Recent orders
Preoperative Procedures
Preoperative Procedures
Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc380753116 h 1The procedure PAGEREF _Toc380753117 h 1The basis of the practice PAGEREF _Toc380753118 h 1Rationale for decision on procedure PAGEREF _Toc380753119 h 2Clinical implications of the procedure PAGEREF _Toc380753120 h 2
IntroductionPreoperative procedures involve the care that is given to a patient before, during, and after a surgical process. The aim of the procedures is to provide better conditions for surgical patients prior to the operation, during the operation and after the operation. Some of the preoperative procedures, which are conducted in the surgical floor, are questionable (Rosdahl & Kowalski, 2012). In fact, one is left to wonder if some of the procedures have a basis in research. This paper will look at the basis of one of some of these procedures, make suggestions on the relevant changes that ought to be implemented them and identify barriers that might arise when it comes to the implementation of the revised clinical practice guidelines.
The procedureAmong the preoperative procedures that are questionable is the shaving of areas where to make the incisions of surgery. Shaving is a routine procedure that the majority of the surgeons worldwide use before an operation. The shaving can be done just before one goes to surgery or a day before. The hair removal procedure is done in different ways including the use of clippers, razor blades for shaving, electric shavers and hair dissolving creams to remove hairs that might be present on the area where an incision has to be made. Before shaving, several pre-surgical skin preparations are done. They include full body wash with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine.
The basis of the practiceThe practice is acceptable by surgeons worldwide and they consider it mandatory. The hospital management and doctors also fall in this category. Therefore, the entire management of the hospital is the one that determines the basis for the procedure since all their colleagues in other hospitals worldwide use it.
Rationale for decision on procedureShaving is believed to lower infection risk at the site of incision, this is not always the case. Shaving is also intended to remove anything that might obstruct a surgeon from viewing area of incision. Therefore, it enables the surgeons to access the incision site or area. Some surgeons believe that shaving is a way of removing bacteria found on the surgical area, which could otherwise cause contamination of the surgical area (Celik & Kara, 2007). The other rationale is the belief that procedure leads to reducing infections on wounds, increasing in exposing of the sites of surgery and also because it helps when the area is being dressed and closed. It is also seen that in cases where there is need of applying lads on a patient’s skin removing hair is a necessity. If hair is present, then it means that there can be no way that the leads can reach the incision area (Celik & Kara, 2007).
Clinical implications of the procedureResearch has shown that the shaving of hair before surgery raises the risk of infection of the area after the surgery. Intensive antibacterial handling that is done before the shaving of the area can cause the disruption of the healthy skin flora, enabling pathogenic agents to colonize the area (Celik & Kara, 2007). The alteration of flora found on the skin as a result of shaving is also tied with the increase of bacteria growth which will lead to infection. The surgical site infections increase complications in patients, and they account for the majority of the infections associated with health-care and eventual death of patients. This therefore, shows that the procedure is quite inappropriate. Therefore there is an implication that the shaving procedures done before an operation should be transformed particularly in areas that involve the actual hair removal process. Threat to infection is seen to increase as the length of time between shaving and the actual surgery increases (Celik & Kara, 2007). Shaving done in the operating room inflicts micro trauma on a patient’s skin at the site of incision. Besides, it damages hair follicles that are located on the site before surgery. Hence, the area becomes susceptible to colonization by infectious organisms. It is clearly indicated that an indirect connection exists between surgical infections and removing of hair before an operation. Therefore, it is implied that failure to remove hair or shave is away of reducing infections (Celik & Kara, 2007). There is evidence that hairy incision sites do not encounter surgical infections (Celik & Kara, 2007). Due to the clinical implications that result from shaving there have been suggestions that show it not really necessary for hair to be removed in operation sites unless the hair directly interferes with the operation process
The Effects of Sunflower Oil and Butter on Sensory Properties of a Granola Bar
The Effects of Sunflower Oil and Butter on Sensory Properties of a Granola Bar
Marcela Galvan
Department of Nutrition, Hospitality, and Human Services, Lamar University
NUTR 4347: Food Science
Kristina May
November 24, 2020
Abstract
Dietary fats contribute to
Less than 200 words
Keywords: Granola Bars, Butter, Sunflower Seed Oil, Dietary Fat,
Introduction
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
The purpose of the study was to establish if sunflower oil is a preferred alternative for butter in a granola bar recipe based on color, outer texture, mouth feel, flavor, aftertaste, and overall acceptability.
Materials and Methods
On November 12, 2020, I entered the culinary kitchen and began by washing my hands. Then, I gathered both my wet and dry ingredients along with the equipment I needed. I prepared the oven by preheating it to 350° degrees.
I lined a 13×9 inch baking pan with parchment paper than sprayed with cooking spray from approximately 1 inch away. I used a large bowl for my wet ingredients. In the large bowl I added ½ cup of peanut butter, 1/3 cup of honey, 1 large egg, 2 tablespoons of butter, and 1 ½ teaspoons of vanilla extract. I used a handheld beater to beat the ingredients for about 2 minutes until the mixture was smooth and creamy.
In a separate medium bowl, I mixed my dry ingredients. I added 3 ½ cups of old-fashioned oats, ½ cup of brown sugar, and salt. I stirred for about 30 seconds with a wire whisk just to mix them together. Then, I added the oat mixture from the medium bowl to the peanut butter mixture in the large bowl. I stirred for 1 minute to combine before I added 1/3 cup of peanut butter chips and 1/3 cup of mini chocolate chips. I did a final stir for 30 seconds before transferring the mixture to the previously prepared baking pan. Then I put on gloves to press the mixture into an even layer. I used the flat side of the stainless-steel chopper/scraper to ensure the entire product was even. I placed the mixing bowls, measuring spoons, and whisk in the sink to wash.
I repeated the process for the second recipe. I lined a 13×9 inch baking pan with parchment paper than sprayed with cooking spray from approximately 1 inch away. I used a large bowl for my wet ingredients. In the large bowl I added ½ cup of peanut butter, 1/3 cup of honey, 1 large egg, 2 tablespoons of sunflower oil, and 1 ½ teaspoons of vanilla extract. I used a handheld beater to beat the ingredients for about 2 minutes until the mixture was smooth and creamy.
In a separate medium bowl I mixed my dry ingredients. I added 3 ½ cups of old-fashioned oats, ½ cup of brown sugar, and salt. I stirred for about 30 seconds with a wire whisk just to mix them together. Then, I added the oat mixture from the medium bowl to the peanut butter mixture in the large bowl. I stirred for 1 minute to combine before I added 1/3 cup of peanut butter chips and 1/3 cup of mini chocolate chips. I did a final stir for 30 seconds before transferring the mixture to the previously prepared baking pan. Then I put on gloves to press the mixture into an even layer. I used the flat side of the stainless-steel chopper/scraper to ensure the entire product was even. I placed the mixing bowls, measuring spoons, and whisk in the sink to wash.
To ensure I did not mix the two recipes I placed a label under the baking pan to the left with the butter recipe since I would be placing it on the top rack of the oven. I placed a label under the sunflower oil recipe and put it on the lower rack of the oven. Once the baking pans were in the oven, I started a timer for 14 minutes. I used the time to clean and sanitize my work station as well as wash my equipment. I placed a cooling rack on each of the baking pan labels. I also spread out all my labeled plates to be ready once the samples were cut.
When the timer finished, I turned the oven off and used an oven mit to grab the top baking pan first since it went in first. I placed it on the counter since I did not want the bottom baking pan to remain in the oven extra time while I brought the first one to my station. With the first pan out, I removed the second baking pan and walked it to my station to place it on the right cooling rack. I walked back to the oven and return to my station with the first baking pan than placed it on the left cooling rack. I allowed the bars to cool for 5 minutes. I trimmed the edges by ½ inch each side for both samples. After, I took a ruler and marked 4×2 rectangles with the stainless-steel chopper. I placed each of the 9 samples on an individual labeled clear plate. I repeated the process to trim and cut the other granola sample into 9 even samples.
Sensory Evaluation
I found my panelists by sending my invitation letter to the nutrition department at Lamar. Student volunteers after I received feedback regarding availability and any allergies. Once the samples were ready, I gathered 36 clear cups with 20 mL each. Since those were to cleanse the palate, I provided each panelist 12 of those cups along with a napkin and an 8-ounce red cup to spit when cleansing. I went to the atrium and greeted the judges as they arrived and directed them to their seat. I explained the sampling process and provided each judge with a scorecard. As the judges finished sampling, I collected their scorecard, thanked them, then dismissed them. After all panelists left I cleaned the area by discarding the cups, plates, and napkins.
Objective Evaluation
Sunflower Height 2 cm / 0.75 in
Butter height 1.5 cm / 0.6 in
Results
Conclusion
References
Appendix A
Granola Bars (Control)
Serving Size: 1 Bar
Number of Servings: 12 Bars
Ingredients:
½ Cup Creamy Peanut Butter (Regular or Reduced Fat)
1/3 Cup Honey
1 Large Egg
2 Tbs Butter
1 ½ Teaspoon Vanilla Extract
3 ½ cups old-fashioned oats
½ cup packed light brown sugar
½ teaspoon salt
1/3 cup peanut butter chips
1/3 cup mini chocolate chips
Instructions:
Preheat the oven to 350°F and line a 13×9-inch nonstick baking pan with cooking spray.
In a large bowl, beat the peanut butter, honey, egg, butter and vanilla extract with a handheld beater until smooth and creamy.
In a separate medium bowl, stir together the oats, brown sugar and salt. Add the oat mixture to the peanut butter mixture and stir until well combined then stir in the peanut butter chips and mini chocolate chips.
Transfer the mixture to the prepared baking pan, pressing it into an even layer.
Bake for 12 to 15 minutes or until the edges are golden brown. Remove the pan from the oven and let it cool completely before slicing the granola into bars and serving.
Appendix B
Granola Bars (Experiment)
Serving Size: 1 Bar
Number of Servings: 12 Bars
Ingredients:
½ Cup Creamy Peanut Butter (Regular or Reduced Fat)
1/3 Cup Honey
1 Large Egg
2 Tbs Sunflower Oil
1 ½ Teaspoon Vanilla Extract
3 ½ cups old-fashioned oats
½ cup packed light brown sugar
½ teaspoon salt
1/3 cup peanut butter chips
1/3 cup mini chocolate chips
Instructions:
Preheat the oven to 350°F and line a 13×9-inch nonstick baking pan with cooking spray.
In a large bowl, beat the peanut butter, honey, egg, oil and vanilla extract with a handheld beater until smooth and creamy.
In a separate medium bowl, stir together the oats, brown sugar and salt. Add the oat mixture to the peanut butter mixture and stir until well combined then stir in the peanut butter chips and mini chocolate chips.
Transfer the mixture to the prepared baking pan, pressing it into an even layer.
Bake for 12 to 15 minutes or until the edges are golden brown. Remove the pan from the oven and let it cool completely before slicing the granola into bars and serving.
Appendix C
Ingredient List
1 Cup Creamy Peanut Butter (Regular)
2/3 Cup Honey
2 Large Eggs
2 Tablespoons Butter
2 Tablespoon Sunflower Oil
3 Teaspoon Vanilla Extract
7 Cups Old-fashioned oats
1 Cup Light brown sugar
1 Teaspoon Salt
2/3 Cup Peanut butter chips
2/3 Cup Mini chocolate chips
270cc Water
Appendix D
Equipment List
Oven
2; 13 x 9-inch Baking Pan
2 Large Mixing Bowl
2 Medium Mixing Bowl
2 Wire Whisk
2 Chef’s Knife
Stopwatch
1; 1 cup measuring cup
1; ½ cup measuring cup
1; 1/3 cup measuring cup
1; 1 tablespoon measuring spoon
1; 1 teaspoon measuring spoon
1; ½ teaspoon measuring spoon
Spatula
Ruler/Measuring Tape
Cooking Spray
3 clear plastic cups
9 green solo cups
18 clear plastic plates
9 napkins
1 clear pitcher
20 sticker labels
1 black sharpie
Appendix E
Invitation Letter
Dear Panelist,
Thank you for volunteering to participate in a food science experiment being conducted as part of a food science course that I am enrolled in at Lamar University. I ask that you arrive on November 12, 2020 at 1:00 PM. The experiment will take place in the atrium of the Nutrition, Hospitality, Human Services building located on the campus of Lamar University-Beaumont. Since you will be consuming a food or beverage item, please notify me if you have any food allergies or intolerance by emailing me at mgalvan5@lamar.edu by November 6, 2020. On the day of the experiment you are asked to refrain from eating or drinking anything other than water 1 hour before the time you arrive. Refrain from chewing gum, using breath mints, eating candy, using tobacco products (vape, smoke, chew) 20 minutes before you arrive. Please also refrain from using heavily scented body sprays, perfumes, and lotions the day of the evaluation. The experiment will take approximately 30 minutes of your time. Results of the study can be provided to you upon written request after the study has been completed. I look forward to seeing you soon.
Best Regards,
Marcela Galvan
Appendix F
Script
Good afternoon. My name is Marcela Galvan. I want to thank each of you for agreeing to participate in my food science experiment I am conducting as a requirement of a food science course I am taking at Lamar University. If you have had anything to eat or drink, other than water in the past hour please raise your hand. If you have any food allergies or intolerances, please raise your hand. Please follow me. Please have a seat. Today you will be tasting two different samples of a food item and then using the scorecard in front of you, you will rate each sample based on color, outer texture, mouth feel, flavor, aftertaste, and overall acceptability. I will bring in your first set of samples. You will drink the small sample of water from the clear 8oz cup provided, swish your mouth, and then spit that water into the waste cup which is the 8oz green solo cup. This is to cleanse your pallet before and after each sample. Once you have cleansed your pallet, begin evaluating the first sample. For example, you are asked to look at the color of the outside of the sample and evaluate the color by circling the number that best describes the color of that sample. Evaluate the first sample for all characteristics listed here. Once you have finished evaluating the first sample, cleanse your pallet and then begin evaluating the second sample. You will have 5 minutes to evaluate both samples. I will then remove the samples. We will repeat this process three times. You will sample and evaluate a total of 6 samples. Once you have evaluated all 6 samples, I will pick up your scorecard and you will be dismissed. It is important that you do not talk with one another during the experiment. Do you have any questions before we begin? We will now begin.
4961614119656 Judge
Scorecard
4949880106956 Date
Characteristic Sample
Color
1= Dislike Extremely; 2= Dislike very much; 3= Dislike Moderately; 4= Dislike slightly; 5= Neither like nor dislike; 6= Like Slightly; 7= Like Moderately; 8= Like Very much; 9= Like Extremely Outer Texture
1= Dislike Extremely; 2= Dislike very much; 3= Dislike Moderately; 4= Dislike slightly; 5= Neither like nor dislike; 6= Like Slightly; 7= Like Moderately; 8= Like Very much; 9= Like Extremely Mouth Feel
1= Dislike Extremely; 2= Dislike very much; 3= Dislike Moderately; 4= Dislike slightly; 5= Neither like nor dislike; 6= Like Slightly; 7= Like Moderately; 8= Like Very much; 9= Like Extremely Flavor
1= Dislike Extremely; 2= Dislike very much; 3= Dislike Moderately; 4= Dislike slightly; 5= Neither like nor dislike; 6= Like Slightly; 7= Like Moderately; 8= Like Very much; 9= Like Extremely Aftertaste
1= Dislike Extremely; 2= Dislike very much; 3= Dislike Moderately; 4= Dislike slightly; 5= Neither like nor dislike; 6= Like Slightly; 7= Like Moderately; 8= Like Very much; 9= Like Extremely Overall Acceptability
1= Dislike Extremely; 2= Dislike very much; 3= Dislike Moderately; 4= Dislike slightly; 5= Neither like nor dislike; 6= Like Slightly; 7= Like Moderately; 8= Like Very much; 9= Like Extremely Appendix G
The Effects of Stress on the Academic Performance of First-Generation
The Effects of Stress on the Academic Performance of First-Generation Students
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Abstract
College students are widely recognized as a vulnerable population suffering from higher stress levels, with First-Generation College Students (FGCS) experiencing higher stress levels compared to Non-First-Generation College Students (NFGCS). The reason why FGCS earn lower grades compared to their NFGCS counterparts remains unclear. The proposed study seeks to determine if perceived stress levels lead to lower academic performance among first-generation college students. The study will adopt a quasi-experimental research design. A sample of 200 participants will be purposively selected from Lehman College and Hunter College to take part in the study. Participants will be administered a Likert scale measure (Perceived Stress Scale-10) in order to assess their levels of stress. Academic performance will be measured using GPA results at the end of the semester. The study’s findings will be of significant value for policymakers, educators, and students. All potential limitations of the study will also be addressed.
The Effects of Stress on the Academic Performance of First-Generation Students
Introduction
Stress is an inevitable part of life that affects a wider range of populations regardless of their gender, age, and socio-economic status (Yikealo et al., 2018). By definition, stress refers to individuals’ beliefs that they lack the resources to adjust to past, current, or future circumstances. Stress is as a result of fear, and the body’s automatic response to that fear is the reflex preparation to flight or fight (Becerra, 2017). Although stress affects a wide range of populations, researchers emphasize that stress is on the rise among college students (Helmbrecht & Ayars, 2021). According to Yikealo et al. (2018), college students face multiple educational, environmental, social, and psychological adjustment issues that may impair their psychological well-being and academic achievements as they acclimate to their new campus setting. There is a strongly held consensus in the previous research that financial difficulties, dealing with intimate relationships, and increased roles and responsibilities are the main stressors among college students (Helmbrecht & Ayars, 2021; Karyotaki et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021; Yikealo et al., 2018). Depending on their source of stress, college students have different stress levels. According to the American College Health Association (ACHA) 2018 report, 44.6% of the college students in the US rated their levels of stress as above average, 34% rated it as average, while 12.4% of the college students in the US reported that they experienced tremendous stress (ACHA, 2018). In 2019, 48.8% of college students surveyed reported that they experience moderate stress levels, 22.3%% low-stress levels, and 27.1% high-stress levels (ACHA, 2019). In Fall 2020, 49.1% of college students surveyed reported that they experienced moderate stress levels, 17.8% low-stress levels, and 31.8% high-stress levels (ACHA, 2020). Following these trends, it is evident that college students are experiencing increased stress levels.
First-Generation College Students (FGCS) experience higher stress levels compared to Non-First-Generation College Students (NFGCS). Supporting this statement, House et al. (2020) urge that FGCS experience similar challenges as NFGCS but also face their unique stressors, including lack of family support, lack of academic preparation, and challenging cultural transitions. FGCS refers to college-going students whose parents did not finish a four-year baccalaureate degree (Helmbrecht & Ayars, 2021). It also refers to college-going students who are the first ones in their families to join college. Lee et al. (2016) undertook a study to examine the factors associated with stress among FGCS. The authors established that being in a relationship, engaging in an unhealthy dietary pattern, being physically inactive, and sharing accommodation are associated with moderate to severe stress levels. Helmbrecht and Ayars (2021) also conducted a study to determine the stress predictors among FGCS. Findings revealed that psychological characteristics such as self-esteem, locus of control, and coping strategies affect the level of perceived stress among FGCS. The findings of these studies provide sufficient evidence that FGCS experience higher levels of stress. Although these scholars have explored the predictors of stress among FGCS, research concerning how these stress levels impact the academic performance of FGCS is limited in scope. Thus, the current study seeks to fill this research gap by exploring the effects of stress on the academic performance of FGCS.
In a different study, Upah (2017) compared academic performance, self-efficacy, and campus engagement of FGCS and NFGCS. The study findings established that FGCS earn lower grades compared to their NFGCS counterparts. Supporting these findings, Ives and Castillo-Montoya (2020) revealed that although FGCS form a substantial one-third of the U.S. college-going student population, only 56 percent receive a bachelor’s degree within 6 years compared with 74 percent of students having a parent who graduated from college. According to Becerra (2017), the reason why FGCS earn lower grades compared to their NFGCS counterparts remains unclear because there are various reasons that may contribute to the lower academic performance of the FGCS. This study seeks to determine the effects of stress on academic performance of FGCS. The study findings will help determine whether stress is among the factors that have contributed to the gap between the academic performance of FGCS and NFGCS.
Research reveals that stress cannot always be assumed to be negative (Becerra, 2017). The author further explains that there is positive stress (eustress) and stress that could possibly result in negative consequences for some people. By examining the effects of stress on the academic performance of FGCS, this study will help teachers, scholars, students, and any other interested parties in determining whether or not stress positively or negatively impacts the performance of FGCS. If the results show that stress perceived stress leads to lower academic performance as measured by academic GPA, strategies to help FGCS to cope with stress will be suggested to help lower these effects. During the study, the perceived levels of stress will be measured as either high, moderate, or low. Also, participant counselling will be introduced as a confounding variable to determine if it affects the relationship between the level of perceived stress and academic performance of FGCS. The following hypotheses will guide the study.
H1: Higher levels of perceived stress lead to lower academic performance as measured by academic GPA at the end of the semester.H2: Moderate levels of perceived stress lead to lower academic performance as measured by academic GPA at the end of the semester.
H3: Lower levels of perceived stress lead to lower academic performance as measured by academic GPA at the end of the semester.
H4: Providing Counselling to FGCS reduces the students’ stress level, thus, increasing their academic performance as measured by academic GPA at the end of the semester.
To test the hypothesis, the study will adopt a quasi-experimental research design. Participants will be recruited from Hunter College and Lehman College to take part in the study. Participants will take the Perceived Stress Scale-10 at one point in the Spring Semester. They will be given 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire before their class begins. Participants from the Lehman College students will be offered four free group counseling sessions at the Lehman Counseling Center throughout the semester. At the end of the semester, the researcher will observe whether those who had high levels of perceived stress at the beginning of the semester obtained lower levels of GPA and whether the Lehman College students who received counseling services fared better than the students at Hunter College who did not receive counseling services.
Method
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses will guide the proposed study.
H1: Higher levels of perceived stress lead to lower academic performance as measured by academic GPA at the end of the semester.
H2: Moderate levels of perceived stress lead to lower academic performance as measured by academic GPA at the end of the semester.
H3: Lower levels of perceived stress lead to lower academic performance as measured by academic GPA at the end of the semester.
H4: Providing Counselling to FGCS reduces the students’ stress level, thus, increasing their academic performance as measured by academic GPA at the end of the semester.
Participants
The target population includes events, people, or objects of different types that the researcher is interested in studying to draw conclusions. The scope for a target population might either be narrow or broad. However, whether broad or narrow, it is impracticable to collect data from all members of the target group. As such, a subgroup of the population, commonly known as the sample, is chosen for the purpose of data collection.
The target population for the proposed study will be young adults (ranging from 18 to 20 years old) enrolled in an Introduction to Psychology class at Lehman College and Hunter College in New York. Both Lehman college and Hunter college are public schools in New York City, where there is a large concentration of immigrants and college-bound first-generation students. The process of choosing a sample from a target population is known as sampling. Research reveals that sampling allows scholars to reduce study errors (Sharma, 2017). Asiamah et al. (2017) reveal that researchers who undertake qualitative research can easily complete a sampling procedure by specifying the target and accessible populations in a hierarchical order to make sure that the chosen participants provide relevant data to address the research questions. The time taken to collect data, the quality of data collected, and the cost of data collection all depend on the chosen participants. Also, inappropriate choice of participants can result in delays, extra costs, and data quality issues.
The proposed study will employ a purposive sampling technique to ensure appropriate participants are chosen. Purposive sampling will be ideal for the proposed research since it will allow the researcher to choose respondents who will be available, willing, and knowledgeable enough to contribute to the study (Palinkas et al., 2016). A total of 100 students will be purposively chosen from each school to take part in the study (N=200). Since most college classes do not divide students by their class standing, the participants from each class will be made up of 50 freshmen and 50 sophomores. Flyers will be posted in the Psychology department elevators and outside of the Introduction to Psychology classroom.
Procedure
All participants will be administered a Likert scale measure in order to assess their levels of stress. The participants will complete the Perceived Stress Scale in the same classroom before their Introduction to Psychology class starts. Students who will choose to participate in the study and open up about how stressed they are will receive two extra credit points for their final grade.
Scale Measures
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)-10
The researcher will use the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)- 10 to measure perceived stress. PSS-10 is a 10-item scale in which participants are requested to rate how often they have experienced stressful emotions and experiences in the past month. For example, “Have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?”, “Have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?” and “Have you been angered because of things that were outside your control”? Participants will rate their answers on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Once completed, the questionnaires will be scored by adding up the points according to the ratings of the participants. It is important to note that negative items such as questions 4,5,7, and 8 will be scored in reverse, with an answer of “never” being given 4 points and an answer of “very often” 0 points. Those with a total score of 0-13 will be considered to have low perceived stress, and those with scores of 27-40 will be considered to have higher levels of perceived stress.
Experimental Design
The proposed study will be conducted as a quasi-experimental study. More specifically, it will be a non-equivalent group design. The participants from both Lehman College and Hunter College will take the Perceived Stress Scale-10 at one point in Spring Semester. They will be given 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire before their class begins. However, the Lehman College students will be offered four free group counseling sessions at the Lehman Counseling Center throughout the semester. At the end of the semester, the researcher will observe whether those who had high levels of perceived stress at the beginning of the semester obtained lower levels of GPA and whether the Lehman College students who received counseling services fared better than the students at Hunter College who did not receive counseling services. Here, received counselling services will serve as a confounding variable for the proposed study.
Discussion
Potential Limitations of the Study
The proposed study has several potential limitations. Some of these limitations relate to the construct validity. Firstly, there will be a threat of participants guessing the intent of the study and consciously or subconsciously altering their behavior. For instance, since students know the goal of the study is to examine the impacts of perceived stress on the academic performance of FGCS, students who feel like they are not well prepared for their exams may indicate higher stress levels so that their lack of preparation for exams may be associated with the increased stress even when they are not experiencing high levels of stress. To deal with this limitation, participants will be requested to be honest when indicating their perceived stress levels on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)- 10.
Secondly, there is a risk of defining the term stress in too broad terms that may invalidate the findings of the study. Stress, depression, and anxiety mental health issues share some similar symptoms. Therefore, if the term stress is broadly defined during the study, students suffering from anxiety and depression may end up considering themselves stressed, which may compromise the study findings. To deal with this limitation, a more specific definition of the term stress will be provided to participants, and participants will also be distinctive characteristics of stress will be provided.
Furthermore, there will be a risk of the effect of received counselling masking the effects of perceived stress on the academic performance of the FGCS. To deal with this limitation, received counselling will be considered as a confounding variable in the study, and its effects on stress level and academic performance of FGCS will be examined during the study.
Also, the proposed study will have potential limitations relating to internal validity. There will be a risk of whether the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)- 10 will measure what it is supposed to measure. If the students rate their depression or anxiety levels instead of their stress levels, this will compromise the study findings. To address this limitation, the researcher will provide a specific and clear definition of the term stress to ensure that students rate only their stress levels using the PSS-10 scale.
Furthermore, the participants for the proposed study will be recruited from two public universities in New York, US. This will limit the generalizability of the study findings to other populations in different geographical regions. The proposed study will also be based on students’ responses. Usually, mental health issues and acknowledging mental health illnesses are associated with stigma (Wyatt et al., 2017). As such, some students may fail to provide correct information about their perceived stress levels, thus compromising the study findings.
Importance of the Study
The findings of the proposed study will be of significant value for policymakers, educators, and students. This is because examining how stress impacts the academic performance of FGCS will provide empirical evidence on why there is a need to formulate effective strategies for helping FGCS to cope with stress in an effort to minimize the adverse negative academic impact associated with stress.
The findings of this study will also form a strong basis for promoting strategies such as
raising awareness of mental health issues and resources, reducing stigma, encouraging compassionate goal-setting, strengthening connections to the university community, and developing stress coping strategies in colleges since the findings will provide reliable evidence of the greater impact of stress on the academic success of FGCS.
The existing literature on the impact of perceived stress on the academic performance of FGCS is limited in scope. The findings of this study will be important since they will add to this scope of literature, thus providing future scholars conducting their studies in the same field with rich literature to support their study.
References
American College Health Association National College Health Assessment. (2020). Fall 2020 reference group executive summary. American College Health Association. Retrieved 6 May 2022, from https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/NCHA-III_Spring_2020_Reference_Group_Executive_Summary.pdf.
American College Health Association National College Health Assessment (ACHA) (2019). Fall 2019 reference group executive summary. American College Health Association. Retrieved 6 May 2022, from https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/NCHA-III_Fall_2019_Reference_Group_Executive_Summary.pdfAmerican College Health Association National College Health Assessment (ACHA). (2018). Undergraduate student reference group executive summary fall 2018. American College Health Association. Retrieved 6 May 2022, from https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/NCHA-II_Fall_2018_Undergraduate_Reference_Group_Executive_Summary.pdf.
Asiamah, N., Mensah, H. K., & Oteng-Abayie, E. F. (2017). General, target, and accessible population: Demystifying the concepts for effective sampling. The Qualitative Report, 22, 1607-1621.
Becerra, M. (2017). Mental health and academic performance of first-generation college students and continuing-generation college students.
Helmbrecht, B., & Ayars, C. (2021). Predictors of stress in first-generation college students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 58(2), 214-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2020.1853552House, L. A., Neal, C., & Kolb, J. (2020). Supporting the mental health needs of first generation college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 34(2), 157-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2019.1578940Ives, J., & Castillo-Montoya, M. (2020). First-generation college students as academic learners: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 139-178. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319899707Karyotaki, E., Cuijpers, P., Albor, Y., Alonso, J., Auerbach, R. P., Bantjes, J., … & Kessler, R. C. (2020). Sources of stress and their associations with mental disorders among college students: results of the world health organization world mental health surveys international college student initiative. Frontiers in psychology, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01759Lee, P. C., Ahmed, F., Pathirana, T., & Papier, K. (2016). Factors associated with stress among first-year undergraduate students attending an Australian university. FNR, 1, 17-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.24218/fnr.2015.13Palinkas, L., Horwitz, S., Green, C., Wisdom, J., Duan, N., Hoagwood, K., & Northwest, K. P. (2016). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research, 42 (5), 533-544.
Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International journal of applied research, 3(7), 749-752.
Upah, K. N. (2017). Comparing first-generation and continuing-generation college students’ self-efficacy, campus involvement, and academic performance.
Wyatt, T. J., Oswalt, S. B., & Ochoa, Y. (2017). Mental Health and Academic Performance of First-Year College Students. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(3), 178-187.
Yang, C., Chen, A., & Chen, Y. (2021). College students’ stress and health in the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion. PloS one, 16(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246676Yikealo, D., Tareke, W., & Karvinen, I. (2018). The level of stress among college students: A case in the college of education, Eritrea Institute of Technology. Open Science Journal, 3(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.23954/osj.v3i4.1691
Appendix