You may choose any medical consideration that either is or is not covered in this course so long as it is specific to an older population. It can be related to Anatomy, Exercise Physiology, Muscle Function, Nervous System, etc. Your main goal is to identify a condition that is specific to a geriatric population that can either be improved/reversed through physical activity (sarcopenia), or the quality of life with ADLs is improved even though the medical condition has not been reversed (Parkinson’s). You may NOT select either of these examples, they are too easy and straight forward. Spend some time digging into the various selections that could be made, perhaps there is someone you know of or a family member with a condition that you would want to learn more about?
If you are unsure about a selection, feel free to email me with the medical consideration you are thinking of researching and I can say if it will qualify or not.
Course Project Requirements:
a) Title Page
b) Minimum of 3 Full Pages of Content
c) Reference Page (minimum of 5 peer-reviewed references)
d) Formatted in APA style
e) In-text references when appropriate
Grading:
The paper should include
• An introduction – what your paper will be discussing
• A literature review – the findings and relevance of your articles and the medical consideration
• A discussion – explaining the reasoning for the importance of physical activity as it relates to the medical consideration. (Include any study limitations here if applicable)
• A conclusion – a recap of your findings and reasoning (Include any future applications here if applicable)
You will be graded on Formatting, Organization, Grammar, and Content Knowledge. No late work will be accepted.
Peer-Reviewed References
You are required to include at least 5 peer-reviewed references in your paper. You must include in-text citations to each of these when appropriate. In-text citations are placed at the end of the sentence where you obtained the information to complete that sentence from. For example, if you write a sentence stating that eccentric muscle actions are stronger than concentric muscle actions you will need to cite this as it is not “common” knowledge for most. This can be achieved by: “Typically, eccentric muscle actions are capable of producing greater force that concentric muscle actions (Smith et al. 2018).”

Below is an example of a simple APA format reference:
Smith, C., Housh, T., Hill, E., Keller, J., Johnson, G., & Schmidt, R. (2019). A biosignal analysis for reducing prosthetic control durations: a proposed method using electromyographic and mechanomyographic control theory. Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions, 19(2), 142.
Peer review means that a board of scholarly reviewers in the subject area of the journal, review materials they publish for quality of research and adherence to editorial standards of the journal, before articles are accepted for publication. If you use materials from peer-reviewed publications they have been vetted by scholars in your field for quality and importance. This assures you are being given accurate information that can be supported by experts in the field.
In academic journals the articles submitted are reviewed by scholarly peers. This means that articles are submitted to the editor, and the editor sends the article to reviewers who read and evaluate the article. These reviewers are other scholars who are experts on the subject of the article. Often all traces of the author’s identity are removed from the article draft before it is reviewed and this process is referred to as “blind review.” Because these reviewers are judging the quality of the article, or acting as referees for the quality of the article, you may hear professors call peer-reviewed journals, refereed journals. The high standard of writing, content, and research quality set by article reviewers’ results in the highest quality scholarly articles on your subject, and this is why your professors want you to use these sources. Using these high quality sources will improve the quality of your own work.
How do you know if your article is peer-reviewed? Many library databases including those owned by EBSCO and ProQuest give you the option to limit your search results to only those results that are peer reviewed. In addition, Google Scholar is a great resource for obtaining peer-reviewed papers. Look for the option to limit your results either on the search page or after the results are returned as a way to refine your search.
Example of APA:
An example of an APA format paper with notes can be found on the following pages.

Running head: VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 1

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 2

Abstract

This paper explores four published articles that report on results from research conducted on online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet) relationships and their relationship to computer-mediated communication (CMC). The articles, however, vary in their definitions and uses of CMC. Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002) suggest that face-to- face (FtF) interactions are more effective than CMC, defined as “email,” in creating feelings of closeness or intimacy. Other articles define CMC differently and, therefore, offer different results. This paper examines Cummings, Butler, and Kraut’s (2002) research in relation to three other research articles to suggest that all forms of CMC should be studied in order to fully understand how CMC influences online and offline relationships.
Keywords: computer-mediated communication, face-to-face communication

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 3

Varying Definitions of Online Communication and Their Effects on Relationship Research
Numerous studies have been conducted on various facets of Internet relationships, focusing on the levels of intimacy, closeness, different communication modalities, and the frequency of use of computer-mediated communication (CMC). However, contradictory results are suggested within this research because only certain aspects of CMC are investigated, for example, email only. Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002) suggest that face-to-face (FtF) interactions are more effective than CMC (read: email) in creating feelings of closeness or intimacy, while other studies suggest the opposite. To understand how both online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet) relationships are affected by CMC, all forms of CMC should be studied. This paper examines Cummings et al.’s research against other CMC research to propose that additional research be conducted to better understand how online communication affects relationships.
Literature Review

In Cummings et al.’s (2002) summary article reviewing three empirical studies on online social relationships, it was found that CMC, especially email, was less effective than FtF contact in creating and maintaining close social relationships. Two of the three reviewed studies focusing on communication in non-Internet and Internet relationships mediated by FtF, phone, or email modalities found that the frequency of each modality’s use was significantly linked to the strength of the particular relationship (Cummings et al., 2002). The strength of the relationship was predicted best by FtF and phone

communication, as participants rated email as an inferior means of maintaining personal relationships as compared to FtF and phone contacts (Cummings et al., 2002).
Cummings et al. (2002) reviewed an additional study conducted in 1999 by the HomeNet project (see Appendix A for more information on the HomeNet project). In this project, Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler, and Scherlis (1999) compared the value of using CMC and non-CMC to maintain relationships with partners. They found that participants corresponded less frequently with their Internet partner (5.2 times per month) than with their non-Internet partner (7.2 times per month; Cummings et al., 2002). This difference does not seem significant, as it is only two times less per month. However, in additional self-report surveys, participants responded feeling more distant, or less intimate, towards their Internet partner than their non-Internet partner. This finding may be attributed to participants’ beliefs that email is an inferior mode of personal relationship communication.
Intimacy is necessary in the creation and maintenance of relationships, as it is defined as the sharing of a person’s innermost being with another person, i.e., self- disclosure (Hu, Wood, Smith, & Westbrook, 2004). Relationships are facilitated by the reciprocal self-disclosing between partners, regardless of non-CMC or CMC. Cummings et al.’s (2002) reviewed results contradict other studies that research the connection between intimacy and relationships through CMC.
Hu et al. (2004) studied the relationship between the frequency of Instant Messenger (IM) use and the degree of perceived intimacy among friends. The use of IM instead of email as a CMC modality was studied because IM supports a non-professional

environment favoring intimate exchanges (Hu et al., 2004). Their results suggest that a positive relationship exists between the frequency of IM use and intimacy, demonstrating that participants feel closer to their Internet partner as time progresses through this CMC modality.
Similarly, Underwood and Findlay (2004) studied the effect of Internet relationships on primary, specifically non-Internet relationships and the perceived intimacy of both. In this study, self-disclosure, or intimacy, was measured in terms of shared secrets through the discussion of personal problems. Participants reported a significantly higher level of self-disclosure in their Internet relationship as compared to their primary relationship. In contrast, the participants’ primary relationships were reported as highly self-disclosed in the past, but the current level of disclosure was perceived to be lower (Underwood & Findlay, 2004). This result suggests participants turned to the Internet in order to fulfill the need for intimacy in their lives.
In further support of this finding, Tidwell and Walther (2002) hypothesized CMC participants employ deeper self-disclosures than FtF participants in order to overcome the limitations of CMC, e.g., the reliance on nonverbal cues. It was found that CMC partners engaged in more frequent intimate questions and disclosures than FtF partners in order to overcome the barriers of CMC. In their 2002 study, Tidwell and Walther measured the perception of a relationship’s intimacy by the partner of each participant in both the CMC and FtF conditions. The researchers found that the participants’ partners stated their CMC partner was more effective in employing more intimate exchanges than their FtF

partner, and both participants and their partners rated their CMC relationship as more intimate than their FtF relationship.
Discussion

In 2002, Cummings et al. stated that the evidence from their research conflicted with other data examining the effectiveness of online social relationships. This statement is supported by the aforementioned discussion of other research. There may be a few possible theoretical explanations for these discrepancies.
Limitations of These Studies

The discrepancies identified may result from a number of limitations found in the materials reviewed by Cummings et al. These limitations can result from technological constraints, demographic factors, or issues of modality. Each of these limitations will be examined in further detail below.
Technological limitations. First, one reviewed study by Cummings et al. (2002) examined only email correspondence for their CMC modality. Therefore, the study is limited to only one mode of communication among other alternatives, e.g., IM as studied by Hu et al. (2004). Because of its many personalized features, IM provides more personal CMC. For example, it is in real time without delay, voice-chat and video features are available for many IM programs, and text boxes can be personalized with the user’s picture, favorite colors and text, and a wide variety of emoticons, e.g., :). These options allow for both an increase in self-expression and the ability to overcompensate for the barriers of CMC through customizable features, as stated in Tidwell and Walther

(2002). Self-disclosure and intimacy may result from IM’s individualized features, which are not as personalized in email correspondence.
Demographic limitations. In addition to the limitations of email, Cummings et al. (2002) reviewed studies that focused on international bank employees and college students (see Appendix B for demographic information). It is possible the participants’ CMC through email was used primarily for business, professional, and school matters and not for relationship creation or maintenance. In this case, personal self-disclosure and intimacy levels are expected to be lower for non-relationship interactions, as this communication is primarily between boss and employee or student and professor.
Intimacy is not required, or even desired, for these professional relationships.

Modality limitations. Instead of professional correspondence, however, Cummings et al.’s (2002) review of the HomeNet project focused on already established relationships and CMC’s effect on relationship maintenance. The HomeNet researchers’ sole dependence on email communication as CMC may have contributed to the lower levels of intimacy and closeness among Internet relationships as compared to non-Internet relationships (as cited in Cummings et al., 2002). The barriers of non- personal communication in email could be a factor in this project, and this could lead to less intimacy among these Internet partners. If alternate modalities of CMC were studied in both already established and professional relationships, perhaps these results would have resembled those of the previously mentioned research.

Conclusions and Future Study

In order to gain a complete understanding of CMC’s true effect on both online and offline relationships, it is necessary to conduct a study that examines all aspects of CMC. This includes, but is not limited to, email, IM, voice-chat, video-chat, online
journals and diaries, online social groups with message boards, and chat rooms. The effects on relationships of each modality may be different, and this is demonstrated by the discrepancies in intimacy between email and IM correspondence. As each mode of
communication becomes more prevalent in individuals’ lives, it is important to examine the impact of all modes of CMC on online and offline relationship formation, maintenance, and even termination.

References

Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.
Hu, Y., Wood, J. F., Smith, V., & Westbrook, N. (2004). Friendships through IM: Examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 38-48.
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.
Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary relationships. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 127-140.

Start the reference list on a new page, center the title “References,” and alphabetize the entries. Do not underline or italicize the title. Double-space all entries. Every source mentioned in the paper should have an entry.