NURS 8201 WEEK 7 DISCUSSION: USE OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
NURS 8201 WEEK 7 DISCUSSION: USE OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
Regression analysis provides the researcher with an opportunity to predict and explore future outcomes. Whether it is to determine prevention methods, promote opportunities for learning, or propose new treatments, looking towards the future can have a significant impact on patient care and sustained positive patient outcomes.
This week, you explore regression analysis, paying particular attention to linear regression. Linear regression is used to “estimate the value of a dependent variable based on the value of an independent variable” (Gray & Grove, 2020). In your Discussion, you will apply your understanding of this statistical technique as it concerns use in a research study.
Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us
For this Discussion, you will select an article on a study to examine the strengths and weaknesses in the use of linear regression. Consider how you might remedy the weaknesses associated with the application of linear regression and reflect on how the findings of the study that you selected might contribute to various areas of your practice.
TO PREPARE:
- Review the articles in this week’s Learning Resources and evaluate their use of linear regression. Select one article that interests you to examine more closely in this Discussion.
- Critically analyze the article that you selected and consider the strengths and weaknesses described.
- Reflect on potential remedies to address these weaknesses, and how the findings from this study may contribute to evidence-based practice, the field of nursing, or society in general.
write a brief description of the article that you selected, providing its correct APA citation. Critically analyze the article by addressing the following questions:
- What are the goals and purposes of the research study that the article describes?
- How is linear or logistic regression used in the study? What are the results of its use?
- What other quantitative and statistical methods could be used to address the research issue discussed in the article?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
Then, explain potential remedies to address the weaknesses that you identified for the research article that you selected. Analyze the importance of this study to evidence-based practice, the nursing profession, or society. Be specific and provide examples.
WEEK 7: LEARNING RESOURCES
- Gray, J. R., & Grove, S. K. (2020). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence(9th ed.). Elsevier.
- Chapter 24, “Using Statistics to Predict” (pp. 675–686)
- Chi, C., Wu, H., Huan, C., & Lee, Y. (2017). Using linear regression to identify critical demographic variables affecting patient safety culture from viewpoints of physicians and nursesLinks to an external site.. Hospital Practices and Research, 2(2), 47–53. doi:10.15171/hpr.2017.12
- De Groot, K., De Veer, A. J. E., Paans, W., & Francke, A. L. (2020). Use of electronic health records and standardized terminologies: A nationwide survey of nursing staff experiencesLinks to an external site.. International Journal of Nursing StudiesLinks to an external site., 104. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103523
- Echevarria, I. M., Patterson, B. J., & Krouse, A. (2017). Predictors of transformational leadership of nurse managersLinks to an external site.. Journal of Nursing Management, 25(3), 167–175. doi:10.1111/jonm.12452
- Edmonson, C. (2015). Strengthening moral courage among nurse leadersLinks to an external site.. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 20(2). doi:10.3912/OJIN.Vol20No20PPT01
- Malagon-Aguilera, M. C., Suñer-Soler, R., Bonmatí-Tomas, A., Bosch-Farré, C., Gelabert-Vilella. S., & Juvinyà-Canal, D. (2019). Relationship between sense of coherence, health and work engagement among nursesLinks to an external site.. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(8), 1620–1630. doi:10.1111/jonm.12848
- Westland, H., Schuurmans, M. J., Bos-Touwen, I. D., de Bruin-van Leersum, M. A., Monninkhof, E. M., Schröder, C. D., de Vette, D. A., & Trappenburg, J. C. (2020). Effectiveness of the nurse-led Activate intervention in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care: A cluster-randomised controlled trialLinks to an external site.. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 19(8), 721–731. doi:10.1177/1474515120919547
- Yeom, H.-E. (2021). Causal beliefs about hypertension and self-care behaviour in Korean patientsLinks to an external site.. Collegian, 28(1), 48–56. doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2020.04.007
- Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative researchLinks to an external site.. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658–663. doi:10.12968/bjon.2007.16.11.23681
- Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative researchLinks to an external site.. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12), 738–744. doi:10.12968/bjon.2007.16.12.23726
- Vance, D. E., Talley, M., Azuero, A., Pearce, P. F., & Christian, B. J. (2013). Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readersLinks to an external site.. Nursing: Research and Reviews, 3, 67–75. doi:10.2147/NRR.S43374
PreviousNext
Assignment Rubric DetailsClose
Rubric
NURS_8201_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
| NURS_8201_Week7_Discussion_Rubric |
| Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) |
| 20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts. |
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts. |
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part. |
12 to >0 pts
Poor
• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty. |
|
20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) |
| 30 to >29.0 pts
Excellent
Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. |
29 to >23.0 pts
Good
Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. |
23 to >18.0 pts
Fair
Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. |
18 to >0 pts
Poor
Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. |
|
30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) |
| 20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty. |
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty. |
|
20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) |
| 20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty. |
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty. |
|
20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) |
| 10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
9 to >8.0 pts
Good
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
8 to >6.0 pts
Fair
Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
6 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
|
10 pts |
| Total Points: 100 |
