Prepare To Review The Information Dr. Hathaway Presents ✓ Solved

To Preparereview The Information That Dr Hathaway Presents In The Wee

Review the information that Dr. Hathaway presents in the Week 1 media program, “Theoretical Foundation for Research,” regarding the phases of theory development and the similarities and differences between frameworks and theories. Search the literature and identify two frameworks or theories that may be useful for investigating your phenomenon of interest. Review the procedure for theory analysis presented in Chapter 12 of Walker and Avant (2019). Apply these steps to each framework or theory you have selected and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each. Determine whether additional development or refinement is needed for each framework or theory, specifying which aspects require further research to meet the requirements of a theory. Evaluate the value of each framework or theory in addressing your phenomenon. Decide which framework or theory has the most potential for use as part of your research's theoretical foundation. Consider any questions related to theory analysis and evaluation that have arisen during your review.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In advancing research within the health sciences, understanding the foundational role of theories and frameworks is essential. These conceptual tools guide investigation, shaping research questions, methodologies, and interpretations. As outlined in Dr. Hathaway’s Week 1 media program, “Theoretical Foundation for Research,” the development of theories follows specific phases, and distinctions between frameworks and theories are crucial in designing research. This paper reviews two frameworks/theories relevant to investigating a specific phenomenon—depression among adolescents—evaluates their strengths and weaknesses, identifies areas requiring further development, and determines their suitability for serving as the theoretical foundation of the research.

Understanding Theoretical and Framework Distinctions

Theories are systematic explanations of phenomena, often grounded in empirical evidence, that predict future occurrences or behaviors. Frameworks, conversely, tend to be broader, providing a structure or lens to view phenomena without necessarily specifying causal relationships or detailed propositions. According to Walker and Avant (2019), the phases of theory development include conceptualization, operationalization, testing, and refinement. Proper application of these phases ensures a theory’s robustness and applicability to practice.

Selected Theories/Frameworks

The first framework selected for this investigation is the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) developed by Albert Bandura. This theory emphasizes the importance of observational learning, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism. SCT has been widely used to explain health-related behaviors, including adolescent depression, making it a relevant choice. The second is Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST), which considers multiple environmental systems influencing individual behavior. EST provides a comprehensive view of external factors affecting adolescent mental health, including family, peers, school, and societal influences.

Theoretical Analysis Procedure

Applying Walker and Avant’s (2019) theory analysis steps involves examining each framework's purpose, assumptions, internal consistency, scope, and practical utility.

Social Cognitive Theory

  • Purpose: To explain how individuals acquire and maintain health behaviors through social learning processes.
  • Assumptions: Learning occurs in social contexts; self-efficacy influences behavioral change.
  • Strengths: Empirically supported with extensive research backing; highlights modifiable factors like self-efficacy.
  • Weaknesses: May oversimplify complex behaviors; less emphasis on intrinsic motivation.
  • Suitability: Well-suited for designing interventions aimed at improving adolescent resilience and coping skills.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

  • Purpose: To describe how various environmental systems impact individual development.
  • Assumptions: Environment shapes behavior through multiple interconnected levels.
  • Strengths: Holistic perspective; accounts for contextual influences at multiple levels.
  • Weaknesses: Difficult to operationalize comprehensively; broad scope may hinder specific intervention design.
  • Suitability: Effective in understanding external contributors to adolescent depression.

Further Development Needs

Both frameworks require refinement to serve as fully developed theories. For SCT, integrating a more detailed model of intrinsic motivation and internal processes could enhance its explanatory power. Additionally, expanding empirical testing across diverse populations would strengthen its generalizability. For EST, operationalizing the interactions among the environmental systems could provide a clearer pathway for intervention development. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies assessing the dynamic interplay of ecological factors and individual behaviors, thereby strengthening the theories’ predictive capabilities for adolescent depression.

Most Suitable Framework for Research

While both have substantial merits, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory shows the greatest potential as a foundational framework for studying adolescent depression. Its holistic approach allows for comprehensive consideration of external influences across multiple levels, aligning with the multifaceted nature of depression. However, its broad scope necessitates careful operationalization in research design. Conversely, SCT offers a more specific focus on individual behaviors and learning processes, making it highly practical for targeted interventions. The choice ultimately depends on the research aims: if a broad understanding of environmental influences is desired, EST is preferable; for behavior change strategies, SCT is advantageous.

Questions for Further Reflection

Throughout the analysis, questions emerged regarding how best to operationalize the multiple environmental levels outlined in EST within measurable constructs. Additionally, integrating the influence of innate biological factors with these models remains an area needing exploration. Further, the development of hybrid models that combine elements of SCT and EST could potentially provide a more comprehensive theoretical approach. Future research should address these gaps, ensuring theoretical models adequately reflect the complex reality of adolescent depression.

References

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall.
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press.
  • Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2019). Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing (6th ed.). Pearson.
  • McLeod, S. A. (2018). Bandura's Social Learning Theory. Simply Psychology.https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
  • Lerner, R. M., & Steinberg, L. (2009). The Scientific Study of Adolescent Development. Wiley.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
  • Patton, G.C., & Viner, R. (2007). Pubertal transitions in health. The Lancet, 369(9567), 1130-1139.
  • Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the Face of Risk: Vulnerable Children and Young People. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147(6), 598–611.
  • Resnick, M. D., et al. (1997). Protecting Adolescents From Harm: Findings From the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823-832.

Related Assignments