We need to write a lab report on how valid and reliable are four self-reporting questionnaires on depression and anxiety. There are two different studies, the inter-rater reliability of HRSD-17, and the convergent validity of the three others. So there are two hypothesis. We need to calculate 2 scratterplots, one between CES-D and PHQ-9, and the other one is between PHQ-9 and GAD-7. Here is what they wrote us to do : Write-up Points to ConsiderTitleAbstractA clear, concise summary of your research project, describing; Objectives, Methods, Results & ConclusionIntroductionThe Introduction is where you clarify to the reader what is under investigation and why. This requires a brief general overview of the topic area, becoming more focused as the introduction proceeds, so that it leads into exactly what your research question is and ending specifically on your hypotheses. Along the way you may highlight previous research findings and any other relevant information which enhances the readers understanding of why this current study is important. Your introduction should briefly outline the advantages of using standardised assessment measures for; (a) structured clinical interview for assessing depression severity and (b) standardised self-report questionnaires for screening for depression and anxiety. You should end your Introduction with hypotheses relating to:(a) the expected agreement between raters for the total HSRD-17 scores (b) the expected agreement/correlation between (i) two self-report depression questionnaires (PHQ-9 v CES-D) (ii) a depression questionnaire and an anxiety questionnaire (PHQ-9 v GAD-7)MethodYou should outline the procedure adopted in a brief yet concise manner. Participant information for the entire class will be made available on CANVAS in the week beginning Monday 29th January. Remember to include enough information so that others can replicate this study, however avoid presenting a shopping ‘list’ or adopting a style that is reminiscent of following a ‘recipe’. At the end you need to let the reader know your hypotheses so they know what to expect when reading the results. Participants A brief description of the participants i.e. the class, number of males/females and age (mean, median, minimum, maximum and range).ApparatusBrief description of of the video interview, the HSRD-17 rating scale and the 3 self-report self-report questionnaire measures (PHQ-9, CES-D and CES-D). ProcedureBrief description of what was done in the lab class, describing; (a) observing the clinical interview and (b) completing the three self-report questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were then calculated for the total HSRD-17 total.Correlations and scatterplots were run on (i) PHQ-9 versus CES-D and (ii) PHQ-9 versus GAD-7. PHQ nine versus GAD-7. Clinical Psychology Lab Manual – Page 7Results(a) HSRD-17. Present descriptive data on the HSRD-17 total scores for the class (mean, median, standard deviation together with minimum, maximum rand range.Brief description/comment on variation in scores(b) The self-report questionnaires – correlations and scatterplot of (i) PHQ-9 versus CES-D and (ii) PHQ-9 versus GAD-7. Brief description/comment of strengths of association for each.DiscussionBegin the discussion by summarising your key findings.Interview Comment on the range of scores. What does this mean in terms of the reliability of assessing depression using the HSRD-17?How could inter-rater reliability/agreement be improved for the HSRD-17?Self-report QuestionnairesComment on the correlation between the two self-report depression questionnaires (PHQ-9 and CES-D). Comment on the correlation between the depression measure (PHQ-9) and anxiety measure GAD-7). Do the class results suggest that depression and anxiety are separate or related constructs?There is no need to repeat your results verbatim, just give enough information to make the link possible. A common error is to jump into looking at the limitations of the study, however try to provide an overview of the whole project from a constructively critical approach. You should highlight the advantages and disadvantages of these forms of assessment. If possible, a brief discussion of how your findings compare and contrast to previous research may be useful. The closing section of the discussion should cover methodological limitations, future recommendations and provide a conclusion. ReferencesAppendix (150 words maximum – NB this is not included in the total 1500 lab report word limit. The 1500 word limit includes the abstract and the main body of the lab report but excludes the references and the appendix). The appendix should provide qualitative observations on the pseudo-patients’ behaviour in the clinical interview, commenting on speech speed, tone, posture, gestures and other non-verbal behaviours.