatically be checked for plagiarism. Your paper will be compared with a variety of sources, including the internet, books, and papers submitted by other students around the country. A majority of your paper must be in your own words—not quotes. Plagiarism will result in a zero (0%). For this first lab paper, you can view the plagiarism report after your submit your paper. If necessary, you can make changes in your paper and then submit another document; I will grade the last submitted paper if there are more than one submissions. Canvas will keep each file that you submit.

The course syllabus states that cheating includes “submitting the same work in more than one course for credit without permission from the instructor.” If you have previously submitted any of your lab paper in any course, you must discuss your options with the instructor well in advance.

3. Include a cover page with the following:

Title (refer to Lab Manual for appropriate title; do not use the title in the Lab Manual)

Your name (as author of the lab paper)

Names (first and last) of group members who helped to conduct the experiments

4. This lab paper will not be organized into a traditional scientific paper. It is several reports that cover different properties of water: solvent abilities, temperature, and cohesive properties. Each property had several experiments that generated data and need discussion. Organize this lab paper by using headings provided later in these guidelines (see Specific Guidelines for the Water Lab Report below). However, the format (APA) will be followed (see above).

5. Your introduction should outline both the purpose of your experiment(s) and the procedure; basically why you did the experiment(s). You could also include any relevant background material (i.e. water molecule chemistry). Generally, the introduction also contains the hypothesis of the report, or aim of the experiments; usually is at, or near the end of the introduction.

6. For the methods section. Provide a description of what you did in the lab. This section tells the reader how you did the experiments. All methods must be written in the past tense – you have already done the experiment.

Give enough detail that someone could repeat your experiment. Describe what you used including quantities, mixing methods, how long you waited, etc. If you followed the lab manual directions, you may write: “We followed the directions on page xx of the lab manual.” Do not simply list numerically what you did; the methods is not a listed procedure.

For any chemical explanation, do not just say molecules were “broken down” or “broken up,” since the phrase is not specific enough to provide much chemical meaning, or what was broken.

Good: “hydrogen bonds between molecules are broken as…”

Poor: “the sugar was broken down by water…”

8. For Your Results (Data) section

In general, results sections should include a summary of your observations. What experiments did you run? What were your findings? What data did you generate (graphs, tables, etc.) and what controls were ran? Did you analyze your data using statistics to generate your results?

The overall order of the Results section should be organized into a logical progression (often chronological order similar to your Methods section subheadings).

Include both class and group data when requested.

Good tables and graphs have descriptive headings (titles) and are logically organized—see examples of quality tables and graphs in textbook and Lab Manual. Descriptive means enough information is provided so that a reader can interpret the table (or graph) without having any additional information. Headings are frequently in the following format: The effects of (independent variable) on (dependent variable).

9. For your Discussion section: This is the most important section of your paper.

This section will usually require that you reread the lab manual carefully, read and understand the material in your textbook and lecture notes, and use (and cite) other references. In general, the discussion should be a detailed, organized interpretation and/or explanation of your results. It should include (in paragraph form) a brief summary of what you did, why you did it, what you observed and did your results support your initial hypothesis. Additionally, you need to include an interpretation of the results, and why the results impact the biologic world.

As a basis for interpreting the results in your discussion, you should include a summary of what is scientifically known about the experiments according to our understanding of the chemistry and biology. In other words, link the concepts discussed in the lectures and textbook to the experiment performed in lab.

Describe what you think was happening at the molecular or chemical level that lead to your observations or results. To do this at the level appropriate of your readers (i.e. your professor), you should read and understand the Lecture Outline for Chapter 2: Essential Chemistry for Biologists.

If your experiment refutes or supports your hypothesis, you should discuss it. Often, results can support some aspect(s) of our hypotheses, but not as clear as we would like. This could be because of [human] experimental error and/or miscalculations. Explain how your data supports and/or refutes what you would have expected based on your hypothesis; you should compare your data with the class data. Lastly, discuss how you could improve your experiments such as: changing the design of how you ran the experiment (e.g. first cut up all the cubes before adding them to solvent, etc.), minimize contamination, repeats, etc.

Generally the last paragraph(s) is reserved for the “Why Do We Care” part. Scientists perform laboratory experiments by testing a hypothesis under controlled conditions in order to simplify a biologic phenomenon and develop a ‘model’ to understand it. In other words, when we perform experiments in a lab, they are an attempt to mirror the biologic process albeit simplistically and controlled. You need to explain the biologic importance of your experiments and relate it to our understanding of the world around us.

For example, if your experiment observes what happens to steel balls in different liquids, which we would agree to the casual observer would look quite strange, then be sure to explain to the reader why the results or observations are critical to living systems. I am sure if you explained that the specific heat of water is important because…then the reader could make a clear connection to his or her life.

Specific Guidelines for the Water Lab Report:

Organize your paper into sections by using the headings below that are in bold. What you must include in each section is described.

I. Introduction: Your report should begin with a single introduction for the reader (see bullet number 5 above) with necessary background and you can place your hypothesis near or at the end of your introduction.

II. Solvent Abilities

Methods: Summarize your group’s experimental design, with enough details that someone else could duplicate your experiment. Provide a methods section for the Solvent ability of 3 liquids experiment.

Results: Provide a subsection for each of following experiments: Solvent ability of 3 liquids, Kitchen experiment, and Water and Dissociation experiment. Include your group’s results in a table for solvency along with the class data. For the pH graph, provide an organized, well-labeled bar graph. Summarize the class and your group’s data in one or two sentences for each experiment.

Discussion:

Your interpretation and explanation of the data chemically should include the following (in addition to the general instructions above): Explain what happens to salts and sugars when they dissolve in water compared to oil or alcohol. Explain what happens to the chemical structure of crystallized sucrose when it dissolves in water. Discuss the relationship between the differences in taste of sucrose before and after dissolving with what occurs at the molecular level during dissolving. Explain chemically what an acid and a base are, and how it relates to the pH scale.

Your interpretation and explanation of the data biologically should include the following: Explain why cells are composed mostly of water (and not oil or alcohol), and why cells and living organisms probably would not function well if cells were composed mostly of other liquids. Explain biologically why changes in pH [of a cell, the blood of an animal, or a lake] are damaging to most organisms.

III. Temperature Properties

Results: Include a bar graph of the class average temperature change (?T oC), and a bar graph of your group’s temperature change. In one or two sentences, summarize your group’s data for maximum temperature change (?T oC) and compare it to the average class temperature change.

Discussion: Your interpretation and explanation of the data chemically should include the following: Explain why your group’s results comparing the specific heat of water with oil and alcohol make sense chemically; if the results are not what you expected, explain what you expected and why.

Excluding water, what is the effect (in general) of molecular weight on the boiling point, melting point, specific heat, and heat of vaporization of various substances? Does water follow this pattern? Explain why or why not chemically.

Your interpretation and explanation of the data biologically should include the following: Why is it essential that water have a high heat capacity in order for life to exist on Earth?

IV. Cohesive and Density Properties

Methods: Summarize your experimental design for your Density of water experiment, with enough details that someone else could duplicate your experiment.

Results: Provide subsections for each of the following experiments: Capillary action, Surface tensions, and Density of water. For the Capillary action results, include a bar graph of your group’s results, and a graph for the class average. Summarize the class and your group’s data on height measurements using one or two sentences. For the Surface tension results, just summarize your group’s data using one or two sentences. For the Density of water results, include a table of your group’s results only. Summarize the class and your group’s data using one or two sentences.

Discussion: Your interpretation and explanation of the data chemically should include the following: Explain why your group’s capillary action results make sense chemically using concepts of cohesion and adhesion; if the data are not what you expected, explain what you expected and why. Be sure to a chemical explain of both independent variables (substance and diameter). Explain chemically why ice floats on liquid water. Explain why your group’s density results make sense chemically; if the data are not what you expected, explain what you expected and why.

Your interpretation and explanation of the data biologically should include the following: Could just capillary action explain how water moves up small diameter tubes in plants about 1 cm tall? In trees 50 meters tall? Explain the biological significance of ice floating; how is this phenomenon beneficial to many organisms? Why is it harmful to many organisms if their cells freeze? What organisms depend upon water having a high surface tension?

V. References

List all references you used—textbook, Lab Manual, web sites, etc. Include proper citations—see How to Cite Scientific Literature in “Academic Integrity for Assignments and Reports” or “APA Format” in Canvas.

Yahoo Answers, Wiki Answers, Answers.com, and other such websites are poor references since postings can be made anonymously and with no checks for accuracy. Use a textbook or check with the instructor for what websites are more trustworthy.

1

BIOL 400[supanova_question]

M7: Class Toolbox Discussion

Think about your fieldwork experiences over the course of the “year”:What do you understand about taking care of yourself now that you were not tuned into when you began?How much of a priority do you place on self care at this point?What has your field work experience taught you about self care?Where were you self-neglecting and what would you change?What are the top techniques that you will use in your self-care plan moving forward?Reflect on your your experience over the course of the Generalist Practice Sequence (other than self-care). What changes do you see from where you were when you began your field/practice sequence in the way you approach the work, how you have grown and what are you thinking about future directions?What would you like to share with your classmates as a parting thought or sentiment before we conclude the class? (It need not be related to self-care.)[supanova_question]

M7: Class Toolbox Discussion

Writing Assignment Help Think about your fieldwork experiences over the course of the “year”:What do you understand about taking care of yourself now that you were not tuned into when you began?How much of a priority do you place on self care at this point?What has your field work experience taught you about self care?Where were you self-neglecting and what would you change?What are the top techniques that you will use in your self-care plan moving forward?Reflect on your your experience over the course of the Generalist Practice Sequence (other than self-care). What changes do you see from where you were when you began your field/practice sequence in the way you approach the work, how you have grown and what are you thinking about future directions?What would you like to share with your classmates as a parting thought or sentiment before we conclude the class? (It need not be related to self-care.) [supanova_question]

4Findings 4.1 Data analysis and results This section involves testing and validating

4Findings

4.1 Data analysis and results

This section involves testing and validating the model using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Structural equation modelling (SEM) is an advanced multivariate statistical technique, which is widely applied to estimate complex conceptual models in social and business research (Ronald and Raschke 2007). The use of PLS-SEM has a long history in management information research (Ringle, Sarstedt, and Straub 2012). Furthermore, PLS is a non-parametric estimation procedure in which ‘its conceptual core is based on an iterative combination of principal components analysis relating measures to constructs and path analysis capturing the structural model of constructs’ (Eggert and Serdaroglu 2011, 175). Non-parametric estimation implies that PLS is useful when the distribution is not normal, and the sample size is small.

Since the sample of this research is relatively small, and following the logic of PLS, this research employs the PLS-SEM technique in which the analysis involved two steps: (1) assessment of the constructs by means of the measurement model, sometimes referred to as the outer model, which includes reliability and validity analysis; (2) fitting the structure model, sometimes referred to as the inner model, which includes path analysis, and estimation of the model parameters. The data analysis involved the use of the Smart PLS 3.2.1 software package.

4.2 Measurement model

The reliability and validity of the constructs are fundamental statistics that must be considered when assessing reflective measurement models (Dwaikat, Money, Behashti, & Salehi-Sangari, 2018). The aim of this step is to examine the internal consistency and validity of the constructs of the model. The internal consistency is assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, while the validity is assessed using convergent and discriminant validity tests.

The reliability of the constructs can be measured using reliability statistics such as Cronbach’s alpha and Composite reliability coefficients. Cronbach’s alpha is one of the most widely used tests for measuring the internal consistency of constructs. As a rule of thumb, a Cronbach’s alpha of a value greater than 0.7 can be taken as a good indicator of reliability (Hair et al.2009). Generally values from 0.60 to 0. 70 are acceptable in exploratory research. The results reported in Table 1 show that all of the constructs are reliable as their corresponding Cronbach alpha values are above the threshold. Hence, the results indicate that the internal consistency of the indicators is acceptable.

Composite reliability is also used to estimate the internal consistency of a construct in which it ‘prioritizes indicators according to their reliability during model estimation making it more suitable for PLS-SEM’ (Hair et al. 2011, 145). Generally, a value as ‘the extent to which a measure correlates positively with alternative measures of the same construct’ (Hair et al. 2013, 102). The convergent validity of a construct provides an assessment of how well the indicators of a construct are correlated with its ‘own’ construct (i.e. the item reliabilities).

The convergent validity test demonstrates how an indicator correlates positively with alternative indicators of the same construct by observing the values of the outer loadings. The convergent validity is verified by observing the average variance extracted (AVE), sometimes referred to as Fornell and Larcker’s test. AVE is calculated by taking the average of the squared factor loadings. The rule of thumb is that if the AVE equals or is greater than 0.5, it indicates good validity of the construct (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Referring to Table 2, Team Management (AVE = 0.502), Personal Characteristics and Experience (AVE = 0.541), Stress Related Growth (AVE = 0.451), Task Complexity (AVE = 0.898), and Task Performance (AVE = 0.675). Hence, the convergent validity is confirmed. All values are greater than 0.50 except only one value equal to 0.451 which approximately equal to 0.50. Hence, convergent validity was acceptable.

Discriminant validity refers to how well the indicators of a construct are correlated with the indicators of other constructs in the research model. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the discriminant validity, for a construct, can be established by calculating the square root of the AVE of the construct and then comparing this construct AVE to its correlations with the other constructs in the research model. As a rule of thumb, the value should be larger than other correlation values between the latent variables. From table 5 the bold numbers represent the latent variable AVE square root, and the other numbers represent the latent variable correlations. For example, the latent variable ‘SRG’ AVE square root found to be 0.675.This number is larger than the correlation values in the column of ‘SRG’ (0.385 and 0.462 ) and also larger than those in the row of ‘SRG’ (0.204 and 0.457). Similar the numbers of other latent variables are checked. The results indicate that discriminant validity is well established.

To double-check the discriminant validity, the criteria of Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) was used. This criterion relies on HTMT which is equal to the disattenuated correlation between the constructs (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015). Compared to Fornell and Larcker (1981), HTMT is more accurate in assessing discriminant validity in variance-based SEM (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015). According to Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2015), HTMT’s value ranges from 0 to 1 where values less than 1 indicates good reliability. Following this logic, and using PLS bootstrapping procedure, the results reported in Table 4 show that the HTMT values did not exceed 1. Hence, it is concluded that the discriminant validity is well established.

Table 5 summarizes the PLS estimation of the measurement model. The factor loadings of the reflective indicators imply an acceptable level of validity of the outer model. The loadings, which are reported in Table 4, were obtained by calculating the PLS algorithm with the default settings of 300 iterations and Path Analysis as the weighting scheme. The outer loading values were obtained using the Path Analysis procedure. There are several rules of thumb depending on the discipline and type of research. In general, a value equal to or greater than 0.7 is preferred (Hair et al. 2013). However, a value of 0.4 or higher is accepted if it is the research is exploratory (Hulland 1999). Since this study is considered exploratory, the 0.4 rule of thumb is used to assess the reliability of indicators. The results confirm that all indicators have loadings higher than 0.4, which signify an accepted level of reliability.

The results also confirm that the indicators have loaded on the proposed factors. It is important to explore the outer model by checking the T-statistics. If the T-statistics are larger than 1.96, the outer model loadings are highly significant. As shown in Table 5, all indicators are highly significant.

Constructs and indicators

MGMT

Point estimation

T-value

MGMT-1

0.889

6.832

MGMT-2

0.893

7.130

MGMT-3

0.595

3.082

MGMT-4

0.55

2.458

MGMT-5

0.516

2.318

PCE

PCE-1

0.902

4.375

PCE-2

0.753

2.634

PCE-3

0.642

2.833

PCE-4

0.531

1.270

PCE-5

0.794

2.445

SRG

SRG-1

0.822

17.22

SRG-2

0.545

2.641

SRG-3

0.463

4.002

SRG-4

0.799

11.485

TC

TC-1

0.936

42.356

TC-2

0.962

68.865

TC-3

0.956

77.965

TC-4

0.949

18.403

TC-5

0.925

16.443

TC-6

0.957

20.520

TP

TP-1

0.729

8.114

TP-2

0.830

19.034

TP-3

0.891

21.749

TP-4

0.828

14.732

Structural model

The coefficient of determination (R²) is interpreted as the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is predictable from the independent variable. According to (Hair et al., 2010), (Falk and miller1992) the minimum acceptable value for R² is 0.10. As shown in figure (2) the R², for the dependent variable ‘Task Performance’ is 0.213, which means that 21.30% of the variance in the Task Performance is explained by Stress Related Growth. Also, the coefficient of determination R² for ‘Stress Related Growth’ is 0.331, this implies that 33.1% of the variance in the ‘Stress Related Growth’ latent variable can be explained by the three latent variables ‘Team Management, ‘Personal Characteristics and Experience’ and ‘Task Complexity’. The inner model suggests that ‘Team Management has the strongest effect on ‘Stress Related Growth’ (0.390), followed by ‘Task Complexity’ (0.322), and ‘Personal Characteristics and Experience’ (0.143).

It is important to verify the path coefficient sizes and statistical significance of the relationships between the latent variables in the structural model. This verification was carried out by observing the standardized path coefficient (B values) equal or greater than 0.1 (Eggert and Serdaroglu 2011), where a relationship can be judged as being ‘statistically significant’ if the t-value is equal or greater than 1.96 at the significance level of 5% (where 1.96 is a two-tailed level of significance). The t-values are obtained through the bootstrapping procedure, which consists of 500 subsamples as the default stetting (Hair et al. 2013). The results obtained by the bootstrapping procedure are shown in Figure 3.

Observing the standardized path coefficients (B values), T-statistics and P-values of the inner model given in Table 6, the results confirm that ‘Team Management’ and ‘Task Complexity’ have a significant positive impact on ‘Stress Related Growth’ (B = 0.39 and t = 4.077), (B = 0.322 and t = 3.256) respectively. However, ‘Personal Characteristics and Experience’ has a small positive impact on ‘Stress Related Growth’ (B = 0.143) but not significant because the t-value is 0.1.206. The results also confirm that ‘Stress Related Growth’ has a significant positive influence on ‘Task Performance’ (B = 0.462 and t = 8.231).

Given the results of the structural (inner) model, it can be concluded ‘Team Management’ and ‘Task Complexity’ are both strong predictors of ‘Stress Related Growth’ but that ‘Personal Characteristics and Experience’ data does not predict ‘Stress Related Growth’. In addition, ‘Stress Related Growth’ is a strong predictor of ‘Task Performance’.

Observing the results given in Table 6, the analysis confirms that H1, H2, H4 are supported. However, H3 is not supported.[supanova_question]

Document #: 400 Originally Published: 8/16/2019 Last Updated: 8/25/2021 Approved: 8/22/2019 Institutional

Document #: 400

Originally Published:

8/16/2019

Last Updated:

8/25/2021

Approved:

8/22/2019

Institutional Review Board

Consent Form

Protocol Title: Study of LGBTQ+ people with substance use disorders and their completion rate of inpatient treatment centers.

Primary Contact Information

Institutional Contact

Name of PI/Researcher: Corbin Casalenda

Phone Number: N.A.

Email Address: [email protected]

Research Advisor: Cary Klemmer

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota

Institutional Review Board

Dr. Molly O’Connor, IRB Chair

[email protected]

Introduction And purpose of the study

The LGBTQ+ people have been found to be using syringes to complete their treatment doses in treatment centers. The purpose of the study is to study the LGBTQ+ people with disorders and their completion rate of inpatient treatment centers.

Study procedures

When conducting research, we will be asked to participate in the distribution of questionnaires for the participants who will be required to fill the forms. We will also collect data on government reports regarding the LGBTQ+ people with their completion in treatment centers.

Subject participation

The estimated participants are 100 who will persons with mental disabilities, persons od color or indigenous persons, economically disadvantaged persons and the vulnerable adults will participate in the study. All participants will be required to take only 30 minutes to answer the questionnaires that will be used to analyze data.

Potential Risks

The risk that may arise is fainting of the LGBTQ+ people from the doses they might have given themselves and we will be able to call 911 to take them to hospital.

Potential Benefits

The participants will understand the treatment methods that might favor them and can be able to improve their wellbeing.

Confidentiality

Participants names will be avoided when coding the provided information. The collected information will be kept in locked drawers to avoid information leaking outside. When the data is analyzed fully, it will be destroyed with fire

Contact information

In case of any question that may arise in the study, the researcher’s contact should be used and it is provided at the primary contact information above. If participants have questions about their rights, they may contact the Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board.

You are invited to participate in a research study about Study of LGBTQ+ people with substance use disorders and their completion rate of inpatient treatment centers. This study is being conducted by Corbin Casalenda under the supervision of Cary Klemmer. The study will be used to fulfill a requirement for completion of a Master’s of Social Work degree at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. This study is funded by the Minnesota Department of Health.

Please read the form carefully and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to participate in the study.

Key Information about the Study

The study involves research. Research is defined as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” This means that the investigator (or researcher) is going to use information provided by participants such as yourself to come to conclusions that can help people. Please use this information and the information on this consent to decide whether or not you wish to participate in this study.

Things to know about your participation in the study:

Your participation is completely voluntary

You will not be penalized for refusing to participate

You can agree to participate then change your mind without penalization

Any significant new findings developed during the course of the study that may be related will be shared with you to consider whether or not you want to continue to participate

What is the purpose of this study?

We are conducting this research study to understand the effectiveness of inpatient treatment centers for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Why am I being asked to participate?

Inclusion being those a part of the LGBTQ+ community and exclusion being anyone under the age of 18 and those who are heterosexual. To identify participants, we will go to outpatient treatment centers that specifically cater to LGBTQ+ people and ask them to refer others. The approximate number of participants will be 500 but will have a safeguard in case there are participants that drop out.

How long will I be expected to participate?

The initial survey will take about thirty minutes to complete. After a year, researchers will follow up with another survey to see if anything has changed of the individuals circumstances.

What will I be asked to do?

Participants will be screened by ensuring that they have reading comprehension, are able to use electronic devices effectively, and are able to give comprehensive answers to the survey questions. The research study will be a questionnaire that will take place at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. There will be sign’s indicating where to go and a researcher will bring you to a conference room where you will take the survey, on a tablet, in the conference room by yourself. Research question examples include how often did you use substances prior to completing treatment, what type of substances did you use, are you out about your sexuality to others, and what kind of inpatient treatment did you participate in. After the survey is completed, you will ring a bell and a research assistant will be with you shortly to grab the survey from you. This is when you will be able to receive the first half of your compensation.

Are there any risks to participating in the study?

Risks may include the following:

Psychological

There will be a mental health practitioner on site to be of assistance if questions on the survey are triggering or psychologically provoking.

Participation in this study does not involve risks beyond those associated with normal day to day living.

Are there any benefits to participating in the study?

There are no benefits to you for participation in this study.

Is there any compensation for participating in this study? Are there any costs to participate?

Participants will be compensated half of their total money after completing their survey and will receive the other half of the compensation after completing the year after check-up. If participants do not complete their initial survey, they will not be compensated. If participants only complete the first survey and not the second, they will only receive half of their compensation. There are no costs to this

Are there any alternative procedures or courses of treatment that might help me?

N/A

What kind of information about me will be collected, and what will happen to that information?

Completed surveys will be the extent of the information collected, therefore it is up to your discretion what sort of information researchers have of yours. It is also important to note that this survey will be anonymous and other characteristic indicators will be used to identify individuals. The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of report we might publish, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a participant. Research records will be stored securely and only researchers will have access to the records. The original data will be destroyed five years after the study is completed.

What will happen to the data or biospecimens collected from me?

This study involves the collection of private information. If the identifiers are removed from the identifiable private information, the information could be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research studies without your additional informed consent.

This study involves the collection of identifiable private information. The information collected will not be used or distributed for future research studies, even if all the identifiers are removed from the information.

Your identifiable private information, identifiable or de-identified, may be used in the future to create products or to deliver services for commercial profit. In this instance, it anticipated that you will be notified of this use or receive any compensation or profit from it.

Will I ever be asked to leave the study?

Participants will be asked to leave the study only if they are acting erratically during the survey process (which is only the individual taking the survey that is present. There will be no consequences if you are asked to leave the study. Participants will not be compensated if they are asked to leave.

What if I do not want to participate in this study?

Your participation in this research study is voluntary and there will be no negative consequences for declining to participate. You may not continue this study at any time and there will be no adverse effects if you decide you do not want to participate at any point after starting the research study.You are under no obligation to take part in this study. If you agree to be in the study, but later change your mind, you may drop out at any time. There are no penalties or consequences of any kind if you decide that you do not want to participate.

You do not have to answer any question that you do not want to answer.

Who can I talk to about questions I have about the research and my rights?

Corbin Casalenda ([email protected]) and Cary Klemmer, faculty advisor, [email protected] are the points of contact. We will be happy to answer any questions you have about this study. If you have any further questions or if you have a research-related problem, you may contact the researcher, Corbin Casalenda ([email protected]) or the Faculty Advisor, Cary Klemmer ([email protected]). If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (IRB) at [email protected]

Who can I talk to if something happens to me during the study?

There will be a mental health practitioner if any psychological issues happen. There is also a HR person through Saint Mary’s that will help if there are any concerns.

Is there any compensation if something happens to me, and if so, what is it and how can I find out more?

Compensation will be $50. $25 will be given at the completion of the first survey and the other $25 will be given when the second year check up survey is completed. This compensation will be given to participants in person once they have completed.

Are any medical treatments available if something happens to me, and if so, what are they and how can I find out more?

N/A

Will I find out about the results of this study?

Participants will receive the results of the study once research is complete and before it is published. This will take over two years as there is a follow up survey after a year of the first. There will need to be time to put all the data together, therefore why the results will take more than two years.

Statement of Consent:

I have read this form and decided that I will participate in the project described. Its general purposes, the particulars of involvement and possible risks and inconveniences have been explained to my satisfaction. I understand that I can withdraw at any time. My signature also indicates that I have received a copy of this consent form.

Participant’s Name: ____________________________________________

Participant’s Signature: _________________________________________ Date: ______________________

Name of Researcher: ___________________________________________

Researcher’s Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________

Witness Statement

The participant was unable to read or sign this consent form because of the following reason:

? The participant is unable to read the information

? The participant is visually impaired

? The participant is a non-English speaking individual

? The participant is physically unable to sign the consent form. Describe: _____________________________

? Other (describe): ________________________________________________________________________

As an interpreter for the participant, I declare that the English version of the consent form was orally presented to the participant in the participant’s own language, and that the participant was given the opportunity to ask questions about the study to make an informed decision.

Interpreter’s Name: ___________________________________________

Interpreter’s Signature: ________________________________________ Date: ________________________

Researcher’s Name: ___________________________________________

Researcher’s Signature: ________________________________________ Date: _______________________

8 | Page[supanova_question]