coursework-banner

NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

Clinical decision is of utmost importance in the provision of quality health outcomes. Contingent upon this premise, the two articles establish decision-making procedures and practice guidelines relevant for clinical practice. The first study assesses the feasibility of decision-making processes by nurses stationed at the emergency department of a care facility (Fisher, Orkin & Frazer, 2010). On the other hand, the work of Tjia et al. (2010) purposes to develop guidelines required to monitor the dispensation of high-risk medications while at the same time establish the prevalence of existing laboratory testing concerning these medications. In order to draw clinical evidence on a factor in decision making, the article by Fisher, Orkin and Frazer (2010) employed the usage of nonparametric tests comprising Fisher’s exact tests and chi-square. The study relied on conjoint analysis to reflect upon the decision-making patterns. The results of this study provided quality outcomes by demonstrating that nurses depended on the functional status of patients, future health status, and family input to undertake decisions on healthcare delivery for their clients. The article by Tjia et al. (2010) utilized t-test and Likert-type scale to formulate guidelines for the utilization of high-risk drugs and to monitor the frequency of dispensing them. The non-parametric test was instrumental in developing medication dispensing guidelines in terms of drug classes, the frequency of medication, monitoring and laboratory testing for efficacy.

The 2010 IOM report had four key messages or recommendations for nurses to position themselves strategically in healthcare provision. Firstly, the report stresses the need for nurses to practice to the fullest level of their education and training without any hindrances imposed by state boards of nursing. The message influences nursing practice as it means that nurses should be barred from practicing what they have trained on in different specialties (Price & Reichert, 2018). Secondly, the report asserted that nurses should engage in lifelong learning to acquire higher levels of education and training based on a better education system. The message means that the nursing practice requires professional nurses to engage in continual professional development to attain the latest skills and knowledge in healthcare provision, especially the deployment of technology.

According to numerous empirical studies, parametric parameters receive useful application in the testing of study group means. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the methodology remains debatable within the context of the present articles. For instance, the use of t-test and ANOVA requires normal distribution of the applicable data regarding the research. Since data from the two articles were not distributed, it became paramount for the authors to consider skewing of non-normal distribution to produce the results (Gibbons & Chakraborti, 2011). Therefore, the approach remains embedded on assumptions and as such it has a high vulnerability to error. However, the assertion receives higher applicability in the second article. Nonetheless, the application of ANOVA and t-test requires studies that have a broad distribution of sample sizes, a threshold that neither of the two articles met.

Despite providing results on the clinical decision and high-risk drug dispensing techniques, certain strengths and weakness characterized the studies. The first article used conjoint analysis techniques to design a workable mathematics model required for clinical decision-making process for nurses in the emergency department (Fisher, Orkin & Frazer, 2010). However, the technique involving proxy decision-making for this study is complex considering the premise that it does not uniformly address the responses of all nurses. As such, the study could be subject to speculation hence casting doubt on the accuracy of information obtained from the first study. In the article by Tjia et al. (2010), the selected study design captured a multispecialty population and therefore provided a reflection of clinical practice in the United States of America. However, utilization of the Likert-type scale could subject the study outcomes to errors due to a lack of consensus on the questions administered to participants. Considerably, findings and recommendations in the work of Fisher, Orkin and Frazer (2010) provide the need for aligning clinical decisions as per the patients in the emergency department for purposes of improving the quality of care. Correspondingly, the other article offers guidelines for safe administration of high-risk medications to establish an evidence-based practice in a healthcare setting.

In the entire coursework, the present author discovers nonparametric tests as commonly applied to the processes of analyzing data. Specifically, chi-square dominates most of the literature review in clinical research. Evidently, the adoption of this test has demonstrated effectiveness in the analysis of nominal data. Furthermore, the technique has a high level of accuracy since it has received comparison with observed frequencies obtained from null hypotheses. Nevertheless,  the adoption of other nonparametric tests such as the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests does not readily occur since they measure rank-ordered data. According to Gibbons and Chakraborti (2011), the application of the above-mentioned non-parametric tests in multifarious clinical studies does not normally occur since outliers have the capacity to obscure the outcomes. Moreover, the outliers have minimal impact on the chi-square tests.

Reference

Fisher, K., Orkin, F., & Frazer, C. (2010). Utilizing conjoint analysis to explicate health care decision making by emergency department nurses: a feasibility study. Applied Nursing Research, 23(1), 30-35.

Gibbons, J. D., & Chakraborti, S. (2011). Nonparametric statistical inference. In International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 977-979). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Tjia, J., Field, T. S., Garber, L. D., Donovan, J. L., Kanaan, A. O., Raebel, M. A., … & Gurwitz, J. H. (2010). Development and pilot testing of guidelines to monitor high-risk medications in the ambulatory setting. The American journal of managed care, 16(7), 489-496.

“An essential component of nursing education is ensuring students develop the competencies in the use of empirical evidence in their clinical practice. The fundamental goal of statistics courses is to teach healthcare professionals the proper uses of statistical thinking to enable them to effectively evaluate the literature and integrate evidence into their practice” (Baghi & Kornides, 2014).

Photo Credit: ZoneCreative / iStock / Getty Images

How are research methods used in nursing? What particular methods are used in your area of nursing practice? Over the last few weeks, you have been exploring these questions, and you will continue this exploration examining the specific tests and methods that may be used in your particular area of nursing practice. Why might different methods be used based on an area of practice? Why is it important for DNP-prepared nurses to be familiar with various research methods?

For this Discussion, reflect on the tests and methods utilized in research studies, presented over the last eight weeks of the course, to consider the approach, impact, and purpose of these in conducting nursing research. Using a selected article, consider the approach used and reflect on how that approach might fits within your area of nursing practice.

Reference: Baghi, H., & Kornides, M. (2013). Current and future health care professionals attitudes toward and knowledge of statistics: How confidence influences learning. Journal of Nursing Education Practitioners 3(7), 24–29 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4239707/

NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

To Prepare:

  • Review the articles presented in this week’s Learning Resources and analyze each study’s use of statistical and nonparametric tests.
  • Select an article to focus on for this Discussion.
  • Ask yourself: Which method is most commonly used in research studies that pertain to my area of nursing practice, and why this might be so?

By Day 3 of Week 8

Post a critical analysis of the article that you selected by addressing the following:

  • What are the goals and purpose of the research study described by the article you selected?
  • How are nonparametric tests used in the research study? What are the results of their use? Be specific.
  • Why are parametric methods (t tests and ANOVA) inappropriate for the statistical analysis of the research study’s data? Be specific and provide examples.
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research study (e.g., study design, sampling, and measurement)?
  • How could the findings and recommendations of the research study contribute to evidence-based practice for nursing?

By Day 6 of Week 8

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.

    NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion Statistical Analysis in Nursing
    NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion Statistical Analysis in Nursing
  • 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.
  • Also Read:  

Submission and Grading Information

Also Read:  NURS 8201 Week 7 Discussion: Use of Regression Analysis in Clinical Practice

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 8 Discussion Rubric

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

Post by Day 3 of Week 8 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 8

To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 8 Discussion

The research statement that I chose the research topic discusses the factors that contribute to the prevention of evidence-based pressure ulcers. Evidence-based therapy for pressure ulcer management is not being implemented. Because the hospital structure is complicated, greater expertise is required to comprehend how to enhance nurse care in this field (Sving et al., 2014). In this research problem, the main focus would be looking at the relationships that would be between variables at various levels in the healthcare institutions environments that include the patients, hospitals, the units in the hospitals, and medical providers, in addition to the recordkeeping of threats analysis and evaluation of the skin within 24 hours of hospital admission by use of pressure-relieving mattresses and scheduled realigning in beds.

In researching the relationships between the use of different variables used in reducing pressure ulcers within the first day (24 hours) of admission, there are independent and dependent variables that will be used. The dependent variables in the research would include the recordkeeping of the threats analysis, skin evaluation in the first 24 hours of admission, the employment pressure-relieving mattresses, and scheduled realigning in beds (Sving et al., 2014). The dependent variables would be categorized as continuous data. The documentation of records and threats analysis is a constant measure that cannot be quantified but measured and recorded progressively.

The independent variables would include age, gender, the number of days in hospitalization, the threat score on the research day or rather data collection day, the type of healthcare, the staffing of nurses, and finally, the workload in the hospital. The independent variables would be categorized as ordinal data that I would employ the Braden scale or Likert scale to measure the scores (Robitzsch, 2020). The variables would be analyzed statistically by getting the standard deviation, interquartile range and testing the hypothetical level by determining the confidence interval (Taherdoost, 2016). The disadvantages of the analysis process are that the sampled participants represent the whole community, and testing small data would probably not give the truth of the prevention of pressure ulcers in healthcare institutions.

 

References

Robitzsch, A. (2020). Why Ordinal Variables Can (Almost) Always Be Treated as Continuous Variables: Clarifying Assumptions of Robust Continuous and Ordinal Factor Analysis Estimation Methods. Frontiers in Education5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.589965

Sving, E., Idvall, E., Högberg, H., &Gunningberg, L. (2014). Factors contributing to evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention. A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies51(5), 717–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.09.007

Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. SSRN Electronic Journal. Published. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035

 

Name: NURS_8201_Week8_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_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

You have written an engaging and thoughtful post, which thoroughly gives a comprehensive analysis of Leigh et al. (2020). The use of nonparametric tests, especially the Kruskal-Wallis H test, to discover what determines protection motivation in emergency nurses during the Ebola outbreak is an example of statistical methodology knowledge (Leigh et al., 2020). The case with the gender difference in self-efficacy, supported by post hoc Dunn–Bonferroni tests, serves to deepen the discussion and provide new ideas. I like your idea of choosing not to adopt parametric approaches because data distribution assumptions also give an apparent reason for the decisions made in statistics (Fife, 2020). It is important to note that you discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the research with emphasis on its strong sample size and number of demographic variables while identifying limitations such as cross-section design and response bias.

Furthermore, your ability to link the study’s results to evidence-based nursing practice shows a pragmatic approach that implies critical thought about the broader implications of this research. As a whole, your post is brief and detailed while elaborating on both statistical complexities and practical utilization in the realm of nursing research. Thank you. I look forward to interacting and sharing new ideas in the future. All the best.

References 

Fife, D. (2020). The eight steps of data analysis: A graphical framework to promote sound statistical analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science15(4), 1054-1075. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917333Links to an external site..

Leigh, L., Taylor, C., Glassman, T., Thompson, A., & Sheu, J. J. (2020). A cross-sectional examination of the factors related to emergency nurses’ motivation to protect themselves against an Ebola infection. Journal of emergency nursing46(6), 814-826