This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case. Organizing the data in this way will help you apply the four principles of principlism.Based on the "Case Study: Healing and Autonomy" and other required topic study materials, you will complete the "Applying the Four Principles: Case Study" document that includes the following:Part 1: Chart This chart will formalize principlism and the four-boxes approach by organizing the data from the case study according to the relevant principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.Part 2: EvaluationThis part includes questions, to be answered in a total of 500 words, that describe how principalism would be applied according to the Christian worldview.

This Module’s SLP is intended to allow you to apply the process of principled negotiation in an experiential way. Using the assigned background readings, as well as some independent research of your own, apply principled negotiation to a real life, practical case. Be sure to use subheadings to show where you are responding to each required item. Identify an organization (without revealing proprietary information), and explain a specific conflict or issue that was negotiated using principled negotiation. Do not re-use a conflict/situation presented earlier in this course. How were the four points of principled negotiation used? Be as specific as you can in describing each. What were the defined interests of each side? How did the negotiation resolve? Was it successful? What changes could you recommend to improve the process? What was your side’s BATNA? If one was not needed because of successful resolution, what do you think a valid BATNA for your side would have been? Module 4 - Background PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Required Reading Chapman, E., Miles, E. W., & Maurer, T. (2017). A proposed model for effective negotiation skill development. The Journal of Management Development, 36(7), 940-958. Retrieved from the Trident Online Library. Del Gobbo, D. (2018). The feminist negotiator’s dilemma. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 33(1), 1–63. Retrieved from the Trident Online Library. Sebenius, J. K. (2017). BATNAs in negotiation: Common errors and three kinds of "no." Negotiation Journal, 33(2), 89-99. Retrieved from the Trident Online Library. Shachar, M. NCM512 – M4. PowerPoint Presentation. Zhang, S. and Constantinovits, M. (2016). A study of principled negotiation based on Chinese harmony thought. Brand Research in Accounting 7(1); 60-70. Retrieved from the Trident Online Library.

evaluate an article about online dating. Sharabi and Caughlin (2017) "What predicts first date success? A longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating" Based on the content of the article, what type of claim is the researcher trying to make (frequency, association, or causal)? Explain your answer. What did they write that makes you think so? (8 points)Was the research method correlational or experimental? Explain your choice. (8 points)What hypothesis or hypotheses did the study attempt to test? Hint: only consider the variables that we listed at the top of this instruction sheet. (8 points)What was/were the primary conceptual independent variable(s) of the study? How was/were the primary IV(s) operationalized? (8 points: 4 points for concept, 4 points for operationalization)What was/were the primary conceptual dependent variable(s)? How was/were the DV(s) operationalized? (8 points: 4 points for concept, 4 points for operationalization)Describe the participants. If available, provide the total number of participants, their sex, age, ethnicity, and other defining features. How were they recruited? How many were in each group in the end? Hint: This information can be found in the methods section. (6 points)What did the participants in the study do? For example, did they fill out a survey, receive an intervention, perform a task, or something else? Did all of the participants do the same thing or did they do different things? Hint: This information can often be found in the procedure section. Try to be as specific as possible. (8 points)Describe the main results; i.e., those bearing on the hypotheses tested. Was each hypothesis supported or not? What did the author(s) conclude? Hint: Re-write each of the hypotheses being tested and summarize the findings for each. (8 points)Was reliability mentioned in the research (e.g., test-retest, interrater, or internal)? What data were provided for the tests or measures used in the research (if no data were provided, please explain what would be appropriate)? (4 points)Considering the operational definitions of the variables (IVs as well as DV) and the various ways to assess construct validity (Hint: Ch. 5 & 6), do you think the research variables have strong or weak construct validity? Explain your answers. (8 points)Do you think the research has strong or weak external validity? Explain your answer. (8 points)Does the study establish covariance? If so, explain why you reach that conclusion. If not, why not? (6 points)Does the study establish temporal precedence? If so, explain why you reach that conclusion. If not, why not? (6 points)Does the study have a third-variable problem? If so, explain why you think so and provide one possible third-variable. If not, why not? (8 points)Do the conclusions by the author(s) match the research method? Why or why not (we are asking for reasons related to the materials covered in the course rather than your personal opinion)? (8 points)Considering your answers to the above questions, discuss two things that you would change to improve this research, or include in future research. How would your proposal resolve these issues? (8 points)Using your ability to search for information, what evidence (empirical) supports the claims made in the assigned research article (e.g., What have other authors found that would support or refute the main claim by the authors?)? Find three relevant sources. All three must be peer-reviewed empirical research articles. Summarize the salient points from each, whether they would support the claim made in the assigned research article, and explain how credible they are and why (based on credibility as explained by the textbook). You should be able to accomplish this in two paragraphs (one for summaries and one for credibility). Include in-text citations and a reference list at the end of your paper (APA format). FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT, YOU MUST USE ONLY PEER-REVIEWED EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ARTICLES. (12 pts – 4 pts for each source)