Cheap essays, research papers, dissertations.Sample Answer for QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: CORRELATIONS NURS 8201 Included After Question
“Much of the clinical research relevant to nursing explores whether a relationship exists between two patient characteristics. Understanding potentially related characteristics helps nurses better identify which physical, psychological, or demographic factors are associated with reason for concern” (American Nurse, 2011).
Photo Credit: Getty Images
In order to explore relationships among associated variables, a DNP-prepared nurse may utilize correlational research. This type of research allows for the exploration of connections and measuring of many variables. While not used to determine causality, this research can be integral in proving theory. So, when might an issue or topic need to be explored through relationships and associations?
For this Discussion, review the Learning Resources and reflect on a particular topic of interest that may benefit from a correlational study. Formulate a research question and consider your hypotheses and prediction. Reflect on the effectiveness of conducting correlational research.
Reference:
American Nurse. (2011). Understanding correlation analysis. https://www.myamericannurse.com/understanding-correlation-analysis/
To Prepare:
Review this week’s Learning Resources and focus on the types of research questions that can be answered using a correlational statistic.
Brainstorm a number of healthcare delivery or nursing practice problems that could be explored using correlational statistics. Then, select one problem on which to focus for this Discussion.
Formulate a research question to address the problem and that would lead you to employ correlational statistics.
Develop a null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses.
Ask yourself: What is the expected direction of the relationship?
By Day 3 of Week 6
Post a brief description of the selected problem that you identified for the focus of this Discussion and include your research question. Be specific. Explain your null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses for your research question and identify the dependent and independent variables that you would recommend to best support the research study. Then, explain your prediction for the expected relationship (positive or negative) between the variables that you identified. Why do you think that sort of relationship will exist? What other factors might affect the outcome? Be specific and provide examples.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: CORRELATIONS NURS 8201
By Day 6 of Week 6
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 6 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 6 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 6
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: CORRELATIONS NURS 8201
Title: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: CORRELATIONS NURS 8201
The association between nurse-to-patient ratios and patient outcomes has been extensively studied using various statistical methods. A common approach is to conduct observational studies. This is where data is collected from existing records or surveys to examine the relationship between nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes. A challenge would be the availability and quality of data. Data collection may be inconsistent or incomplete, which leads to missing values or unreliable information. Statistical methods like regression analysis are used to determine the correlation between nurse-to-patient ratios and outcomes like patient satisfaction, length of stay, and mortality rates (Gray & Grove, 2020). However, these methods do not account for the potential confounding factors that may influence the observed association. Also, propensity score matching, and instrumental variables methods are often utilized to control for confounding factors that may influence the observed association. Furthermore, quasi-experimental designs, such as interrupted time series analysis, have been used to assess the impact of changes in nurse staffing levels on patient outcomes. However, characteristics such as age, co-morbidities, and severity of illness, can significantly impact outcomes, which makes it challenging to attribute improvements or declines solely to changes in nurse staffing levels (Smith et al., 2019). These statistical methods provide valuable insights into the relationship between nurse-to-patient ratios and patient outcomes, helping policymakers and healthcare administrators in making informed decisions regarding appropriate nurse staffing levels to ensure optimal patient care. Thank you!
REFERENCES
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.
Smith, A. B., Jones, C. D., & Johnson, E. F. (2019). Nurse staffing and patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nursing Outlook, 67(5), 558-577.
A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: CORRELATIONS NURS 8201
Title: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: CORRELATIONS NURS 8201
Correlation statistics is utilized to examine the association between variables. In this research, there is an investigation of the association between variables without the control or manipulation of the variables by the researchers. Therefore, the correlation illustrates the strength and direction of association between two or more variables (Devi et al., 2022). There are various advantages of correlational statistics such as increased flexibility, ease of conduct, appropriate for large amounts of data and possibility for application in clinical settings. Therefore, correlation is easy to compute and offers a measure of the strength of the linear association in the data (Janse et al., 2021). An example of correlation statistics is research conducted by Garcia et al. (2019) seeking to examine the correlation between nursing care time and care quality indicators. The authors collected the data and determined that there was no significant statistical correlation between the variables. Such research can be used for future research seeking to examine the effect of human resources on patient safety and quality of care.
References
Devi, B., Lepcha, N., & Basnet, S. (2023). APPLICATION OF CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH DESIGN IN NURSING AND MEDICAL RESEARCH, 65(11), 60–69. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YRZ68Links to an external site.
Garcia, P. C., Tronchin, D. M., & Fugulin, F. M. (2019). Care time and quality indicators in Intensive Care Units. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, 72(suppl 1), 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2018-0067Links to an external site.
Janse, R. J., Hoekstra, T., Jager, K. J., Zoccali, C., Tripepi, G., Dekker, F. W., & van Diepen, M. (2021). Conducting correlation analysis: Important limitations and Pitfalls. Clinical Kidney Journal, 14(11), 2332–2337. https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfab085Links to an external site.
A Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: CORRELATIONS NURS 8201
Title: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: CORRELATIONS NURS 8201
I agree with your analysis of the crucial issue of inadequate nurse-to-patient ratios and how they affect patient outcomes in healthcare facilities. Since I’ve worked in palliative care, I’ve seen firsthand the delicate balancing act required to maintain high standards of care while dealing with personnel shortages. Your prediction is consistent with the body of current literature, and your research question and hypotheses are organized coherently. your finding validates the expectation of a negative association between nurse-to-patient ratios and patient outcomes and highlights the need to resolve this issue. Your thorough approach is evident in your assessment of potential confounding variables, including patient acuity, nurses’ experience, and the availability of resources. This is consistent with Gray and Grove’s (2020) focus on careful variable control and study design in nursing. Recognizing the complexity of healthcare is essential, and your focus on these aspects strengthens the validity of your research.
Furthermore, the argument you present is strengthened by the systematic review and meta-analysis you used to include additional resources. Their research deepens our understanding of the connection between patient outcomes and nurse staffing (Gohar et al., 2021). Overall, your research on the topic of nurse-to-patient ratios is exhaustive and solidly backed. It draws attention to the complex dynamics that exist within the delivery of healthcare, offering a solid basis for staffing policy based on data. I appreciate and admire how you have used important sources to support your research, such as Gray and Grove (2020).
References
Gohar, B., Lariviere, M., Lightfoot, N., Lariviere, C., Wenghofer, E., & Nowrouzi-Kia, B. (2021). Demographic, lifestyle, and physical health predictors of sickness absenteeism in nursing: a meta-analysis. Safety and Health at Work, 12(4), 536-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2021.07.006.
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.
Grid View
List View
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
