Analyzing Two Lab reports:

                                                       GoFlow: 

 Smartwatch app to deliver laboratory results in emergency departments a feasibility study

                                       Boilat T, Siebert JN, Alduaij N, Ehrler F. 

                       Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health 

                              Individual Differences in Cyber Security Behaviors:

                                  An Examination of Who Is sharing Passwords

                                      Whitty M, Doodson J, Cresse S, Hodges D.

                      Department of Media and Communications, University of Leicester

                                                    By: Christopher Burgos

            During the process of reading both lab reports many will notice the differences in formats. For example, the first lab report chooses to name the abstract of the experiment “purpose” which is another word for abstract. However, the first lab report kept the purpose short and simple, while the second lab report gave the reader a well written abstract including why they would like to take on this experiment, and how it could affect others. Furthermore, while reading the second lab report, many will normally expect to see one hypothesis, however this is not the case since it includes up to five hypotheses of the experiment. Additionally, lab reports one and two will be analyzed based on these eight elements: Title, abstract, Introduction, materials and methods, results, discussions, conclusion, and acknowledgements.

            GoFlow: Smartwatch app to deliver laboratory results in emergency departments- a feasibility study by Boilat T, Siebert JN, Alduaij N, Ehrler F, has a title that is straight to the point and very clear on what it wishes to accomplish. Keywords such as “feasibility” suggests that they are attempting to uncover the strengths and weakness of the smartwatch app and its ability to deliver laboratory results faster. The authors of this lab report have named the abstract “purpose” which would be another word for the abstract. Moreover, the issue is well presented in the purpose and why the authors aim to solve it, which is the fact that it can take a very long time for test results to arrive to the laboratory. For example, “However, due to the inherent features of specimen processing and laboratory instruments, the turnaround time from test ordering to availability of results can be long. Lack of follow-up of abnormal results can lead to missed information that could impact patient care.” (Boillat T) (2020). Later on, the lab report offers a hypothesis or a potential solution to the problem, “In this feasibility study, we report the potential of using a smartwatch to deliver laboratory results to EPs at the point-of-care and to support efficiency in emergency care. Unlike mobile devices that are increasingly used by EPs, smartwatches are always accessible, even during hands-on procedures.” (Boillat T). (2020). Thusly, while some lab reports do not require an abstract, the “purpose” seems to serve as an introduction to the experiment and an abstract at the same time.

            The methods in the first lab report are very clear and detailed showcasing the setting the experiment took place and the different ways that the experiment would be carried out. The example is, “The application was then evaluated in a pediatric emergency department through semi-simulated scenarios by eleven EPs.” “The primary outcome was to measure both the app perceived usability and satisfaction scores by the aim of the System Usability Scale.” “Secondary outcomes were to assess the application’s efficiency by measuring the delay between the reception of the notification and 1) the access to its details and 2) the visit to the patient.” (Boillat T). (2020). As you can see the methods include relevant procedures such as the delay between reception and notification, the amount of times the app gets used, and the satisfaction scores. Therefore, the methods mentioned are clear so that another individual can perform the same experiment if they would like. In addition, the results showcase the end products they have received during the experiment. For example, “The prototype obtained a score of 81.4 out of 100 (good) on the SUS and a score of 5.96 out of 7 on the UTAUT scale.” (Boillat T). (2020). Another detail that was noticed is how the lab reports uses past tense in the results section to indicate the outcome of the experiment. They used the word “good” in parenthesis due to the fact that not everybody reading the lab report would know if 81.4 out of 100 would be a good score. The conclusion was kept short and brief stating how the capacity of smartwatches speeds up the process of point and care delivery of laboratories. 

            Individual Differences in Cyber Security Behaviors: An examination of Who is Sharing Passwords by Whitty M, Doodson J, Cresse S, Hodges D, has title that clearly explains the differences between the way individual personalities interact with each other when sharing personal information. Using keywords such as “Who is sharing passwords” suggests how people have different personality traits that are either more open to others or more reserved. The abstract elaborated on how people tend to share passwords often without thinking about the consequences they can have. “In spite of the number of public advice campaigns, researchers have found that individuals still engage in risky password practices.” (M. Whitty). (2015). This lab report also states what they intend to take on, “This study focused on the risky practice of sharing passwords.” (M. Whitty). (2015). To continue, there has been a theme that we have been speaking about in class for the majority of the time, which is “honesty”, the authors of this lab report exercise their honesty by admitting how the outcome of the experiment was not what they originally stated in their hypothesis. The example is, “As predicted, we found that individuals who scored high on a lack of perseverance were more likely to share passwords. Contrary to our hypotheses, we found older people and individuals who score high on self-monitoring were more likely to share passwords.” (M. Whitty). (2015).

The introduction of this lab report clearly indicates the importance of keeping your password protected due to the fact that it helps prevent any kinds of breaches into your personal life. For example, “This is especially important given that passwords are the default authentication mechanism on all “secure” systems on the Internet.” (M. Whitty). (2015) Further into the introduction, the lab report elaborates on how they would like to bring awareness to poor security practices and the consequences that come with sharing your personal info with others. “This paper helps add to the literature on poor security practices by focusing on the risky practice of sharing passwords.” (M. Whitty). (2015) Throughout the introduction the lab report mentions “research” constantly which demonstrates that the authors have taken into consideration the products other experiments have resulted in. Additionally, the introduction keeps on restating what it will focus on which can be a way of permanently planting the idea in the reader’s mind. Further on, this specific lab report has five different hypotheses to consider for the following categories: Age, impulsivity, self-monitoring, locus of control, and knowledge of cyber security.

The methods for this experiment are very detailed to the point where the experiment caters to everybody of different ages such as those who were cyber security experts and those who were not. “One list focused on cyber security issues, and five lists focused on the arts or social sciences. We focused on these lists to ensure we included both cyber security experts and nonexperts in our sample.” (M. Whitty). (2015). Throughout these methods pieces of data such as dates and sample sizes were recorded through the use of a survey. “In the period from June 5, 2013, to September 7, 2013, 910 participants accessed the survey. Of these, 630 completed the survey in full and indicated that their data could be used for analysis.” (M. Whitty). (2015). This lab report also looked at their demographic by excluding people who were too young such as 16 and those who were too old such as being over 100 years old. In the materials, this lab report showcases how every category was measured such as impulsivity, self-monitoring, locus of control, and knowledge of cyber security. Examples would be, “Impulsivity was measured using the UPPS-R Impulsivity Scale” “Self-monitoring was measured using the original version of the Self-Monitoring Scale.” “Locus of control was measured using the Internal–External Control scale.” “Knowledge of cyber security was measured using a single question.” (M. Whitty). (2015). In the results section of this experiment they showcased how they went about the experiment and the fact that they mentioned one of their experiments were supported demonstrates more signs of honesty since previously there were five hypotheses and only one was being supported. “All five hypotheses were tested simultaneously using standard forced entry binary logistic regression” … “as summarized below, one of our hypotheses was supported.” (M. Whitty). (2015). Ultimately, due to the large amount of people involved with this experiment it will be difficult to replicate in terms of time, however it is detailed enough to recreate with the right amount of patience.

The discussion of this lab report very clearly states the importance of this study and the fact that it also depends on the person giving out their information. “This study highlighted the importance of understanding the types of people who are more likely to engage in the risky behavior of sharing passwords.” (M. Whitty). (2015). The conclusion was very well detailed, and they also brought every point they made back from the beginning. “We found a number of variables that predict the risky practice of sharing passwords: age, perseverance, and self-monitoring. Although not all our significant results were in the direction we hypothesized, they nonetheless provide us with an important picture of who is sharing password.” (M. Whitty). (2015).

Ultimately, both of these lab reports seem to have different formats compared to the categories seen on the “Technical Communications” by Mike Markel. A great differences between both of these lab reports would be the amount of time they would both take to accomplish, for example the very first lab report seemed to be very straightforward to understand, however the second lab report had a great amount of participants knowing that it was a survey, there would be great amounts of data to collect from each and every participant. Moreover, the first lab report kept the conclusion very short and to the point. As we read the points made in “Technical Communications” By Mike Markel, the conclusion for the first lab report did not summarize the main points covered in the results, or the most important parts of their findings. However, the conclusion for the first lab report was kept between one sentence telling the reader the capacity of the smartwatch. On the other hand, in the conclusion of the second lab report we will notice how they summarize their main points by stating how the personalities of others influences their openness with everybody else. Nonetheless, some similarities between both of these lab reports would be the results section knowing how both were as equally detailed and clear to all audiences showcasing all the numbers and outcomes they obtained through the process of the entire experiment. Moreover, the second lab report demonstrated major trends in the results section by stating how people with different personality traits are more willing to share their passwords with others. Also, the first lab report showcases the gradual increase of the smartwatch app and how it can get to laboratories at a faster rate.

References:

Boillat T, Siebert JN, Alduaij N, & Ehrler F. (2020). Smartwatch app to deliver laboratory results in emergency departments. Lab report.

 Monica Whitty, James Doodson, Sadie Creese, and Duncan Hodges. (2015). Individual Differences in Cyber Security Behaviors. Lab report.

Reflection:

         Through the process of writing the analysis of both lab reports, I struggled to find a lab report that I was interested in and one that was also free to use. Additionally, when I first started searching for a lab report, the format is what attracted me the most meaning the ones that followed the textbook step by step as you can see by the first lab report. However, this proved to be inefficient due to the fact the point of this assignment is to compare and contrast the lab reports to how the textbook presented the format when it came to title, abstract, Introduction, materials and methods, results, discussions, conclusion, and acknowledgements. Furthermore, the second lab report would be a topic that interests me no matter how it was formatted. I was able to analyze the second lab report with more ease due to the fact that it offers more details when it comes to explaining why they chose the topic and showcasing results and methods. In addition, writing in an APA format was a challenge due to the fact that this would be my first time using this format and the fact that we would always use MLA format when it came to essays. Furthermore, the process of analyzing both lab reports felt smooth due to both lab reports being very different from each other when it came to components such as conclusion, methods, and introductions. The process of looking for different lab reports was difficult due to the fact that some websites can be very difficult to work around and the fact that some interesting lab reports were not free to access, also most of the websites I visited would require me to sign in or create an account which was not very effective when it came to having access to a lab report. Ultimately, I found a website with a great amount of free lab reports for me to access which would be “Pubmed.gov”. Using this site was not as confusing as the others and I did not have to sign in or create an account to anything, but this website had a healthy amount of free to use lab reports with a great number of topics to aid me in this analysis.