WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT: T-TESTS AND ANOVA
WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT: T-TESTS AND ANOVA
You are a DNP-Prepared nurse tasked with evaluating patient care at your practice compared to patient care at affiliated practices. You have noticed that a key complaint from your patients concerns the wait times associated with each patient visit. Based on these complaints, you have decided to compare the wait times at your practice to the wait times at affiliated practices. After recording the wait times at each practice, for 50 individual patients at each practice, you are now prepared to analyze your data. What approach will you use to analyze the data?
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT: T-TESTS AND ANOVA HERE
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
In the scenario provided, you might decide to use, the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) approach. “ANOVA is a statistical procedure that compares data between two or more groups or conditions to investigate the presence of differences between those groups on some continuous dependent variable” (Gray & Grove, 2020). ANOVA is often a recommended statistical technique, as it has low chance of error for determining differences between three or more groups.
For this Assignment, analyze the ANOVA statistics provided in the ANOVA Exercises SPSS Output document. Examine the results to determine the differences and reflect on how you would interpret these results.
Reference: 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.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
TO PREPARE:
Review the Week 5 ANOVA Exercises SPSS Output provided in this week’s Learning Resources.
Review the Learning Resources on how to interpret ANOVA results to determine differences.
Consider the results presented in the SPSS output and reflect on how you might interpret the results presented.
THE ASSIGNMENT: (2–3 PAGES)
Summarize your interpretation of the ANOVA statistics provided in the Week 5 ANOVA Exercises SPSS Output document.
Note: Interpretation of the ANOVA output should include identification of the -value to determine whether the differences between the group means are statistically significant.
Be sure to accurately evaluate each of the results presented (descriptives, ANOVA results, and multiple comparisons using post-hoc analysis)
Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632
Links to an external site.
). All papers submitted must use this formatting.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Rubric
NURS_8201_Week5_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_8201_Week5_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
45 pts
40 pts
5 pts
5 pts
5 pts
Total Points: 100
45 to >40.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly summarizes, in detail, the ANOVA statistics provided…. An accurate and detailed explanation of the p-value describing whether the differences are statistically significant is provided.
40 to >35.0 pts
Good
The response accurately summarizes the ANOVA statistics provided…. An accurate explanation of the p-value describing whether the differences are statistically significant is provided.
35 to >31.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the ANOVA statistics provided…. An inaccurate or vague explanation of the p-value describing whether the differences are statistically significant is provided.
31 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the ANOVA statistics provided, or itis missing…. An inaccurate and vague explanation of the p-value describing whether the differences are statistically significant is provided, or it is missing.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Be sure to evaluate each of the results presented (descriptives, ANOVA results, and multiple comparisons).
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly evaluates, in detail, each of the results presented in the document (descriptives, ANOVA results, and multiple comparisons).
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response accurately evaluates each of the results presented in the document (descriptives, ANOVA results, and multiple comparisons).
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the results presented in the document (descriptives, ANOVA results, and multiple comparisons)…. OR… The response summarizes < 3 of the results provided.
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the results presented in the document (descriptives, ANOVA results, and multiple comparisons), or it is missing.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
WEEK 5: LEARNING RESOURCES
Required Readings
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 25, “Using Statistics to Determine Differences” (pp. 687–698)
Donovan, L. M., & Payne, C. L. (2021). Organizational commitment of nurse faculty teaching in accelerated baccalaureate nursing programs.Links to an external site.
Nursing Education Perspectives,42(2), 81–86. doi:10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000764
Gray, J. A., & Kim, J. (2020). Palliative care needs of direct care workers caring for people with intellectual and developmental disabilitiesLinks to an external site.
. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 69–77. doi:10.1111/bld.12318
Hilvert, E., Hoover, J., Sterling, A., & Schroeder, S. (2020). Comparing tense and agreement productivity in boys with fragile X syndrome, children with developmental language disorder, and children with typical developmentLinks to an external site.
. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 63(4), 1181–1194. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00022
Document: Week 5 ANOVA Exercises SPSS Output Download Week 5 ANOVA Exercises SPSS Output
(PDF)