Name: Ellin Julia G.

Cortel
Grade and Section: 11 STEM – IO

ACTIVITY 6

ACTIVITY 1

Instruction: briefly reread the given article critique and pay special attention to the
structural features by answering the questions below.

1. How does the article begin?

The article starts by stating what is the acticle being critiqued, who wrote it
and what is it all about.

2. What organization does the article critique follow? How it is structured?

After the introduction, the critique stated the negative aspects of the article
followed by the possitive ones and at the end, he summarizes what he thinks
about the overall article.

3. How would you describe the style and approach of presentation of ideas?
I would say that the ideas were presented in a good way, where the
readers first read the negative points then the positive aspects of the article.

4. How are the supporting details presented? Are the explanations sufficient?
It was presented in an organized way and the explainations given was
sufficient.

5. What cohesive devices or transitional devices are used to improve the flow and
clarity of ideas?
It uses cohesive devises such as pronouns that reffers back to a previous
mentined noun, transition words and interclausal connectors and substitution of
synonym for a previous mentioned noun that improves the flow and clarity of
ideas being stated so that the words will not be redantant.
6. How would you describe the conclusion? How is it organized?
It was well oorganized for it summarizes all the important points and made
it clear what, where and why does the article lack in some point. It also gives
suggestions and personal views on how the aricle can be improved.
Article Reviewed: Pesch, Udo, “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value Systems in the
Public Domain”, Public Integrity, Fall, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 335-343.

The article, “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value Systems in the Public
Domain”, by Udo Pesch seeks to address how accountability and value systems interact in the
decisions made by public administrators. The research problem being addressed is whether
public administrators are free from accountability for their decisions and what are the different
influences that can affect their decisions.
It is clear from the abstract of the article that this is no simple issue. In fact the article if fairly
confusing for the first couple paragraphs. The author starts by saying that explicit ethics codes of
reference systems make it easier to hold individuals accountable for their actions, however a
conflict emerges when an individual’s moral values are different from such accountability
policies. What can make accountability more complicated are the motivations of the
administrator and also the individual’s inability to perceive future consequences of their
decisions.
Another influence, outside of individual morals and ethical guidelines, is the existence of social
context. These different domains generally “lay down their own standards of good and bad
behavior” (p. 336). This social surrounding can help an individual determine a good decision from
a bad one, but at the same time complicates the idea of accountability. The organization that a
public administrator is a part of may also complicate accountability and may provide another
outlet for blame if the public sees a decision as immoral. The author also acknowledges the
tendency to blame the highest level of a hierarchy or elected official for questionable decision
making on a lower level. Udo Pesch sees this as “undesirable” and writes that by carrying out the
policies the public administrator is at least somewhat responsible. To support this claim the
author uses the example of viewing the public administrator as a citizen, and as such they have
“an active role in the safeguarding [community] values and interests”. (p.339)
To such a complicated issue the author sums the research up well by saying that there are times
when a public administrator has to violate their own moral codes because there are no universal
moral rules that “allow a civil servant to live up to integrity standards.”(p.341) A public
administrator can hide behind laws and organizational procedures, but ultimately this is no
reason to disregard accountability and there are ways that these individuals can act morally.
Pesch writes, “It would be more sensible to design accountability arrangements that
acknowledge that civil servants are actively responsible for their actions, and that try to provide
them the opportunity to consciously address the potential difference between authorized rules
and communal principles and values.” (p.341) And, while this is excellently laid out as a theory,
the author ultimately admits that there is no single best design for an accountability agreement
on a tangible level.
This is good concept for how the problem of multiple value systems and accountability should be
handled. However, there doesn’t appear to be any concrete guidelines for carrying this out. In
other words this sounds great on paper but it doesn’t translate as easily to everyday life. There
isn’t research in the traditional sense for this article, but the author does include many examples
of work written by those who have written on this subject in the past. Pesch cites people like
Locke, Montesquieu, and Machiavelli. These are good, well-known examples and authors and I
think it adds a great deal credibility to the piece as a whole.
Overall this article isn’t very straightforward in the beginning and it’s not until the second page
that you realize where the article is headed. In order to have more people be engaged and read
the whole article it needs a new, more concise introduction. Once the reader gets to the really
good examples that are relevant to the everyday life of a public administrator, a good portion of
the article has already past. Overall it is a good, well-written article with an important message
for public administrators and organizations. The piece, when taken as a whole, is relevant and
very convincing in theory but starts slow and never lays out a concrete way of approaching this
complex problem.
https://www.uwlax.edu/globalassets/academics/departments/political-science-and-public-
administration/assignments/journal_article_critique_example.pdf
 ACTIVITY 2
Instruction: Briefly reread the given position paper and pay attention to the structural
features by answering the questions below.

1. How does the article begin?

The artice begin by capturing the readers attention with a relevant quote
that stands againts violence.

2. What organization does the article critique follow? How it is structured?

The position paper follows a specific organization where it has
introduction, which identifies the issue about violence againts woman and states
the authours position. A body, which contains all the argument that is being
broken out into sections: the background information, evidences that support the
authours stand, and the discussion of both sides of the issue being tacled. And
lastly, it has a conclusion, where the author restates the key points and gives
suggestions to the issue.

3. How would you describe the style and approach of presentation of ideas?
The style and approach of presentation of ideas is argumentable and
convincing making it valid and worth reading.

4. How are the supporting details presented? Are the explanations sufficient?
The supporting detailes presented was well organized and the explanation
was clear and understandable.

5. What cohesive devices or transitional devices are used to improve the flow and
clarity of ideas?
It uses cohesive devises such as pronouns that reffers back to a previous
mentined noun and substitution of synonym for a previous mentioned noun that
improves the flow and clarity of ideas being stated so that the words will not be
redantant.
6. How would you describe the conclusion? How is it organized?
The conclusion was well written for it provides the key points of the issue
and it calls for action on what must be done regarding the topic. It was organized
providing the readers a great and clear view of whats the athours satnds about
the topic.
 Topic: Violence against Women
Country: The Kingdom of Denmark
Delegates: William Hayward Wilson
Social Science Teacher: Mrs.Rousseau

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “no one shall be subjected to torture or to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Although this doctrine was adopted in
1948, the world has fallen quite short of this goal. Violence against women pervades all states
and it is the duty of the international community to ensure that all persons are afforded equality
and respect. Despite cooperative efforts at combating gross human rights abuses, such as the
adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the United Nations
has not been able to alleviate the injustice women worldwide experience daily.
The Kingdom of Denmark believes that in order to end violence against women, nations must
look to empower women in all aspects of society. This includes promoting equal gender roles in
government, civil society, education and business. However, Denmark also recognizes the need
to combat human rights abuses against women as they occur, and no nation is immune to gender
violence.
In 2002, the Danish Government launched an extensive action plan to combat domestic violence
against women. The plan includes measures to help treat abused women, identify and prosecute
the perpetrators, and incorporate professional medical and psychological staff into the
rehabilitation process. The action plan currently reaches out to both governmental and
nongovernmental groups on the local level throughout the nation.
The Danish Centre for Human Rights in Copenhagen, Denmark’s foremost national human rights
institution, also promotes and protects human rights. Based on the Centre’s research, Denmark’s
parliament can promote human rights-based legislation and education/awareness programs
throughout the nation. The Centre also addresses the UN Commission on Human Rights annually
regarding human rights developments in Denmark and internationally. Denmark has no record
of committing major human rights violations, most importantly any targeted at women. In its
2003 Annual Report, Amnesty International also found no human rights violations against Danish
women.
Women are invaluable to Denmark’s society and have achieved significant economic and social
gains in the 20th century. Currently, 75 percent of medical students in Denmark are women.
Denmark is confident that this Commission can bring about an end to violence against women
without compromising the sovereignty of member states. Education remains perhaps the most
useful tool in protecting victims of gender-based violence. Governments, UN agencies, and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can plan a coordinated campaign that educates national
populations on the various ways women are violently targeted. Similarly, harmful traditions, such
as honor killings and female genital mutilation, must be stopped by reforming traditional views
of women in society. Children of both sexes need to be taught at an early age to value the rights
of women in order to prevent such violence in their generation.
Another way to stop gender violence would be to reproach member states that consistently
violate treaties such as the Convention on Political Rights of Women (1952), the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), and the Declaration on the
Elimination of Violence against Women (1993). Although this Committee cannot impose
sanctions, it can pass resolutions verbally condemning states that commit human rights
violations. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights can also meet with representatives of
governments that violate the above treaties to discuss possible solutions.
In order to prevent gender violence, nations must work together to build a culture of support,
equality and community. As such, the Kingdom of Denmark looks forward to offering its support,
in whatever form possible, to nations firmly committed to ending violence against women in all
its forms.
 ACTIVITY 3
Instruction: Briefly reread the given research report and pay attention to the structural
features by answering the questions below.

1. How does the research report begin?

The research report begins with a title which describes the content of the
research being conducted.

2. What organization does the research report follow? How it is structured?

The research report folows the organization for manuscript for jornal
article where it has a title, a brief abtract, no separate literature review where the
literature are briefly reviewed in the introduction section, a brief information of
method, a reasonable detail of findings that coincise and focused on the topic,
text are divided into sections.

3. How would you describe the style and approach in presenting ideas?
The style and approach in presenting the research report was brief and
clear. It was well written and organized.

4. How are the data presented and analyzed? Are the explanation sufficient?
The data presented used quantitative to alalized the data being gathered
which involves numerical figures that distinguished categories, groups,
measurements and being calculated. It provides sufficient information and
explanation regarding the topic.

5. supporting details presented? Are the explanations sufficient?

There are supporting details presented that guids the reader into a full
understanding of the main idea of the research report which is sufficient enough
to support the paper. Iit uses supporting details such as discriptive, comparison,
and statistics to clarify, illuminates, explain, describe, expand and illustrate the
main idea.

6. What cohesive devices or transitional devices are used to improve the flow and
clarity of ideas?
It uses cohesive devises such as substitution of synonym for a previous
mentioned noun and transition words and interclausal connectors that improves
the flow and clarity of ideas being stated so that the words will not be redantant.
 7. How would you describe the conclusion? How is it organized?
The conclusion was well written and organized where it provides a clear
discussion and was able to present the findings of the research enough to be
understood by the readers.

Brief Report: Does Posttraumatic Stress Apply to Siblings of Childhood Cancer

Survivors?

Abstract
Objective To investigate whether adolescent siblings of childhood cancer survivors experience
posttraumatic stress (PTS). Methods Participants included 78 adolescent siblings of adolescent
cancer survivors who completed self-report measures of anxiety, PTS, and perceptions of the
cancer experience. Results Nearly half (49%) of our sample reported mild PTS and 32% indicated
moderate to severe levels. One fourth of siblings thought their brother/sister would die during
treatment; over half found the cancer experience scary and difficult. These perceptions were
related to PTS. Siblings reported more PTS symptoms than a reference group of nonaffected
teens but had similar levels of general anxiety. Conclusions Levels of PTS are elevated for siblings
of childhood cancer survivors. Thus, PTS may be a useful model for understanding siblings' long-
term reactions to cancer. Future research and clinical efforts should consider the needs of siblings
of childhood cancer survivors in a family context.

INTRODUCTION
Childhood cancer in a brother or sister is one of the most challenging diseases for siblings to face
(Sharpe & Rossiter, 2002). During cancer treatment, a healthy sibling may witness the physical
and emotional pain of an ill brother or sister, along with the parents' distress. Those siblings who
understand the life threat inherent in cancer may be disturbed by the uncertainty of the future.
They may also need to endure sudden and extended separations from the ill child and their
parents and negotiate changes in family members' roles and responsibilities (Shannon, Barbarin,
McManus, & Freeman, 1994b). Given the family disruption concomitant with diagnosis and
treatment for childhood cancer, it is important to understand short- and long-term consequences
of these diseases for siblings.

Research into the short-term consequences of childhood cancer for healthy siblings has shown
that during the treatment period, some siblings feel guilt, powerlessness, loneliness, anxiety,
depression, anger, and jealousy (Barbarin et al., 1995; Martinson, Gilliss, Collaizzo, Freeman, &
Bossert, 1990). Some exhibit poor academic achievement, difficulties in social relationships,
mood disturbances, and conduct problems (Barbarin et al., 1995;Sahler et al., 1994). Others show
enhanced socialization, taking on a role of helping the ill child and their parents (Horwitz & Kazak,
1990). Despite the variation in responses, the challenges faced by siblings during cancer
treatment may put them at risk for long-term psychological difficulties.

Unfortunately, the long-term adjustment of siblings of children with cancer has been rarely
investigated. Our review of the literature found only one such study. In that investigation, no
differences were noted between 60 siblings and a comparison group on internalizing and
externalizing problems, self-esteem, or depression (Van Dongen-Melman, De Groot, Hahlen, &
Verhulst, 1995). Though most siblings adjust well posttreatment, general measures of adjustment
may not capture the distinctive, traumatic aspects of facing a life-threatening illness in a sibling.

One model of adjustment that captures the traumatic nature of childhood cancer is a posttraumatic
stress (PTS) model. This model has been applied to adolescent and young adult cancer survivors
and their parents. Most adolescent survivors display rates of PTS similar to those of nonaffected
comparison children, with 14.2% scoring in the moderate to severe range on the Posttraumatic
Stress Disorder Reaction Index (PTSD-RI; Kazak et al, 1997). However, young adult survivors
are at increased risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with 20.5% qualifying for the
diagnosis at some time since their cancer treatment and many more showing subclinical levels of
PTS (Hobbie et al., 2000). Parents of childhood cancer survivors also show elevated rates of
PTSD and PTS. Rates of PTSD among mothers of childhood cancer survivors have been found
to range across studies from 6.2% to 11% (Kazak et al., 1997; Manne, DuHamel, Gallelli, Sorgen,
& Redd, 1998), with 40.2% scoring in the moderate to severe range on the PTSD-RI (Kazak et
al., 1997). Fathers are investigated less frequently, but about 31.2% reach the moderate to severe
range on the PTSD-RI (Kazak et al., 1997). Although siblings of cancer survivors may also be
exposed to traumatic aspects of the cancer experience and develop PTS, their long-term
adjustment in this regard has not been previously investigated.

The purpose of this study was to explore PTS in siblings of childhood cancer survivors. Data on
sibling PTS and anxiety were collected and compared to those of a reference group. Perceptions
of life threat and cancer-related hardship were measured as correlates of PTS. Last, differences
in PTS were examined according to gender and age at diagnosis, as these variables have been
found to moderate adjustment (Houtzager, Grootenhuis, & Last, 1999).

Method
Sample Recruitment and Procedure
Sibling data were collected during a preintervention home visit as part of an institutional review
board–approved randomized clinical trial of an intervention to reduce symptoms of PTS and
improve family functioning for families of adolescent survivors of childhood cancer (Surviving
Cancer Competently Intervention Program [SCCIP]; Kazak et al., 1999). Names and contact
information of childhood cancer survivors between 11 and 18 years of age and 1 to 10 years
posttreatment were gathered from our oncology tumor registry. The survivor and his or her
parents and siblings were contacted by mail inviting participation. Through follow-up phone calls,
we ensured eligibility, gathered names and ages of siblings, explained the study, answered
questions, secured enrollment, and scheduled data collection. Siblings giving informed consent
completed self-report questionnaires including measures of anxiety, PTS, and perceptions of the
cancer experience. We compared our sample to a reference group of children with no familial
illness on measures of PTS and anxiety collected in a previous study (Kazak et al., 1997).

Participants
A total of 151 families enrolled in the randomized clinical trial; 113 siblings between the ages of
10 and 20 were identified across 81 of these families and were invited to participate; 99 siblings
(88%) from 78 families agreed. In families where multiple siblings participated, one data packet
was randomly chosen for analyses. Thus, the final number in the analyses was 78.

The average age of the siblings was 14.2 years (SD = 2.2). About half (55.6%) were older than
their sibling who had survived cancer; three (3.1%) were twins of survivors. At diagnosis these
siblings ranged in age from 4.9 months to 15.8 years (M = 7.9 yrs, SD = 3.8). Cancer diagnoses
included solid tumors (32%), lymphomas (23%), ALL (28%), and other cancers (17%). At the time
of data collection, the families were, on average, 5.3 years posttreatment (SD = 3.3). The majority
of the sample (88.0%) was Caucasian, with 10.7% African American and 1.3% Hispanic. Roughly
a third (30.6%) reported an annual income below $50,000, 44.4% between $50,000 and
$100,000, and 23.6% above $100,000.

The preexisting reference sample included 134 children drawn from hospital-based pediatric
practices (Kazak et al., 1997). These children had no family members with serious chronic
medical or psychiatric conditions. The mean age was 13.2 years (SD = 2.2), and roughly half
(54.2%) of the children were female. The majority of the sample was Caucasian (61%), with 17%
African American, 13% Hispanic, and 7% Asian. Roughly a third (37%) reported annual incomes
below $50,000, 30% between $50,000 and $100,000, and 33% above $100,000. This group was
similar to the sibling group in terms of gender distribution, χ2(1) = .03, p = .86, and annual income,
χ2(2) = 4.95, p = .08, but was, on average, one year younger, t(206) = 3.27, p < .005, and included
a greater number of ethnic minorities, χ2(4) = 17.17, p < .001.

Measures
Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS). The RCMAS is a 37-item self-report
inventory of anxiety (Reynolds & Richmond, 1985). Subscales include physiological anxiety,
worry, and social anxiety. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct and
discriminate validity are adequate. Among our sample of siblings, alpha was .84.

Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). Siblings of cancer survivors completed the 22-item IES-
R (Weiss & Marmar,1997). In addition to intrusive thoughts and avoidance, this revised version
assesses hyperarousal. The IES has high internal consistency and good test-retest reliability. In
our sample, internal consistency for the IES-R was also high (α = .91).

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index (PTSD-RI). The PTSD-RI (Pynoos, Frederick,
Nader, & Arroyo, 1987) is a 20-item self-report measure with items paralleling the diagnostic
criteria for PTSD. Each item is rated for frequency of occurrence on a 5-point scale. Total scores
are calculated and can be categorized into severity of posttraumatic stress reaction based on the
following scores: 12 to 24 = mild reaction; 25 to 39 = moderate reaction; above 40 = severe
reaction. Internal consistency in our sibling sample was alpha = .74.

Assessment of Life Threat and Treatment Intensity Questionnaire (ALTTIQ). The ALTTIQ (Stuber
et al., 1997) has respondents rate agreement with two statements assessing perceptions of life
threat (i.e., I thought my brother/sister would die when he/she had cancer; My brother/sister could
still die from his/her cancer) and two items assessing cancer-related hardship (i.e., My
brother's/sister's cancer was scary [hard] for me) on 5-point Likert scales. Ratings of hardship
items were highly correlated (r = .79, p < .001) and so were averaged to form one score.

Results
Nearly half (n = 37; 49.3%) of the siblings had mild posttraumatic stress reactions and almost a
third (n = 24; 32.0%) had moderate to severe reactions on the PTSD-RI. To interpret IES-R
scores, we examined correspondence between the IES-R items and DSM-IV PTSD criteria. When
an item corresponding to a criterion occurred at least “sometimes” in the past 7 days, we
considered the criterion fulfilled. When more than one IES-R item loaded onto a single criterion,
endorsement of any one of the items at least “sometimes” fulfilled the criterion. Some PTSD
criteria were not represented on the IES-R; thus, the following rates may underestimate the true
level of PTS in our sample. Per IES-R responses, 38.7% (n = 29) of the siblings reported one or
more symptoms of reexperiencing, 21.3% (n = 16) indicated three or more symptoms of
avoidance, and 22.7% (n = 17) endorsed two or more symptoms of arousal, fulfilling DSM-IV
PTSD symptom cluster criteria. Despite these levels of PTS, the average anxiety score was in
the normal range (M = 47.42, SD = 10.21).

To assess if these rates of PTS were elevated, we compared the siblings' data to those of a
preexisting reference group. Although the groups differed on age and ethnic composition,
correlational analyses revealed that these variables were not related significantly to PTS; thus,
they were not controlled in the analyses. The siblings reported more intrusion (Ms [SDs] = 7.01
[7.48] vs. 4.60 [5.99]; t [197] = 2.50, p < .02) and avoidance symptoms on the IES-R (11.53 [9.96]
vs. 6.80 [8.22]; t [131, df corrected for unequal variances] = 3.45, p < .001) and more PTS on the
PTSD-RI (20.48 [9.21] vs. 15.40 [10.18]; t [196] = 3.53, p < .01). The groups did not differ on
anxiety (47.42 [10.21] vs. 48.78 [11.56]; t [199] =–.83, p = .41). Over a fourth (n = 20, 27%) of
siblings indicated on the ALTTIQ that they thought their brother/sister would die during cancer
treatment. Over half (n = 42, 56.8%) reported that cancer treatment was scary and hard. These
beliefs were correlated with PTS scores (rs ranged from .32 to .41, ps < .01). A few siblings (n =
12, 16%) believed their sibling could still die from cancer.

For the sibling sample, two 2 × 2 analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were calculated with gender
and age at diagnosis (dichotomized at age 6) as independent variables and PTSD-RI and IES-R
scores as dependent variables. Age 6 was chosen as the point of dichotomization because
children beyond this age tend to have more advanced cognitive skills and thus a clearer
understanding of cancer. Despite unequal cell sizes, assumptions of homogeneity of variance
were met. Female siblings, F(1, 69), and those older than 6 at diagnosis, F(1, 69), p < .05,
endorsed more PTS symptoms on the IES-R. There were no significant interactions or differences
on the PTSD-RI (see Table I for means).

Table I.Mean Values (Standard Errors) for PTS by Gender and Age at Diagnosis
Measure Male (n=32) Female (n = 42) Row Total
PTSD-RI scores could range from 0 to 80; IES-R scores could range from 0 to 110.
PTSD-RI
6 and younger (n = 29) 19.83 (2.61) 20.41 (2.20) 20.12 (1.71)
Older than 6 (n = 45) 17.40 (2.02) 23.68 (1.81) 20.54 (1.36)
Column total 18.62 (1.65) 22.05 (1.42) 20.33 (1.09)

Discussion
Adolescent siblings of childhood cancer survivors were found to report symptoms of posttraumatic
stress. Nearly a third of the sample indicated moderate to severe PTS on the PTSD-RI. Previous
data show a strong association between scores in this range and clinical diagnosis of PTSD
(Pynoos et al., 1993). When we compared our group to a reference group of nonaffected teens,
striking differences emerged in levels of PTS. These results offer evidence that PTS may be a
useful model for understanding the long-term adjustment of siblings of cancer survivors.

Although these results are preliminary, it is not surprising that siblings of childhood cancer
survivors report symptoms of PTS. A PTS model has been used effectively as a framework for
conceptualizing the ongoing cancer-related distress of childhood cancer survivors and their
parents. Although siblings of childhood cancer survivors may not have the same level of exposure
as parents, who are at the hospital and involved in decision making, or the survivors themselves,
who endure invasive cancer treatments, siblings still experience traumatic aspects of the cancer.
As described earlier, siblings are often exposed to the physical and emotional suffering of their
brother or sister, some (nearly a third of our sample) think their brother or sister will die, and many
(over half of our sample) feel fear. Indeed, our results showed that siblings with these perceptions
were more likely to endorse symptoms of PTS.
Although we cannot directly compare the siblings in our sample to their family members on rates
of PTS, it is interesting to note that rates of PTS in our sample (32% scoring in the moderate to
severe range on the PTSD-RI) seem to fall below previously reported rates for mothers (40%),
near rates for fathers (30%), and above rates for the survivors themselves (14%). We speculate
that our sample had this rate of PTS because, like parents, in addition to witnessing the effects of
cancer and its treatment and feeling fear and helplessness, some siblings adopt a caregiving role
with the survivor (Horwitz & Kazak, 1990). However, like many fathers, siblings are not as involved
as most mothers in hospital-based caregiving. Additionally, the rates of PTS in siblings may
exceed that of survivors because, unlike most survivors, most siblings are distanced from their
most common source of social support: their parent(s). Shifts in family role responsibilities,
possible long parental absences, and the intense distress of parents may interfere with successful
adaptation of siblings to this severe stressor.

Despite these clinically significant levels of PTS, we found no elevations in general anxiety, and
anxiety scores did not differ between siblings and our reference group of nonaffected teens. There
were significant correlations between anxiety scores and some measures of PTS (PTSD-RI: r =
.39, p < .001; IES arousal subscale: r = .28, p < .02), but these correlations were modest at best
and, despite elevations of PTS, did not result in elevations of anxiety across our sample. These
findings contribute to our argument that general measures of adjustment and models of general
distress may not be sensitive enough to capture the specific psychological consequences of
facing childhood cancer that are consistent with a trauma model.

Female siblings reported more PTS than male siblings. This finding may reflect the increased
family responsibilities many girls encounter following diagnosis of cancer, including caring for the
ill child (Shannon, Barbarin, McManus, & Freeman, 1994a). Such responsibilities may expose
girls more directly to the trauma of cancer. Gender differences in PTS may also be explained by
higher levels of empathy in girls (Lennon & Eisenberg, 1987). Siblings who are more emotionally
attuned to their brother or sister may be more vulnerable to the negative impact of cancer
(Houtzager et al., 1999). Finally, girls are frequently found to exhibit more PTS than boys, even
given the same level of exposure (Foa & Street, 2001).

Children who were older than 6 at diagnosis indicated more PTS symptoms than those 6 and
younger at diagnosis. The older children's better memory of the event and greater understanding
of the realities of cancer may contribute to their higher levels of symptoms. Older children may
also be more involved in family discussions about cancer (Shannon et al., 1994a), which may
increase their level of stress, by increasing their level of exposure.

There are limitations of this study. First, the siblings were drawn from an intervention study.
Families with more symptoms may have been more likely to participate, contributing to a possible
overestimation of PTS. Additionally, while the reference group provided some useful comparative
data, there were demographic differences between the groups. Although the discrepant variables,
age and ethnicity, were not related to PTS, other, unmeasured differences may exist between the
groups that may relate to PTS. Finally, this study relied heavily upon self-report questionnaires.
The use of structured clinical interviews, the gold standard for assessing PTS, is warranted in
future investigations.

This preliminary evidence of PTS symptoms in siblings of childhood cancer survivors is novel and
contributes to the scant empirical literature in this area. Additional research is needed to further
delineate subgroups of siblings at greatest risk for long-term symptomatology. Given that PTS is
also found in parents of survivors, it may be important to examine familial patterns of adjustment
and to develop family-based interventions to ameliorate or prevent PTS symptoms.

This study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (CA63930). The authors
would like to thank the SCCIP research team for their extensive contributions to this study.

References
Barbarin, O., Sargent, J., Sahler, O., Carpenter, P., Copeland, D., Dolgin, M., et al. (1995). Sibling
adaptation to childhood cancer collaborative study: Parental views of pre- and postdiagnosis
adjustment of siblings of children with cancer. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 13, 1–20.
Foa, E. B., & Street, G. P. (2001). Women and traumatic events. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,
62, 29–34.
Hobbie, W., Stuber, M., Meeske, K., Wissler, K., Rourke, M., Ruccione, K., et al. (2000).
Symptoms of posttraumatic stress in young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Journal of Clinical
Oncology, 18, 4060–4066.
 ACTIVITY 4
Instruction: Conduct a simple survey using one of the questions listed below. You may
also formulate your own question. Interpret the results and present your findings and
interpretation.

The target population for this simple survey are adults ages 18 – 25 with 10
respondents. The survey is done through online questioner, where a list of question is
distributed by messenger. It uses open – ended question to ask for more detailed
explanation from the respondents with a follow – up question They are asked:
1. What is the right age to get married?
How can you say so?

The Survey Question and Key Answers from the Respondents

NO. OF RESPONDENTS QUESTION 1 Follow - up

How can you say so?
What is the right age to get
married?

Respondent 1 For me, the age between Assume you graduated

28 and above is the perfect from college at the age of
age to get married. 22 or 23, and after a year,
you were offered a
permanent job. As a result,
by the time you're 28 or
older, you're already
financially stable and
capable of supporting
yourself without relying on
your parents.
Respondent 2 the right age to get married if you can at the age of 25
I think 25 where you are when you want to and so
physically, emotionally, why not.
spiritually ready and
financially stable.
Respondent 3 For a person with dreams Due to the implementation
and have goals to achieve, of K to12 by DepEd, the
I think the right age to get number of years of our
married is at the age of 28- study has been increased
30. and as a result, it will take

Respondent 4 For me there's no such
thing as right age to get
married. It is for you to
decide when will be the
right age for you to get
married considering all of
the responsibilities that are
in it.
Respondent 5 Between the ages of 25
and 30.
Respondent 6 28-30
some time for us to
graduate from college.
After graduating, you will
first find a job to help your
parents. Of course, as a
reward of your hard work,
you should enjoy life by
traveling. And I think by the
age of 28 you are
financially stabled and
ready to face the next level
of reality (married life) and
carry a big responsibility.
If I state an exact age as the
right age to get married,
what if there's someone
who's at that age gets
married and is not aware of
all the responsibilities being
in that situation what will
happen to them? Would it
be a success? Or failure?
Getting married it's not
about an individual having
that right age, but having
that open mind that'll
understand the do's and
dont's. A wide arms to
embrace the extraordinary
responsibilities, strong feet
to stand for all of the
consequences whether
expected or unexpected.
And a firm foundation that
is Christ.
Because people at this age
are not too old and not too
young. Hence, the ideal
age to get married.
I think ganyan na age
financially stable ka na or
like naka ipon na so you
can do what you want and
ready ka na for much more

Respondent 7 For me, it doesn't matter if
you are old or young
enough to get married as
long as you are ready,
happy, and contented with
your life.
Respondent 8 When you are ready years
old
Respondent 9 The "right age" for one to
get married is when both
individuals are ready for the
responsibilities of being
married.
Respondent 10 Both lovers in their late 20s Kasi I just think na most
or early 30s. Specifically, at people reach emotional
the age interval of 26-33.
bigger relationships kay
magka family ka na
If you got married and you
are not ready, then your
relationship will not work.
It's because there are
things that you still want to
do that you can't do it
anymore. If you're not
happy then why force
yourself into marriage?
You'll only give yourself a
hard time. Lastly, if you are
not contented with your life,
then don't get married yet.
Do/ experience things you
want to explore, and by
then, you are ready.
you can't enter into
something when you are
not ready in every way. Set
your mind especially the
money you needed before
stepping up to the next
level of your life.
Marrying someone without
being ready for the
responsibilities is like
joining a war without armies
maturity in this age interval,
which is the most vital
factor to consider if you
want your marriage to last.
Also, most people in their
late 20s already have
stable jobs to supply daily
needs. That although
money is not really
important (when compared
to 'loving each other
truthfully'), of course it's far
more convenient lessening
future conflicts.
Theme and Core Idea on the Right Age to Get Married.

Essential Theme Core Idea

1. The Mindset of the Person Stability, can carry out

towards Marriage. responsibilities, readiness and

commitment.

The result of the simple survey shows that the right age to get married is when

individuals are financially stable, has a sense of responsibility, ready enough to face

challenges and most importantly, being truly committed to partake marriage as part of

his/her life. And base on the answers of the majority of the respondents, it is estimated

to be at the age of late 20’s or early 30’s.