APH205 Epidemiology
Final report
[All Learning outcomes assessed:
A. Demonstrate a critical understanding of the principles of epidemiology;
B. Acquire a thorough knowledge on major methodologies of epidemiological studies;
C. Comprehend common topics and issues in epidemiology;
D. Apply statistical knowledge and skills for epidemiological research.]
Tasks and instructions
This final report includes TWO components:
First, you are required to write a critique of the study conducted by Rong et al., focusing on (potential) limitations, issues, problems and alternative approaches, based on your understanding and knowledge of epidemiology (50 marks).
Secondly, you are required to analyse the study database to formally investigate the following question: ‘What is the relationship between perceived epidemic impacts recorded at the baseline and mental symptoms at the 4th follow-up?’ (50 marks).
You will need to download and read the paper by Rong et al. to complete this task. The data used in the study can be found in the file called ‘APH205 Final Report Database’. Note that some variables may appear to be missing in the database but you can create them based on other variables. Also note that some variables are coded differently compared to the data presented in the paper. The dictionary of variables is not complete so you will have to cross-check with the paper to ensure that they are recognized correctly. For the second part, you must present your command file based on either STATA, R, SPSS or SAS platform. Methods and findings should be described in the report in an academic way.
Prepare a written report of no more than 1,000 words addressing both parts of the assessment (critique and analysis). Your report should contain at least two and no more than five tables/figures.
This task comprises 60% of your total grade for the module. Your answers will be assessed using the XJTLU Assessment Criteria below.
R Rong, Q Xu, KP Jordan, Y Chen. Perceived Epidemic Impacts and Mental Symptom Trajectories in Adolescents Back to School After COVID-19 Restriction: A Longitudinal Latent Class Analysis. J Adolesc Health. 2024; 74: 487-495.
Submission
You need to submit one document, containing the report, related tables/figures and statistical command file, in PDF. The document should be named .pdf. For example, ‘APH205 final report, 123456789.pdf’.
You must submit your work via Learning Mall. All penalties for late or incomplete submission apply.
Assessment
Responses, in each assessment part, will be marked as follows:
|
|
Category 1:
Knowledge and
understanding
|
Category 2: Intellectual Skills
|
Category 3:
Transferable Skills
|
|
100%
|
The best answer that could reasonably be expected from a student at that level of study under the prevailing conditions (i.e. exam or coursework).
|
|
90-99% ‘Outstanding’
|
Total coverage of the task set.
Exceptional demonstration of knowledge and understanding,
appropriately grounded in theory and/or research.
|
Outstanding, and comprehensive, justification and evaluation. Well-argued conclusions.
|
Extremely clear exposition. Excellently structured and logical answer. Excellent presentation, only the most insignificant errors
|
|
80-89% ‘Excellent’
|
As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses or gaps in knowledge and understanding.
|
As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses or gaps in justification, evaluation, and/or conclusions.
|
As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses in structure, logic and/or presentation.
|
|
70-79%
‘Very Good’
|
Total coverage of the task set.
Generally very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding, but with some weaknesses or gaps. Good grounding in theory and/or research.
|
Generally very good justification and evaluation, and
conclusions, but with some weaknesses or gaps.
|
Generally clear exposition. Satisfactory structure. Very good presentation, largely free of grammatical and other errors.
|
|
60-69%
‘Comprehensive’
|
As ‘Very Good’ but with more and/or more significant gaps in knowledge and understanding, and some significant gaps in grounding in theory and/or research.
|
As ‘Very Good’ but with more and/or more significant weaknesses in justification, evaluation and/or conclusions.
|
As ‘Very Good’ but with some weaknesses in exposition and/or structure and a few more grammatical and other errors.
|
|
50-59%
‘Competent’
|
Covers most of the task set. Patchy knowledge and understanding, with limited grounding in theory and/or research.
|
Patchy, with significant limitations or flaws in the justification, evaluation, and/or conclusions.
|
Competent exposition and structure. Competent presentation but some significant grammatical and other errors.
|
|
40-49%
‘Adequate’
|
As ‘Competent’ but patchy coverage of the task set and more weaknesses and/or gaps in knowledge and understanding. Just meets the threshold level.
|
Shows barely adequate ability to justify, evaluate or draw conclusions. Just meets the threshold level.
|
As ‘Competent’ but with more weaknesses in exposition, structure, presentation and/or errors. Just meets the threshold level.
|
|
35-39%
‘Compensatable fail’
|
Some parts of the set task may have been omitted. Major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Very limited grounding in
|
Very limited and/or flawed justification, evaluation, and conclusions. Falls just short of the threshold level.
|
Somewhat confused and limited exposition. Confused structure. Some weaknesses in presentation and some serious grammatical and
|
|
|
theory and/or research. Falls just short of the threshold level.
|
|
other errors. Falls just short of the threshold level.
|
|
20-34%
‘Deficient’
|
As ‘Compensatable Fail’ but with very significant omissions, flaws and/or gaps in knowledge and understanding. Falls substantially below the threshold level.
|
As ‘Compensatable Fail’ but with more significant limitations and/or flaws in the justification, evaluation and conclusions.
Falls substantially below the threshold level.
|
As ‘Compensatable Fail’ but with more serious weaknesses in presentation and/or grammar. Falls substantially below the threshold level.
|
|
0-19%
‘Extremely weak’
|
Substantial sections of the task not covered. Knowledge and understanding are extremely limited and/or largely incorrect. No appropriate grounding in theory and/or research.
Or: the answer is substantially irrelevant to the assessment task.
|
Justification, evaluation and conclusions are extremely weak or omitted.
Or: the answer is substantially irrelevant to the assessment task.
|
Largely confused exposition and structure. Many serious
grammatical and other errors.
Or: the answer is substantially irrelevant to the assessment task.
|
|
Category Scores:
|
/ 100
|
/ 100
|
/ 100
|
|
Score:
|
(Category 1 score + Category 2 score + Category 3 score) / 3 =
|
Total score = score (part one) / 2 + score (part two) / 2 =