Week 2 Discussion: Goals

Consider this scenario. You are head of a planning team that has been asked to create a new drug treatment program. You ask your team to write a goal statement for the program. The following goal statements have been proposed:

• The goal of this drug treatment program is to serve clients' needs and to educate clients about the harm that drugs cause.
• The goal of this drug treatment program is to assist our clients in reducing drug dependency and eventually ending it toward living drug-free lives. 
  

Which goal statement do you think is more appropriate? Explain why you think the statement is suitable. Also provide an explanation as to why the other statement is not suitable.
Do the four components mentioned in the book—a time frame, the targeted population, the anticipated result, and a criterion—suffice to create an objective statement? Why?
Consider the following objective statement for checking recidivism to crime:
"The program will prevent inmates from committing crime, as measured by arrest or revocation of parole, for at least three years after they have been released back into the community."
In the objective statement example above, consider that some new components are to be included toward creating a more appropriate objective statement. Recommend at least two additional components that can be included to create an objective statement and provide a rationale for your recommendations.

Goals are “broad, abstract purposes of an intervention.”(Welsh, 2012, p.77). Both statements are broad and abstract, so either would be suitable for use. However, the second statement is slightly more appropriate, in that goal statements should “capture the intent” (Welsh, 2012, p.78) of a planned change. The reduction and elimination of drug usage is a clearer statement then the generic statement “serving needs” is, and suits the goals of a drug treatment program.

The four components of an objective (time frame, target population, result, and criterion) are both “measurable” and specific”...or should be, despite the manner in which a bureaucrat may define them...and thus “define clearly and concisely what outcome is to be achieved” (Welsh, 2012, p.82).

The recidivism objective statement includes a time frame of three years, a target population of “inmates”, a result of no crimes committed, and a criterion based upon arrests and parole revocations. All components are measurable, however, the result and the criterion can both be modified to be more specific. Does it matter which crimes are to be prevented? Does it matter if a violent parolee smokes weed? If a parolee commits a crime which does not violate parole conditions, does that affect the result condition?

Welsh, W. (2012). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning [VitalSouce bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781437735000

There are two approaches to goal setting—a top-down and a bottom-up approach. With which of the two approaches do you agree? Why?
Is it possible to have a middle-of-the-road approach that is a combination of both approaches? Would a middle-of-the-road approach be beneficial? Why and how?
Read the following case study from your textbook, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning by Wayne N. Welsh and Philip W. Harris:

• 2-1: Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Goal Setting: Responding to Negative Information about Conditions of Juvenile Confinement

With reference to the case study, answer the following questions:

• Was the original goal setting approach used in the case top-down or bottom-up? How?
• Why did Performance-based Standards (PbS) face resistance?
• How did PbS address the resistance faced?
  

I would prefer, if I were limited to a solely between a top-down model and a bottom-up model the top-down approach, because a change-agent at the top is specificly responsible for defining th and achieving the goal. That person should also have access to information that those at the bottom may not have, such as political influences or information limited on a need-to-know basis. In addition, input from the bottom-up may include goals that conflict with the mission from those that aren't committed to the goals of the organization. Some “change-agents” at the bottom might include more paid time off as a goal, for example.

That is not to say that input from a bottom-up approach is invalid across the board. A combination of goal design from the top, but with input from the bottom (those actually in the trenches) is probably the best model. While “those in the higher levels of the organization have the most experience” (Welsh, 2012, p.84) input from the bottom may provide an up to date view of the situation, and counter the danger that “goals handed down from above may be unrealistic” (Welsh, 2012, p.84). In addition, considering input from the grunts and line supervisors lets them know they are valued members of the organization, and adds to their level of investment in the organization.

Despite the fact that not all JD's were labeled “super predators” as the study suggests, there are some things we can learn from the case-study. The goal setting standard was a top-down approach; “Leaders at the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) conceived PbS” (Welsh, 2012, p.95). PbS (Why “PbS” and not “PBS”?) faced resistance as agencies failed to provide data which they “feared” showed mistakes but not responses to mistakes (Welsh, 2012, p.95). This resistance was met by a “respected group of leaders to initiate and promote PbS”(Welsh, 2012, p.95), and who turned to “ the encouragement and belief in PbS by other juvenile CEOs that moved many agencies to join PbS” (Welsh, 2012, p.96).

Welsh, W. (2012). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning [VitalSouce bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781437735000

Notes

• Understand and discuss the planning process as it relates to criminal justice organizations.
  
• Identify and apply the seven-stage framework for analyzing criminal justice problems.
  
• Analyze criminal justice problems and develop solutions to these problems.
  
• Explain the benefits of “planned change” using the case study methodology to illustrate suitable planning techniques.
  
• Understand and develop the technical skills necessary to make the criminal justice organization be more effective and responsive in serving the public.
  
• Develop the ability and the skills necessary to become a knowledgeable and inquisitive planner.
  

Planned Change: Seven-Stage Model
The seven-stage approach to planned change is a sequential process starting with problem analysis and ending with reflection, reassessment, and modification of the intervention. The seven stages are as follows:

• Analyzing the problem
• Establishing goals and objectives
• Designing a program or policy
• Developing an action plan
• Monitoring program or policy implementation
• Developing a plan for evaluating outcomes
• Initiating the program or policy plan
  

The Scan, Analyze, Respond, and Assess (SARA) Model for Problem Solving
The SARA model is popular and widely used problem-solving approach in criminal justice agencies. It would be difficult to discuss problem-oriented policing (POP), without an introduction to the SARA model. The SARA model is an alternative to the seven-stage model.

“What we truly need, though, is not more programs, or new programs, per se; we need better programs.” Welsh, W. (2012). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning [VitalSouce bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781437735000/page/1

Policy A rule or set of rules or guidelines for how to make a decision. P4

Program n A set of services aimed at achieving specific goals and objectives within specified individuals,
groups, organizations, or communities p5

Project n A time-limited set of services provided to particular individuals, groups, organizations, or com-
munities, usually focused on a single need, problem, or issue p5

“Since 1980, there have been huge cuts in social services spending,” HAHAHAHAHAHA LIE (maybe talking about local spending?)

major reason for this lack of consensus, we argue, is a lack of sufficient attention to principles of planned change. T

“Three ongoing trends continue to sharpen our needs for planned change (Kettner, Daley, & Nichols, 1985): (1) declining resources; (2) accountability; and (3) the expansion of knowledge and technology.” p6

“In many cases, people fear and resist change because it may threaten their job security” p9

“ potential costs and benefits of two very different approaches to handling resistance: (1) collaborative strategies; or (2) conflict strategies “ p9

“Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) has been recognized as a “model” violence prevention program, partly because of its well-specified design and replicability across numerous jurisdictions.” p17

“The Pitfalls of Poor Planning: Three-Strikes Legislation” p23

and yet the crime rate dropped, hmmmmmmmmmmmm

e need to be very careful here. The media, politicians, or even criminal justice offi- cials socially construct many problems. p31   dont forget front groups, special interets, agitprop pushers,and rent-seekers

Policy, Project, Program

There are three approaches of planned change:

• Policy
• Program
• Project
  

Which of the three approaches makes it “easier” to develop and implement change than the others? Why?
Which approach of the three listed approaches is “most effective” in understanding, implementing, and monitoring change? Why? Explain your answer with reasoning and supporting examples.

A policy is the model best suited of the three models to make it “easier” to develop and implement change; the model of policy is also the most effective to monitor and understand change.

This can be illustrated by a simple analogy; a man is tasked with getting rocks to the top of a hill. He has three options for getting the rocks up there. The first, as a project, he can look for the easiest route to climb the hill every day with a big heavy rock. The second, as a program, allows him to uses a tried and true route after he has identified it to make that climb with a big heavy rock an easier daily task. In the third, the policy, the man plans the best way to get all sorts of rocks up that hill; he builds a pulley to move baskets of rocks up the hill and a stairway with convenient rest areas to carry the big rocks up the hill without straining his back. The model of policy allows for the man to make the best decision for getting the rock up that hill depending on the kind of rock he has to move at any given time. By using a policy, the man can determine if a program or project should be initiated as the best approach to that particular rock.

Welsh describes the models of policy, program, and project:

Policy- A rule or set of rules or guidelines for how to make a decision.

Program- A set of services aimed at achieving specific goals and objectives within specified individuals, groups, organizations, or communities.

Project- A time-limited set of services provided to particular individuals, groups, organizations, or communities, usually focused on a single need, problem, or issue

(2012, pp. 4-5)

The program portion of the analogy is a little weak, but the rest works under Welsh's description. The next step in understanding the analogy is a discussion of change in organizations. There are two types of change; planned change and unplanned change, also known as crescive change. Crescive change can happen whether the directors of an organization want it or not. In both types of change, there is resistance to change. Planned change allows the changing agency to mitigate that resistance and to utilize resources more effectively.

The policy model allows for greater leverage against possible resistance, as policy is often established by law. In addition, policy can create environments in which the means for creating programs or projects are already provided for; budgeting has been established and oversight has been defined. The largest drawback to the policy model is that it is based on the goals of politicians; “The rational politician knows that, if their policy votes deviate too far from the opinion of their constituents, they risk their electoral futures”(Nicholson-Crotty, Peterson, & Ramirez, 2009, p. 630) Nicholson-Crotty et al continue, “The electoral connection should be particularly strong to deviations in criminal justice policy from public opinion”. (2009, p.635) It should be noted that political opposition can be experienced in all three models.

All three models provide benefits in the planned change process. We have looked at the benefits of the policy model. Welsh gives us an example of a success in the program model; ““Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) has been recognized as a 'model' violence prevention program, partly because of its well-specified design and replicability across numerous jurisdictions.” (2012, p. 17) Projects, due to their relatively smaller operational costs and the ability to use projects as a test bed:

A pilot-project approach has many advantages: Small

test programs can usually be mounted inexpensively; few

staff people are required, since specialists can be brought

in ad hoc; time is saved because red tape is bypassed; rela-

tively quick results can be expected. Since no new agency,

bureau, or division is created, a project can be easily dis-

mantled if it proves ineffective, without disastrous results

politically or financially, and even in failure it may provide

useful information. The pilot project technique itself pro-

vides great flexibility, allowing the planner to change his

approach on short notice. (Sturz, 2011, p.6)

The major point to take into consideration across all three models is the critical necessity of planning. This course discusses two models of planning; the seven-stage approach as discussed in the class notes or in more detail by Welsh, or the SARA model which “is widely used by criminal justice professionals who want to resolve local organizational problems” (South University Online, 2014, para. 2)

Nicholson-Crotty, S., Peterson, D. A. M., & Ramirez, M. D. (2009). Dynamic representation(s): Federal criminal justice policy and an alternative dimension of public mood. Political Behavior, 31(4), 629–655. doi:10.1007/s11109-009-9085-1

South University Online. (2014). MCJ6004 S01: Criminal Justice Planning & Innovation. The SARA Model. Retrieved November 4, 2014 from myeclassonline.com

Sturz, H. (2011). Experiments in the Criminal Justice System. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24(1), 4–7. doi:http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1525/fsr.2011.24.1.4

Welsh, W. (2012). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning [VitalSouce bookshelf version]. Retrieved November 3, 2014 from http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781437735000

Fictionland Police Department Planning Division Preliminary Needs Assessment: Department Response to Racial Profiling and Police Brutality

Fictionland Police Department

Planning Division

Preliminary Needs Assessment: Department Response to Racial Profiling and Police Brutality

A videotape of Ofc. Tim Smith in the process of racially profiling, physically assaulting, and arresting without cause a citizen has been released to the public. The videotape flatly contradicted the findings of the Fictionland Police Department Internal Affairs Department in clearing Smith's actions. This videotape spotlights not only the officer's malfeasance, but also exposes issues such as the failure of the Fictionland Police Department Internal Affairs Department to do it's job correctly, a potential problem with the direction of our departmental culture, tension between the department and the minority community, and finally the degradation of the department's reputation within the community as a whole. This preliminary report will address the methods by which we will analyze these issues and propose changes to the department to correct and resolve the issues. We will be using the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment) model of analysis This preliminary report will focus on the Scanning component of the SARA model, primarily in “identifying recurring problems of concern to the public and the police.”, “confirming that the problems exist”, and “developing broad goals”.(Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, n.d., para. 2) Bradley and Connors define a “needs assessment” in terms of answering questions about the conditions a program is intended to address and the need for it. (2007, p.7) First, the need for change must be documented, and the data that will be used must be identified. Secondly, potential causes for these issues must be identified, Third, we must identify all concerned parties, or stakeholders, and identify their interests in these issues. Fourth and finally, there will be influences that will either resist or support proposed changes, and these influences need to be identified. We must recognize any factors that will redirect our department's efforts to providing equal and honest service to all citizens.

The need for documentation serves two purposes. In the first, we must not compound the breach of public trust which the videotape exposed. By documenting collected data, we will fulfill our obligation for public oversight and accountability. In the second, full documentation will allow us to maintain all data in a structured format for accessible analysis. One issue in the process of analysis is the selection of relevant data. “Unstructured analyses typically result in large amounts of data, confusion over the meaning of data, and non-analysis-driven responses”. (Bynum, 2001, p.5) We will need to collect information regarding profiling and abuse complaints over the last five years, IAD reports in that period, chain of custody of the Smith tape, we will need indicators of other of the relation between the police and the minority community,and political alliance information regarding all stakeholders.

It is obvious, based on what we have seen in the Smith video and in IAD's handling of that case, that there is some level of racism and dishonesty in the department's culture. Multiple people in the department will have seen the tape, yet the tape was leaked by someone in the department who felt that there was no credibility in the department to turn to for a just resolution in the case. Thus we can identify racism and dishonesty as potential causes for the issues the department is experiencing. However, we should not focus on quick and easy resolutions when there may be other causes for these issues. “Problem-solving projects can be complex. In action research, the team is expected to persist until success is achieved, refining and improving an intervention in the light of what is learned from earlier experiences.”(Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, 2014, para. 3) Is it possible that IAD thought they were protecting the department from the Michael Brown school of reporting? Perhaps IAD understood the level of Ofc. Smith's abuses and make a political decision to cover up his actions in order to protect the department's reputation. Finally, it is likely that there are multiple causes that can create problems that can reinforce each other; in a community in which assaults against the police are above average, do the police have in turn a higher use of force then the norm? Unless all causes are identified and remedied, then there will continue to be problems. Brown and Scott identify one reason that problem oriented initiatives may fail; “the real contributing or causal factors were not discovered” (2007, p. 2) It must be acknowledged however, that in the discussion of possible causes for tension between the police department and the minority community, that no justification can be found for Pfc. Smith's actions.

A list of interested parties will include the police department and constituent sub-groups within the department, such as the police chief and the police union. The mayor's office and the municipal office of civil rights will represent the community at large. The Center for Justice and local churches in the minority community will be concerned parties. The media will also play a part. The importance of recognizing all these stakeholders as part of the problem solving process can not be emphasized enough; ”situations might require the early involvement of key individuals or groups when determining the order of analysis activities”(Bynum, 2001, p.7) In addition, identifying agents who may play a part in support or in resistance to proposed changes becomes necessary;“Response plans that enjoy grassroots community support tend to be more likely to be implemented than those without it because you can convert such support into political influence, which can mobilize resources and action”(Brown & Scott, 2007, p.8)

The support or resistance by stakeholders to any given solution proposal is hard to predict until a specific proposal in made; but to illustrate the point that Brown and Scott make let us look at the forces in relation to a relatively neutral policy proposal; the equipping of police officers with body cameras. White finds that “Most of the empirical studies document a reduction in citizen complaints against the police and, in some cases, similar reductions in use of force and assaults on officers.” (2014, p.35) This directly addresses two of the issues that we are targeting for solution. The mayor's office may support or resist this idea depending on budget factors, but the civil rights office would support the proposal. The chief's office would support the proposal, but the union may be opposed on the basis of officer privacy. We would expect the leaders of the local churches to support the policy. The support or resistance by the Center for Justice depends on whether the Center is more interested in equal and honest enforcement of the law, or is more interested in pursuing “solutions” v based on identity politics, in which “A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented -- understood, empathized with -- only by persons of the same identity. “(Will, 2009, para.7)

References

Be guided by SARA – but not led astray. (2014) Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. Retrieved November 8, 2014 from http://www.popcenter.org/learning/60steps/index.cfm?stepNum=7

Bradley, K., & Connors, E. (2007). Training evaluation model: Evaluating and improving criminal justice training. Institute for Law and Justice. Retrieved November 8, 2014 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/244478.pdf

Brown, R., & Scott, M. S. (2007). Implementing responses to problems. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved November 8, 2014 fromhttp://www.popcenter.org/tools/pdfs/implementing_responses.pdf

Bynum, T. S. (2001). Using analysis for problem-solving:

A guidebook for law enforcement. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Office of Community-oriented Policing Services. Retrieved November 8, 2014 from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e08011230.pdf

The SARA Model . (n.d) Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. Retrieved November 8, 2014 from http://www.popcenter.org/about/?p=sara

White, M. D. (n.d.). Police ofifcer body-worn cameras:Assessing the evidence. Washington, D.C.: OJP Diagnostic Center, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved November 8, 2014 from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6525606

Will, G. (2009, May 27).Identity Justice: Obama's Conventional Choice. Washington Post . Retrieved November 8, 2014 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602348.html

The Masters’ of Criminal Justice at South University: A review of the online program

I graduated from South University in September of 2015 with a Master's of Science in Criminal Justice. This review of that program will be conducted in five areas; experience overall, quality of education, interaction with facilitators, bias in material, and academic career suitability.  It must be noted that I do not have experience in a brick and mortar academic graduate program, nor have I any training in pedagogy.  My previous academic background consists of a bachelor's in government (political science) on campus at the University of Texas at Austin, with some criminology courses taken as electives.  I was NOT a good undergrad, by any means!

My overall experience was good (4/5). I initially chose South University for its brick and mortar facility in Austin, but the advisor had to leave just prior to my starting of the program, necessitating my use of the online program.  The program requires the completion of 48 credit hours.  Classes are based on the quarter system. The online classes were conducted over a 5.5 week period per course.  Two online courses were available per quarter, overlapping or consecutively, depending on schedule.   The structuring of the material allowed for a flexible schedule.  The final course, the applied professional project, is a 3 month course.  I will add a caveat in that I busted my behind in the program.  Online courses require that you stay on top of yourself to get the work done   My goals in the program went beyond  getting  the work done, but also  to understand the material in application to real world scenarios and to be able to contribute to other students' understanding of the course.  One result of the experience is that I have developed a research interest in the comparison of the online graduate experience versus the traditional method in the criminal justice field.  Considering my situation, I would choose South University again with little hesitation.

Quality of education matters (4/5) Although South University is an accredited institution, I encountered a great deal of criticism towards schools that are both online and for profit.  I found this criticism at conferences and in online forums such as thegradcafe.com and the Reddit GradSchool subreddit.  As far as South University goes, I found the education to be within the realm of what I expected graduate level studies to encompass.  Willis (2012) notes that a graduate level criminal justice program should both expose the student to the theories of justice and to encourage the student to personally challenge the theory.  I feel that South University's program did this for me. The material was certainly more in depth than my undergraduate coursework, and required a great deal of analysis and writing.  On average, I wrote about 12 pages per week per course.  I spent an average of 30 hours of a week in total in study per course. Discussion accounted for 40% to 50% of the grade, depending on course.  This may have been advantageous, as Stack (2013) contends that the nature of web based discussion holds several advantages to classroom discussion.  For the most part, I felt that I earned the grades I made.  Rarely, I received a lower grade than I thought I deserved, although the majority of grading disparities involved a higher grade than I felt warranted.  I would say that the ratio was 75% “accurate” grading to 20% “maybe more than I deserved” grading to the rare 5% “c'mon I did better than that” grade.  I never complained about lower grades in that I felt I was receiving the benefit of the more optimistic grading.  However, I did feel that the instructors were open to discussion regarding grading had I chosen to contest such a grade.  In comparison with what I have read on the above forums regarding grading in the social sciences graduate field, this seems to be the norm for both workload and grading standards..  Without having undertaken traditional graduate coursework for a direct comparison, I would say that the South University program meets the standards.

The instructors (facilitators) were excellent overall (5/5). There was an issue in instruction in one course, but that was due to an outside factor, and I think that South University, and the instructors involved, handled the situation as best as could be.  It did cause an issue due to the intense time requirements of the course.  However, at no time did I feel that any of the instructors were just putting time in.  On the contrary, the majority of instructors provided additional study material and practical experience to the course work.  At no point did an instructor blow me off regarding course questions.  As noted above, I felt that the instructors were approachable in every course I took.

There was not an overwhelming sense of bias (3/5).There is going to be bias in any human endeavor.  Academia has traditionally been known to have a liberal bias (Yancey, 2012),(Friedman, 2005).  Yet I did not see an overwhelming bias in either the coursework or in the instruction.  Some courses used biased material as source references (such as www.talkleft.com), but I found  that other courses used material from the right (such as the Heritage Foundation) to balance out the bias level  As an interesting aside, I was cautioned against using a potentially biased source, in the form of a Congressional committee investigating the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal, in one of the courses that used talkleft.com as a source, but I just amused myself at the incongruity and moved on.  I did find that the textbooks trended more to the left, but since graduate level studies require some analysis of the material by the student, I did not find this to be a problem. I found other material to study in the cases that I found the bias level to be unsuitable.

The weakest part of the South University program is its suitability for preparation in an academic career (3/5).  Partially, this is due to the dim view of online and for profit schools that I discussed above.  This assessment is also based upon the use of an applied project to complete the program, as opposed to a thesis requirement. However, it can be said that South is directed primarily at people that are currently working in the criminal justice field and seeking a master's degree to enhance their professional knowledge.  This assumption is based primarily on the flexible online program and the short course periods. South University may consider adding a thesis option for those students seeking to move on to doctoral work.  Finally, I was never sure just what it was that I was supposed to be doing as a graduate student beyond cranking out the work.  I did attend the ACJS meeting, and there met with the program director for the school as a whole.  I did use the material I prepared for a thesis to create a paper that will be presented at the ACS meeting.  I will admit that I did not avail myself completely of the expertise that was available to me; I could have been more assertive in asking questions about what I needed to do to advance myself as a student.  When I did ask questions they were answered promptly with encouragement and the availability of further support. I would also say that this an area where an on-campus experience has a built in advantage over the online experience; building personal relations is much easier on location. Crawford (2011) stresses the importance of mentoring in the criminal justice field, but also admits that there is not a great deal of discussion within the academic community regarding the process itself.  From my own experience, it is also a responsibility of the student to pursue mentoring support.

References

Crawford, C. (2011). Dilemmas in supervising and mentoring criminology graduate students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(2), 226–246. http://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.517770

Friedman, J. (2005). The bias issue. Critical Review, 17(3/4), 221–236. Retrieved February 23, 2015 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/217272310/citation?accountid=87314

Stack, S. (2013). Does discussion promote learning outcomes? Analysis of an online criminology class: Research note. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(3), 374–385. http://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.758752

Willis, J. J. (2012). Bridging the normative gap in graduate criminal justice curricula: teaching theories of justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(1), 81–102. http://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2011.630675

Yancey, G. (2012). Recalibrating academic bias. Academic Questions, 25(2), 267–278. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1007/s12129-012-9282-y