Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- Genre: Masters Thesis
Description
ABSTRACT Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and insomnia are prevalent among United States (US) military veterans. This study investigates whether Brain Boosters, a new cognitive enhancement group therapy, improves symptoms of PTSD, depression, and insomnia among veterans completing the groups. The study population includes 64 US military veterans treated in the setting of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System in Phoenix, AZ. Group members were US military veterans, age 22 to 87 (mean age=53.47), who had served in or after World War II (WWII), who sought mental health care at the Phoenix VA from 2007 through 2011. Participants were treated with Brain Boosters therapy. They completed measures of mental-health related symptoms before and after this therapy. Participants were assessed pre and post group with the PTSD Checklist for military personnel (PCL-M), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; a measure of depression symptoms), and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Statistical analyses were done with paired samples t-tests and McNemar's tests, using SPSS. The hypotheses were that symptoms of PTSD, depression, and insomnia would show statistically significant improvement with Brain Boosters therapy. Results supported the hypotheses that symptoms of PTSD and depression would improve significantly. Insomnia did not show significant improvement. The results showed the mean PCL-M score was 54.84 before Brain Boosters therapy and 51.35 after (p= 0.008). The mean PHQ-9 score was 15.21 before Brain Boosters therapy and 13.05 after (p= 0.002). The mean ISI score was 15.98 before Brain Boosters Therapy and 14.46 after (p= 0.056). Although this is a nonrandom, uncontrolled trial, findings nevertheless suggest that Brain Boosters may be an effective therapy to reduce PTSD symptom severity and depression symptom severity. This may be especially important for veterans seeking alternatives to pharmacological intervention or traditional therapeutic interventions.
ContributorsWalter, Christina M (Author) / Roberts, Nicole A. (Thesis advisor) / Burleson, Mary H. (Committee member) / Miller, Paul (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
In recent years, the use of biologically based (neurological, neuropsychological, genetic) evidence in criminal trials as support for claims of mental impairments among offenders has increased in popularity. However, research on how exposure to those arguments affects jury decision-making remains unclear. Specifically, arguments rooted in biology sometimes mitigate and sometimes aggravate judgments of criminal responsibility for mentally ill offenders, and this discrepancy seems to stem from the specific conditions by which that disorder was acquired. The following study’s aim was to uncover the precise mechanism(s) behind this elusive effect. Utilizing a 2x2 between subjects experimental design, participants were presented with a hypothetical crime summary involving an offender with either an onset controllable or uncontrollable mental disorder. Ratings of criminal responsibility and other variables hypothesized to function as mediators were obtained after presentation of a prime supporting either a biologically deterministic or free will argument for human behavior in general. Results indicated that when the defendant’s disorder was the result of the his own actions (onset controllable), a biological prime decreased judgments of criminal responsibility; however, when the disorder was caused by factors out of his control (onset uncontrollable), the prime increased judgments of criminal responsibility. An examination of several possible mechanisms finds the effect mediated by the perception of control the defendant could have had over his own actions at the time of the crime. These results suggest that perceptions of behavioral control are an important contributor to jurors’ formation of criminal responsibility judgments when an offender possesses a mental illness; and arguments advocating a biological basis for human behavior reliably affect blame attribution, suggesting that a societal shift in the perception of free will as a result of increased exposure to biology in general may alter the framework of criminal responsibility judgments.
ContributorsHunter, Shelby (Author) / Schweitzer, Nick (Thesis advisor) / Neal, Tess (Committee member) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017