Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Vicarious trauma effects on the emotionality of mental health workers

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hi there, I have found a few references that may be of interest to you! this one is specific to prevention of vicarious trauma, and might be useful if you are looking at future directions/implications of the topic etc. (full text at UC library) this one is an exploratory study, and it kind of looks into risk factors and implications for mental health worker training. this one includes a section on theoretical explanations for vicarious trauma, so it might be good if you're looking to examine the theoretical background of the issue. Hopefully these help you. Good luck! U3117451 (discusscontribs) 05:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I am researching vicarious post-traumatic growth for my book chapter and found this journal article relating to the effect of empathy on growth and vicarious exposure to trauma. Higher empathy scores equals more growth. The positive effect of vicarious exposure to trauma is quite profound and you may wish to expand on your sub section relating to this outcome? This article may be a helpful starting point if you choose to do so. All the best. --Elle o you jay (discusscontribs) 11:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an excellent chapter which makes effective use of the wiki environment and provides an integrated, indepth, but very readable synthesis of psychological theory and research on the topic.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
  3. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.
  4. The chapter is well over the maximum word count.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Explain why the topic is important.
    2. Consider including focus questions.
    3. Engaging example.
  2. Body
    1. Useful focus on a range of relevant theories, but could be briefer to reduce word count.
    2. Well integrated with discussion of research.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Offers a succint, clear, well-written summary.
    2. Addresses self-help theme.
    3. Perhaps revisit the case study at the end - what is the solution? What can be done in this situation?

Research[edit source]

  1. Good review and description of relevant research.
  2. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  3. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. Well-structured
  3. Layout
    1. Tables and/or Figures are used effectively.
    2. Tables and Figures should be referred to in the main text.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Some integration with other chapters is evident.
  5. Learning features
    1. Excellent use of interwiki links to relevant Wikipedia articles.
    2. Some links to Wikipedia and/or Wikiversity articles were added - these only need to be added for the initial mention of a keyword; use plain text for the keyword subsequently.
  6. Spelling, grammar, and proofreading are excellent.
  7. APA style for references is good, but not perfect.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a solid, well prepared and executed presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Clear
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Probably too much content is presented - be more selective - e.g., work backwards from 3 take-home messages to work out what content needs to be presented - and then focus on only that which is essential to conveying these messages.
    2. Theory was well covered.
    3. Basic coverage of research.
    4. Addresses a self-help theme.
    5. Uses examples.
    6. Citations and references are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. A whole minute is spent on a single Conclusion slide - consider adding more visual information
    2. Take-home messages / key points are well summarised.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio narration is slightly too fast to easily comprehend - consider slowing down. See this article for more information about speaking rates.
    2. Leave longer pauses between sentences.
  2. Visuals
    1. Simple but effective.
    2. On some slides, the font size is too small.
    3. The combination of images and text is effective.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic, effective production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Link to and from the book chapter provided.
    3. Expand the Description field (e.g., provide a brief description of the presentation).
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Very good
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Standard YouTube License.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)