California State University Northridge Psychological Development Discussion

California State University Northridge Psychological Development Discussion California State University Northridge Psychological Development Discussion ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL NURSING PAPERS can you do this paper for me I do not know if you can open up the links, so I will open them for you. to give you a look at what you got to do. Please let me know if you can get into the Ashford Library . Also let me know if you need a link open that I did not open and send to you. This paper got to be 6 to 8 paper I subject that you put one for title 6 for body and 1 for reference. Week 2 – Assignment Grant Proposal – Topic, Specific Aims and BibliographyFor this assignment, you will select a topic for your grant proposal (i.e., Final Project due in Week Six). Then you will write the Specific Aims section and create a preliminary bibliography. You will conduct a search in the Ashford University Library and/or on PubMedCentral (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. to locate at least 10 scholarly peer-reviewed articles that are relevant and that support your funding request. Create your preliminary annotated bibliography and ensure that your resources are relevant and supportive of the Specific Aims as well as the Background and Significance sections of your grant proposal (the Background and Significance sections will be written in Week Three). See a sample annotated bibliography (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. from the Ashford Writing Center for assistance. Compose the Specific Aims section following the Grant Proposal Guidelines (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. See the Sample Grant Proposal Template (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. as an example and use it as a template for your Grant Proposal. The assignment should be one page, excluding the bibliography. Sample Annotated BibliographySome of your courses at Ashford University will require you to write an annotated bibliography.An annotated bibliography is a working list of references—books, journal articles, online documents, etc.—that you will use for an essay, research paper, or project.Although there are no strict formatting guidelines for the annotated bibliography itself, each reference should be cited in APA format.After each citation, provide a summary of the source, indicating how it will inform your essay, research paper, or project.Many pertinent ideas and supporting details come from analyzing and summarizing your sources. California State University Northridge Psychological Development Discussion. An annotated bibliography helps you get a head start on your assignment, and it encourages you to focus your topic as you assess each source, choosing the key ideas and sources that are most valuable for your assignment.Also, you can keep track of your sources as well as the correct formatting for each reference.Note: Many of the references listed here are older sources.Please be aware that some Ashford classes may require that students use sources that were published within the last five years.Provided below is a sample annotated bibliography.Annotated BibliographyAslanian, C. B. (2001). Adult students today. New York, NY: The College Board.Exceptional resource for statistics on adult learners and their motivation for returning to school.The author presents a study spanning 20 years that illustrates extensive demographics including average age, income, travel distance, cost, ethnicity, gender, religion, and field of study.Brookfield, S. (n.d.). Adult learning: An overview. Retrieved from http://www.nl.edu/ace/Resources/Documents/AdultLea…Excellent and thorough article covering four major research areas: self-directed learning, critical reflection, experiential learning, and learning to learn.The author refutes current definitions of adult learning and motivation and proposes instead that culture, ethnicity, and personality have greater significance than are espoused in current descriptions of adult learners.This article is interesting to consider because it diametrically opposes the existing and widely accepted views on the subject.Donaldson, J. F., Graham, S. W., Martindill, W., & Bradley, S. (2000). Adult undergraduate students: How do they define their experiences and their success? Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 48(2), 2–11. Retrieved from the ERIC database.A small study confirming current thinking that adults return to school for primarily external reasons, e.g., a major life event or career advancement.The research further illustrates that actual success in learning comes from an internal locus of control that includes life experience, maturity, motivation, and self-monitoring.Marienau, C. (1999). Self-assessment at work: Outcome of adult learners’ reflections on practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 49(3), 135. Retrieved from the ProQuest Central database.A qualitative study of adults in graduate programs and their use of self-assessment and experiential learning from the perspectives of performance at work and personal development.This article is enlightening, for it explores the benefits to the adult learner of self-assessment and introspection.The concept of purposefulness and the need for the adult learner to connect learning with concrete experience are discussed. Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (2001). Adult learning theories, principles and applications. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.This is a textbook used for the training of instructors of adult students.The text contains several excellent and pertinent chapters devoted to the self-determination of the adult student and the need for programs to be designed that allow adults to use their problemsolving skills.Moore, B. L. (1999). Adult student learners. Retrieved from http://www.sa.psu.edu/sara/pulse/adults_65shtmlThis website contains a survey of adult learners’ perceptions of their educational experience at Penn State.The study contains a large survey sample and generally confirms the findings of other studies at major universities.The important information gleaned is that the emphasis on adult learner programs at traditional universities is a much higher priority due to the increasing population of adult students.Sheldon, K. M., & Houser, M. L. (2001). General motivation for college measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 152–165. Retrieved from the OVID database. California State University Northridge Psychological Development Discussion. This source is a psychosocial instrument designed to measure adult students’ general motivation for attending college.This instrument is appropriate to my research topic because it profiles adult students and rates motivation in terms of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors.It supports the findings in my other sources and adds another component: the pursuit of happinessGrant Proposal Guidelines – Final Project Instructions:This assignment involves preparing a grant proposal requesting support for a 12-month research project. The total amount of support you may request is $60,000 (including direct and indirect costs).You will choose a specific topic in neuroscience or neuropsychology and develop a grant proposal based on a review of the literature and identification of a research hypothesis. The grant proposal must be six to eight double-spaced pages in length (not including title page, references list, and appendix), 12point font, and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. You must use at least 15 peer-reviewed sources in addition to the text.The components of your proposal are outlined below. View the Sample Grant Proposal to see an example of a completed proposal in APA format. Use the Grant Proposal Template to create your grant proposal. NOTE: All titles should be centered and all content should be formatted as in the Grant Proposal Template and the Sample Grant Proposal, not as outlined below in this guidelines document.Title Page (1 page): • Title of your grant proposal • Your full name • Course name and number • Instructor’s name • Date submitted Specific Aims: (1 page) Clearly and concisely state the goals of your grant proposal. Summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will exert on the research field(s) involved. List the specific objectives of your grant proposal (e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology). Background: (6 – 8 pages for Background, Significance, Proposed Study, and Budget Justification sections) The goal of this section is to provide a well-developed literature review that provides the basis for the research problem and illustrates to the reader that you are knowledgeable about the scope of the theory. California State University Northridge Psychological Development Discussion. Research as many studies pertaining to the theory as possible, and summarize them in a succinct manner. In most respects, this section is precisely what you do when you write the introduction section to a research paper. Your background section should clearly state the rationale for the topic you have chosen. It includes the literature review you conducted to identify an area of neuroscience or neuropsychology that has not yet been studied. At the end of this section, you should clearly specify your research hypotheses. Significance: Explain the importance of the problem or critical barriers to progress in the field that the proposed project addresses. Explain how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice in one or more broad fields. Describe how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field will be changed if the proposed aims are achieved.PSY625: Biological Bases of BehaviorAshford University Grant Proposal Guidelines Proposed Study: This section will very much resemble a typical methods section like the one you would write in an empirical paper (except that the data have not yet been collected). You should describe the study that you are proposing to conduct to test your hypothesis. This section should include the following subsections: • Participants: include a description of the population that will be used for the study.Point out any procedures, situations, or materials that may be hazardous to personnel and precautions to be exercised. • Procedures:include a description of how the study will be conducted including any instruments that will be used and how the data will be collected. • Hypotheses and Analysis: state hypotheses of the proposed study and general outline of how data will be collected and used to accomplish the specific aims of the project.Budget Justification: Provide a brief summary justifying your budget and the needs for the items listed in Appendix A: Budget. The actual numbers will be listed in Appendix A.The budget for this proposal is limited to $60,000.References: Cite a minimum of 15 peer-reviewed articles from the Ashford University Library or PubMed Central (PMC). All sources must be current (published within the 10 years unless it’s a seminal work) and relevant to your topic. Format all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.Appendix A: Budget: (see Grant Proposal Template, Appendix A) A typical grant proposal has a very detailed budget. For our purposes here, you should include an appendix with a completed budget. Your figures are just an estimate so feel free to make up the budget numbers and figures. Use the template called Summary Proposal Budget in the Grant Proposal Template, Appendix A to create your budget.There is also an optional Budget Calculation Spreadsheet to help you calculate your figures. The goal of this exercise is for you to spend time thinking about the costs of conducting research. Here are some examples of expenses you could include: Direct Costs: • Personnel:o Graduate research assistant salary – 20-hours per week for 12 months is roughly $25,000 (this covers salary, tuition, and fringe benefits). o Principal Investigator Salary – make-up your annual salary and divide it by 12, then multiple this number by the number of months of salary you wish to pay yourself (this can range from 1-12 months; and from 10% to 100% effort). • Equipment: o List major purchases (greater than $5000) that will be necessary to complete your project (e.g., computers, video equipment, physiological measures, expensive software, etc.) and costs.• Travelo Conference Travel o Other (e.g., travel for research assistant if needed for study) • Participant Support o Costs for subject participation (e.g., reimbursement for time, travel, etc.) • Other o Computers or other equipment less than $5000 o Miscellaneous Expenses (e.g., postage, phone bills, photocopying, etc.) PSY625: Biological Bases of BehaviorAshford University Grant Proposal Guidelines Indirect Costs: Multiply the total direct costs budget by 0.375. This amount (37.5%) represents the indirect costs of your grant application. This money goes to the university toward operating costs, overhead, etc. California State University Northridge Psychological Development Discussion. Total Costs:Sum up your direct and indirect costs (must not exceed $60,000). Sample of grant proposal[Type over the sample text in this document to create your Grant Proposal. Delete these instructions before submitting your proposal.]Effects of Internet Based Training on Cognition in Older AdultsStudent A. SmithPSY625: Biological Bases of BehaviorInstructor B. Jones, PhD.September 19, 2014 Effects of Internet Based Training on Cognition in Older AdultsSpecific AimsThe idea that maintaining high levels of cognitive activity protects the brain from neurodegeneration is not new, and much evidence has accumulated that people with high levels of cognitive ability and activity tend to maintain cognitive function well as they age (Hertzog et al. 2009). Beyond the idea of maintaining cognitive function in healthy aging, studies such as Verghese et al. (2003) found that higher levels of cognitive activity were associated with lower rates of dementia in a 21- year longitudinal study. While much of the data indicating higher levels of cognitive activity leads to better long-term function is necessarily correlational, a number of studies have begun to systematically assess the effect of cognitive interventions on cognitive function. The largest of these, the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly (ACTIVE; Jobe et al. 2001) has found long lasting effects (5 years; Willis et al. 2006) of relatively short cognitive training activities (10 hours).The specific aim of this proposal is to assess the effectiveness of A Fictitious Brain Training Program on research participants followed longitudinally who may be experiencing the very earliest signs of cognitive decline. Recent research tracking the trajectory of age related cognitive decline (e.g., Mungas et al. 2010) has suggested that it may be possible to identify cognitively healthy individuals at risk for significant imminent cognitive decline by examining baseline cognitive assessments or recent change, even though test scores do not reach the abnormal range.BackgroundTechniques for maintaining and enhancing cognitive function in an increasingly aging population are of great potential benefit to those who might suffer from Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders and also to society as a whole. Higher cognitive function leads to better maintenance of activities of daily life, less need for chronic care, and direct improvements in quality of life. Research examining effective methods for cognitive enhancement is becoming increasingly prevalent and has led to a number of recent review studies, e.g., Hertzog et al. (2009), Lustig et al. (2009), Green & Bavalier (2008). These studies review evidence from both longitudinal studies of increased levels of mental activity on maintenance of cognitive function and intervention studies aimed at directly improving cognition with targeted cognitive training. For these cognitive interventions to provide widespread benefit, it is critical to identify who will gain from cognitive intervention studies and to assess methods of administering effective cognitive training.In a large scale cognitive intervention study (ACTIVE), Ball et al. (2002) found that training increased cognitive function with as little as 10 hours of task-specific training and these gains were still evident 5 years later (Willis et al. 2006). However, none of the three types of training used in that study were found to generalize to the other types of cognitive function. Participants were trained on either verbal episodic memory, reasoning (pattern identification), or speed-of-processing (visual search skills). Gains were observed in the domain of training, but not on the other two domains. As noted by Salthouse (2006), this result is inconsistent with the strongest form of the “use it or lose it” hypothesis. However, it does hold promise for cognitive training interventions that train broadly across a wide variety of domains. The hypotheses implied by the “use it or lose it” hypothesis is that cognitive training is protective broadly against the cognitive decline associated with aging. The more commonly observed specific areas of training improvement suggest an analogy to physical fitness training: the brain should not be thought of as a single “muscle” to be strengthened but as a collection of individual abilities that could each be improved through “exercise.” In addition, the analogy could be extended to the idea that cognitive training “exercise” should be thought of as an activity to be engaged in on a regular basis, not as a single intervention.The cognitive training that will be used in the proposed project is based on an internet delivered set of activities designed by the company BrainExercise. The training is based on practice across a wide range of cognitive abilities, and by being highly available via the internet, is also available for regular follow-up re-training to maintain benefits. With this type of intervention, even if a cognitive intervention training does not provide a global benefit and delay decline across all types of cognition, training can be used across many areas to increase overall function. The ability to deliver cognitive training via the internet becomes important logistically since the benefit of training may depend on regular access to a broad array of cognitive activities. In the successful ACTIVE study, training was administered in face-to-face sessions requiring significant personnel and logistical support.The issue of identifying tasks suitable for cognitive training with memory-impaired patients is an important one. In a follow-up reanalysis of the ACTIVE study data, Unverzagt et al. (2007) found that patients scoring >1.5 standard deviations low on memory tests did not benefit from the verbal episodic memory training in ACTIVE. In addition to seeing cognitive training as a method for delaying or reducing the onset of memory disorders such as MCI or AD (as in Verghese et al. 2003), suitable interventions to try to rehabilitate memory function or train compensatory strategies may provide an important benefit to MCI and AD patients.Numerous studies have suggested that elderly who are currently cognitively within the normal range, but on the lower end of the range are at risk for subsequent cognitive decline, including the development of Alzheimer’s Disease (Rubin et al, 1998; Sliwinski, Lipton, Buschke, & Stewart, 1996).Older participants who score within normal cognitive ranges but who exhibit personal cognitive decline within that normal range are also at higher risk for the later development of Alzheimer’s Disease (Villemagne et al, 2008; Collie et al, 2001). California State University Northridge Psychological Development Discussion. The most at-risk group of currently healthy elderly may be those who have shown some cognitive decline and are now at the bottom of the healthy range. Since this proposal is to investigate at the effectiveness of cognitive training in patients at risk for Alzheimer’s Disease, the ideal comparison groups are healthy older adults who are at increased risk relative to their age group (cognitively normal, but lower scoring) and those who are cognitively normal and exhibiting no current evidence of memory impairment. SignificanceThe proposed research will use an online-based software company to administer a structured intervention of cognitive skill training to patients experiencing some memory decline. Prior intervention studies have typically provided cognitive training in individual or small-group environments with the patients physically present with a trainer. If interventions based on training via the internet are shown to have similar benefits, many more people can gain these benefits since the labor involved in administering this type of training is much lower. In addition, improvements in the type of training administered can be made centrally and more quickly positively impact many more patients. For the pilot intervention study proposed here, we will be working with the Brain Science division at A Fictitious Company. The Fictitious program is a home-based, computerized, cognitive training program in which a customized training plan is developed for each participant based on an initial baseline cognitive assessment and ongoing training progress. The training plan is based on 21 different tasks that each focus on one or two of 14 different specific cognitive abilities. To collaborate on examining the effectiveness of their training plan, they are making available licenses for all study participants to access the training program without cost. In addition, all performance data on all compliance, cognitive assessments and performance on training components will be available for collaborative analysis to assess efficacy of specific training elements in our study population.The ability to deliver cognitive training via the internet holds tremendous promise for making training benefits available widely. California State University Northridge Psychological Development Discussion. Concerns about the task-specificity of benefits and the need for consistent training to maintain cognitive function can be met by making training easily available at home. The proposed research will work with the cognitive science research group of the A Fictitious company to assess the effectiveness of their targeted, individually customized cognitive training methods to improve cognitive functions in patients engaged in long-term outcome research at the Brain Center at an Important University.Proposed StudyParticipants: Forty cognitively normal participants will be recruited, including 20 participants scoring 1 SD below age and IQ-adjusted norms on neuropsychological tests of memory (Rentz et al. 2004), and 20 participants scoring no worse than .5 SD below adjusted norms. Participants will be recruited from A University.The patients will be randomly assigned to two groups: intervention and waitlist (baseline) control. The intervention group will receive cognitive training via Fictitious Brain Training Program over a two month period. The waitlist control will not initially receive training. However, since we expect that the training will provide benefits to the patients, participants in the waitlist control group will be given access to the Fictitious Brain Training Program software at the end of the protocol following the “post-training” assessment. This ensures fair and ethical treatment of groups as well as providing additional data about the effectiveness of the Fictitious Brain Training Program. There are no major risks to patients who participate in the research. The training program is designed to be self-paced so that patients can manage fatigue or frustration. Patients may elect to stop participating in the study at any time. The potential benefits of the proposed research are considerable. The study protocol may provide a treatment to slow or reverse the cognitive decline associated with MCI (and Alzheimer’s Disease) using the internet, making this treatment broadly and inexpensively accessible.Procedures: Once identified as a candidate for enrollment, patients will be met with in person at their residence. Patients will have the training protocol described and provide informed consent if they wish to enroll. Availability of necessary internet access will be assessed. Once enrolled, patients will be provided with a license to access The Brain Training Program and a research assistant will guide them through the initial setup process. The intervention will follow the standard Brain Training Program practice: initial assessment on a range of cognitive functions followed by 24 20-minute training sessions over approximately 8 weeks. The rate of training sessions recommended is 3 sessions per week but is ultimately chosen by the patient.These sessions are followed by a re-assessment within the Brain Training Program of performance on their identified group of 14 cognitive functions.Participants’ self-rating of quality of life will be assessed with a Quality of Life-Alzheimer’s disease (QoL-AD) scale described by Logson et al. (2002). While the current participants do not require an assessment of quality of life appropriate for cognitively impaired individuals, all cognitive training improvement in these participants will also be compared with a group of patients who have a diagnosis of MCI and who are currently involved on an ongoing assessment of A Fictitious Brain Training Program. The same set of performance improvement instruments will be used in both studies to provide maximum comparability across all groups. Hypotheses & Analysis: The intervention group is expected to exhibit reliably higher scores on all post-training assessments than the waitlist control group. Scores on the Fictitious Brain Training Program cognitive assessments are very likely to improve reflecting the training invested in those specific cognitive tasks.Improvements on specific cognitive assessments will be compared to estimates of improved domain-specific performance available via the Brain Training Program. For the current population of cognitively normal participants who might be showing the first signs of memory impairment, changes in self-rating of their quality of life (via the QoL-AD) will be examined carefully. While improvements in activities of daily life may not be significantly improved as these patients are not generally impaired, increases in general cognitive function may lead to better overall quality of life by improving problem solving, language comprehension and general attention skills. Improvements on this measure would be a key indicator of the potential of cognitive training to provide significant benefits to older adults.Assessment of improvement will be made for only participants who complete the training course of 24 sessions. Performance of patients who do not complete the training will not indicate whether the training is effective at improving cognitive function. However, the drop-out rate is a key element to assess for evaluating the overall effectiveness of internet-delivered cognitive training. High rates of drop-out (e.g., >25%) may indicate that the cognitive training needs to be adjusted in difficulty to meet the needs of older adults or that additional support (e.g., more patient contact) is needed to guide the patients through the training. An important element of the current project is the assessment of difficulty of completing the training and obtaining feedback from participants about their experiences with the online cognitive training.Budget JustificationFunding is requested for a half-time graduate research assistant to be responsible for all aspects of subject recruitment, training and data collection. Addition funding of 10% is requested for the principal investigator who will oversee the study and conduct data analysis and publication of results.Travel funding is requested for the PI to attend one national meeting to present the preliminary results of the study. Additional travel expenses are requested to pay for costs of transportation by the research assistant to each subject’s home.Subject payment of $50 for each subject (40 total) is requested to reimburse subjects for their participation time.Funding is requested for an Apple Laptop computer (15” with retina display, 2.8 GHz processor, 1 TB hard drive) that will be used for data collection and analysis. Additional funding will be used to purchase the Quality of Life Scale and office supplies.See Appendix A: Budget for detailed budget figures. ReferencesBall, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., Jobe, J. B., Leveck, M. D., Marsiske, M., . . . Willis, S. L. (2002). Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(18), 2271-2281. Collie, A., Maruff, P., Shafiq-Antonacci, R., Smith, M., Hallup, M., Schofield, P. R., . . . Currie, J. (2001). Memory decline in healthy older people: implications for identifying mild cognitive impairment. Neurology, 56(11), 1533-1538. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2008). Exercising your brain: a review of human brain plasticity and training-induced learning. Psychology of Aging, 23(4), 692-701. Hertzog, C., Kramer, A., Wilson, R., & Lindenberger, U. (2008). Enrichment effects on adult cognitive development: Can the functional capacity of older adults be preserved and enhanced. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(1), 1-65.Jobe, J. B., Smith, D. M., Ball, K., Tennstedt, S. L., Marsiske, M., Willis, S. L., . . . Kleinman, K. (2001). ACTIVE: a cognitive intervention trial to promote independence in older adults. Controlled Clinical Trials, 22(4), 453-479. Logsdon, R. G., Gibbons, L. E., McCurry, S. M., & Teri, L. (2002). Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(3), 510-519. Lustig, C., Shah, P., Seidler, R., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2009). Aging, training, and the brain: a review and future directions. Neuropsychology Review, 19(4), 504-522. Mungas, D., Beckett, L., Harvey, D., Farias, S. T., Reed, B., Carmichael, O., . . . DeCarli, C. (2010). Heterogeneity of cognitive trajectories in diverse older persons. Psychology of Aging, 25(3), 606-619. Rentz, D. M., Huh, T. J., Faust, R. R., Budson, A. E., Scinto, L. F., Sperling, R. A., & Daffner, K. R. (2004). Use of IQ-adjusted norms to predict progressive cognitive decline in highly intelligent older individuals. Neuropsychology, 18(1), 38-49.Rubin, E. H., Storandt, M., Miller, J. P., Kinscherf, D. A., Grant, E. A., Morris, J. C., & Berg, L. (1998). A prospective study of cognitive function and onset of dementia in cognitively healthy elders. Archives of Neurology, 55(3), 395-401. Salthouse, T. (2006). Mental exercise and mental aging: Evaluating the validity of the “use it or lose it” hypothesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(1), 68-87.Sliwinski, M., Lipton, R. B., Buschke, H., & Stewart, W. (1996). The effects of preclinical dementia on estimates of normal cognitive functioning in aging. Journal of Gerontology:Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51(4), P217-P225. Unverzagt, F. W., Kasten, L., Johnson, K. E., Rebok, G. W., Marsiske, M., Koepke, K. M., . . . Tennstedt, S. L. (2007). Effect of memory impairment on training outcomes in ACTIVE. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 13(6), 953-960. Verghese, J., Lipton, R. B., Katz, M. J., Hall, C. B., Derby, C. A., Kuslansky, G., . . . Buschke, H. (2003). Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly. New England Journal of Medicine, 348(25), 2508-2516 Villemagne, V. L., Pike, K. E., Darby, D., Maruff, P., Savage, G., Ng, S., . . . Rowe, C.(2008). A? deposits in older non-demented individuals with cognitive decline are indicative of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 46(6), 1688-1697.Willis, S. L., Tennstedt, S. L., Marsiske, M., Ball, K., Elias, J., Koepke, K. M., . . . Wright, E. (2006). Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Society, 296(23), 2805-2814Appendix A: Budget SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET FOR INSTITUTION USE ONLY ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL NO.