A total of 26 students participated in the SP-SBLE. Ten...

Question Answered step-by-step A total of 26 students participated in the SP-SBLE. Ten… A total of 26 students participated in the SP-SBLE. Ten participants were from one university (MidWest 1) and 16 were from the second university (MidWest 2). A majority of the participants were Caucasian, female, age 30-39, with an average of 6.72 years of experience, and were in the MSN track enrolled in the FNP program. Of note, one student was Hispanic/Latino and spoke fluent Spanish, while the remaining were non-Hispanic. In total, 25 students responded to both pretest and posttests of the TSET (MidWest 1 n = 9; MidWest 2 n = 16). However, two MidWest 2 students left items blank and were subsequently dropped from the analysis reducing the MidWest 2 sample size from 16 to 14. Several sets of paired sample and independent sample t-tests were conducted. The first set examined aggregate changes in the mean scores for the full sample. The mean scores for Affective were substantially higher (pre: 8.5; post: 9.1) than the other scales on both the pretest and posttest. Also, posttest scores were significantly higher than pretest scores for all three scales. More detailed results related to changes in perceptions of cultural competence are presented in subsequent publication. On the Jefferson Empathy Scale, aggregate pretest and posttest means were nearly identical (110.4 and 110.3 respectively). In short, there was no change. The paired ttests comparing the pretest and posttest subsamples were also not significant. As shown in Figure 1, the mean values for MidWest 1 rose marginally (116.4 to 119.2) while MidWest 2 mean values fell marginally (107.2 to 105.2). Neither the increase for MidWest 1 nor the decrease for MidWest 2 were significant (the sig. values were 0.45 and 0.75). However, Figure 1 does show significant differences between the two institutions. MidWest 1 had a significantly higher mean on the pretest. While the “t” of 1.94 (sig. = 0.060) is just shy of significance for a two-tailed test, the failure to achieve significance may well have been due to the small sample size (N = 9). Also, given the strong cultural content embedded in the MidWest 1 curriculum, we predicted that these students would have higher scores on pretest measures. This implies a onetailed, positive hypothesis and the sig. value of 0.06 is significant for a one-tailed test. The posttest gap between the schools was larger and clearly significant: 119.2 for MidWest 1 compared to and 105.5 for MidWest 2 respectively (sig. = 0.01). On the Rural Characteristics scale, some students omitted questions and/or identifiers such that it was not possible to link pretest and posttest responses. This required dropping six cases from further analyses, reducing the N for that scale to 20 (MidWest 1, N = 8; MidWest 2, N = 12). On this scale, the total sample showed a significant rise in the mean scores from the pretest to the posttest (t = 5.398; sig. = 0.000). However, the two subsamples were close to each on both tests and both showed significant gains from pretest to posttest. The MidWest 1 mean rose from 3.5 to 3.9 (sig. = 0.06) and the MidWest 2 mean rose from 3.2 to 4.0 (sig. = 0.00). (Again, a sig. of 0.06 for a two-tailed test is significant at p. <0.05 for a one-tailed test, which is the case here). Unlike the JSE findings, the two institutions are not significantly different from each other on either the pretest (t = 0.95; sig. = 0.47) or the posttest (t = 0.51; sig. = 0.62). I need help answering these questions below regarding article above Discuss appropriateness of statistical procedures for the LOMs of data collected. Discuss appropriateness of statistical procedures used to address the study purpose/question/hypotheses. Discuss clarity of description of data analysis procedures. Did the researcher(s) address management of problems with missing data? What level of significance (alpha) was set for this study? Discuss the clarity of presentation of study results (if tables or figures were used, briefly describe them & discuss if/how they made the presentation more understandable). Health Science Science Nursing NURS 5366 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)