Proposal Review

thousand characters (E1 vs. G1 proposals) excluding the title and the reference pages. Likewise, G1-3 is approximately three thousand three hundred characters excluding the title and the reference pages. Both proposals are double spaced as it is the requirement in APA formatted papers.

Generally, the two proposals have adhered to APA formatting guidelines. They have a title page, the main text, and the references page. The main text is aligned at 0.5 inches indention. The pages are well paginated on the top left corner. For the title page, the header is well in line with APA header requirements, however, for both proposals, the header for the pages after the title pages is wrongly done, with the words "Running head" included. According to APA citation guidelines, the pages after the title pages should not contain the words running head (Angeli et al., 2010). Both proposals lack an abstract and the headings have been suitably done. The references have been done suitably, with the first line hanging at 0.5 and in alphabetical order. While in E1 intext citation seems to be done appropriately, various mistakes have been picked up in G1, for example, this intext citation "Foster, Golden, Duncan, & Earhart, 2013" is wrongly done. Given the authors are more than three, the citation should be Foster et al. 2010.

For both proposals, specific aims have not been sufficiently and clearly covered. While for both proposals a "specific aims" heading is included, the underlying text reads more like a background of the problem. Nevertheless, certain aims can be picked up. For E1, the study suggested is considered appropriate to realize the specific aims, however, for G1, while the suggested study might deliver some effects inline with the specific aims, it is not clear whether the effects are directly as a result of the suggested activities. It is suggested that, the study in G1 proposal should use activities that have been proven to have an effect in the cognitive awareness. Therefore, the suggested study would be best suited to test on the effectiveness of the suggested intervention activities in improving cognitive awareness, and not necessary specific to persons suffering from Parkinson disease.

For both papers, background to the research problems have been effectively done. The authors have reviewed relevant studies that have been done on the topic and adequately brought to the fore, the various issues that have not been addressed in the various studies. The reviewed literature and the gaps identified are sufficient to warrant the current studies.

The successful completion of both proposals is sure to contribute to scientific knowledge on the issues addresses. However, the structure and purpose of E1 doesn't directly contribute to clinical practice, but provides information that could be the basis for a study beneficial for clinical practice. On the other hand, the successful completion of G1 study would be beneficial to and contribute positively to clinical practice, specifically, in the management of persons with Parkinson disease.

For both proposals, the study participants have been clearly established, the intervention methods clearly identified and the application procedure well illustrated. The various measurements to be undertaken as to determine effects of the intervention have been well illustrated as well as the control measure. In addition, the various ethical consideration to be factored in are included.

Yes. For both papers, the title pages include the paper title, the course number and title, and the instructors name. However, the date, which should be the date the paper was submitted, is lacking in both papers. While a time "week four" is included in E1, this can't be considered as the date as per APA guidelines (Angeli et al., 2010).