NURS 8201 Week 5 Discussion: t-Tests and ANOVA in Clinical Practice
Discussion: t-Tests and ANOVA in Clinical Practice
You are the responsible for overseeing staffing for the telehealth services provided at your practice. To determine the number of nurses that you might need for these services, you must determine how many patients might be interested in using the telehealth services versus the traditional clinical practice setting. For a week, you ask each patient visiting the practice his or her interest in setting up a visit via telehealth services. At the conclusion of the week, you use this data and reasoning to develop a statistic of the population interested in telehealth services. You have successfully used inferential statistics to help guide your decision-making for your practice.
Photo Credit: fizkes / Adobe Stock
The scenario outlined provides a random sampling and assumptions to develop a conclusion. With assumptions, and in this case, a small random sampling, this scenario is ripe with the possibility of error. However, how might inferential statistics be used in a valid and credible way?
Struggling to meet your deadline ?
Get assistance on
NURS 8201 Week 5 Discussion: t-Tests and ANOVA in Clinical Practice
done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
The design of a study determines the validity of the results, and if done following appropriate techniques, inferential statistics can determine clear differences and help researchers to form conclusions. In your Discussion, you will focus on two forms of identifying differences in groups:
For this Discussion, review the Learning Resources and reflect on a healthcare issue of interest to find a research article in which to analyze the use of inferential statistical analysis. Reflect on how the study was comprised, the validity of the findings, and whether or not it increased the study’s application to EBP
To Prepare:
- Consider some of the important issues in healthcare delivery or nursing practice today. Bring to mind the topics to which you have been exposed through previous courses in your program of study, as well as any news items that have caught your attention recently. Select one topic to focus on for this Discussion.
- Review journal, newspaper, and/or internet articles that may provide credible information on your selected topic. Then, select one research article to focus on for this Discussion that used inferential statistical analysis (either a t-test or ANOVA) to study the topic.
- With information from the Learning Resources in mind, evaluate the purpose and value of the research study discussed in your selected article and consider the following questions:
- Who comprised the sample in this study?
- What were the sources of data?
- ?
- What were the findings?
- Ask yourself: How did using an inferential statistic bring value to the research study? Did it increase the study’s application to evidence-based practice?
By Day 3 of Week 5
Post a brief description of the topic that you selected for this Discussion. Summarize the study discussed in your selected research article and provide a complete APA citation. Be sure to include a summary of the sample studied, data sources, inferential statistic(s) used, and associated findings. Then, evaluate the purpose and value of this particular research study to the topic. Did using inferential statistics strengthen or weaken the study’s application to evidence-based practice? Why or why not? Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 5
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:
- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
- Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
- Suggest an alternative perspective based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
- Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 5 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 5 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 5
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 5 Discussion
Name: NURS_8201_Week5_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent
90–100 |
Good
80–89 |
Fair
70–79 |
Poor
0–69 |
|||
| Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. |
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. |
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. |
||
| Main Posting:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
||
| Main Posting:
Timely and full participation |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. |
||
| First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| First Response:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| First Response:
Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| Second Response: Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| Second Response: Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Name: NURS_8201_Week5_Discussion_Rubric
Struggling to meet your deadline ?
Get assistance on
NURS 8201 Week 5 Discussion: t-Tests and ANOVA in Clinical Practice
done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!