[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”adssa” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]
The re-writing must adhere to all the requirements of the APA 6TH Edition, including, tables and figures; references and appendices. Please entrust this difficult task to a writer who is expert in scale development and both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).This project is aimed at the development of a measurement on Catholic Marian Spirituality.
For the purposes of this re-writing, please use whatever information is relevant in what I have written. Please note that I am not able to send you the data, therefore, please use the results obtained from the analysis of the data already reported.
The thesis should include the following comments from the Research Panel and the Supervisors.
Comments by supervisors
The discussion needs more work. It needs to be organised so that it starts by you letting the reader know whether or not each of the three aims for the study were met or were partially met or not met at all.. Then you discuss each aim in turn. Did the results of the study support previous research? If so which ones? Which aspect was supported? How can we understand the meaning of the results of your study or how best to interpret what the results of your study mean?
Once each aim has been discussed then you can provide limitations and implications and finally a conclusion. You may look at how other theses organize their Discussion sections before you attempt to rework yours.
Once each aim has been discussed
Make it clear what you mean by elementary occupation
You had three aims for the study at the end of your introduction. First state that whether each aim was met, partially met
Have you explain to the reader what it means to pray the rosary.
To which aim this paragraph address.
Do your four factors support previous research cited in your litterature review
-Include doi numbers
-delete the issue number for Journal entries
– include the page numbers.
-Write Journal title in full
It is OK to include the SPSS output for the purpose of this study. You have to follow the APA style in presenting you headings and your citation of sources and your reference list.
Tables must be presented in a manner that follow APA format based on the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.
• lit review lacks cohesion and integration, it needs a strong rational and a supporting, critical analysis of the literature, it would pay you to read some examples of who to write a good literature review, there is a standard structure
• Grammar, sentence structure, paragraph structure and linkage is poor and needs a major overhaul
• APA format is non existant – again the entire manuscript needs to be revised with this in mind- these are simple problems which can really put an examiner offside
• You have misinterpreted that FA results, they have nothing at all to do with the strength and direction of endorsement of items, it is about how items tend to be answered by your sample
• You should only include figures and tables if they aid understanding – many of yours do not
I have not cross checked your references, this needs to be done, there seems to be an excessive number of references, are they all cited?
The Discussion needs more work before I can provide further comments.
The Discussion needs to be organised so that it starts by you letting the reader know whether or not each of the 3 the three aims for the study were met or partially met.
Then you discuss each aim in turn: Did the results of the study support previous research? If so, which ones? Which aspect was supported? How can we understand the meaning of the results of your study or how best to interpret what the results of your study mean.
Once each aim has been discussed then you can provide limitations and implications and finally a conclusion. You may need to look at how other theses organise their Discussion sections before you attempt to rework yours.
Comments from the Research Pre-Submission Panel.
1) Explain how experts were involved in the pilot study. Explain how you came up with the initial list of items, and the process for verifying inclusion and exclusion.
2) Make clear how you arrived at the four factors, how you identified them. That is, explain what criteria you used (ie, magnitude of factor loading) for including an item. Include a complete summary table of factor loadings and scree plot.
3) Make it clear that the participants in the pilot and in the second study were separate samples. Explain how they were recruited.
4) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was appropriate for the pilot study, but Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) should be used for the second.
5) Although a future goal may be to conduct convergent and discriminate validity, your MPhil thesis does not cover this but rather focuses on scale development, not validity. Avoid claiming validity in the MPhil thesis report.
6) Make it clear that religiosity and spirituality apply to your sample, but that they do not necessarily go together in other populations.
7) Make clear the bridge between the psychological literature on spirituality and Marian spirituality.
8) Show what is similar and what is unique about Marian spirituality compared to other forms of spirituality and compared to how spirituality is defined in the psychological literature. If possible, show that items in other scales measuring spirituality do not have relevance to those with Marian spirituality.
9) Include in your rationale that specific measures are needed for specific populations that these measures need to have the psychometric properties of reliability and validity.
10) Describe the cultures or populations around the world for which Marian spirituality is relevant (and who, therefore, the Scale has relevance). Can you show that the strength of Marian spirituality varies across cultures?
11) In general, in your opening, make a series of strong points about the importance of measuring CMS to justify the approach you’ve taken (which is to develop a scale and to assess its reliability and construct validity).
12) When and where would it be important to measure CMS, and how might this information be used? Answers to these questions also inform the rationale for the study.
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”best” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]