Self-Study: Comparison of Means, Part 1
Throughout the course, there will be a self-study Discussion pertaining to an important concept or topic covered within the assigned week. These Discussions are designed to give you the opportunity to collaborate with your peers and faculty, test your knowledge, ask questions, practice research analysis, and assist your peers.
You are not required to post to this forum; however, you are encouraged to post, review the posts of others, as well as answer questions and/or provide clarity and collaboration with your peers. Discussions will be graded as either Complete or Incomplete.
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
· Dang, D., Dearholt, S. L., Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2021).
Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model & guidelines (4th ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.
· Chapter 6, “Evidence of Appraisal: Research” (pp. 155–158)
· Appendix E, “Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” (pp. 298–302)
· Appendix F, “Nonresearch Evidence Appraisal Tool” (pp. 307–314)
· Appendix G, “Individual Evidence Table” (pp. 315–318)
· Salkind, N., & Frey, B. (2019).
Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.
· Chapter 12, “t(ea) for Two: Tests Between the Means of Different Groups” (pp. 236–239, 243)
· Chapter 13, “t(ea) for Two [Again]: Tests Between the Means of Related Groups” (pp. 253–256, 259)
· Niedz, B. (2024).
Comparison of means, part 1 [Video]. Walden University Canvas.
Required Resources for Topic:
t Test
· Cook, H. E., Garris, L. A., Gulum, A. H., & Steber, C. J. (2024).
Impact of SMART goals on diabetes management in a pharmacist-led telehealth clinicLinks to an external site..
Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 37(1), 54–59.
Required Resources for Topic: Paired
t Test
· DeFusco, C., Lewis, A., & Cohn, T. (2023).
Improving critical care nurses perceived self-efficacy in providing palliative care: A quasi-experimental studyLinks to an external site..
American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 40(2), 117–121.
· Markiewicz, A., Hickman, R. L., McAndrew, N. S., & Reimer, A. (2023).
Enhancing palliative communication in the intensive care unit through simulation: A quality improvement projectLinks to an external site..
Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 77, 1–5.
To prepare:
· Read and view the Learning Resources in Doherty & Skalsky and in Dang et al. (2021) in Required Readings.
· View the video on comparison of means.
Use this Discussion to collaborate with your peers and faculty as an open office hours/ Q&A forum.
Post answers to the following:
· Interpret independent sample
t-test results and explain the relevance to the research question (Cook et al., 2024).
· Compare and contrast Cook et al. (independent samples
t test) to DeFusco et al. (2023) or Markiewicz et al. (2023) (paired
t test) results.
· How did the subjects differ in the two studies?
· Differentiate between clinical value and statistical significance.
·
For this Self-Study Discussion, you may post throughout Week 4. You are not required to post to this forum; however, you are encouraged to post, review the posts of others, as well as answer questions and/or provide clarity and collaboration with your peers. Discussions will be graded as either Complete or Incomplete.
Post answers to any or all of the following:
· Interpret independent sample t-test results and explain the relevance to the research question (Cook et al., 2024).
· Compare and contrast Cook et al. (independent samples t-test) to DeFusco et al. (2023) or Markiewicz et al. (2023) (paired t-test) results.
· How did the subjects differ in the two studies?
· Differentiate between clinical value and statistical significance.
Our interactive discussion addresses the following learning objectives:
· Interpret comparison of mean (
t-test) data in a published study
· Differentiate between dependent observations and independent observations
RESPOND TO THIS DISCUSSION POST
Aisha
Independent Samples t-Test Results in Cook et al. (2024)
Cook et al. (2024) present a research study investigating how specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals affect the management of diabetes in a telehealth clinic. The study applied independent samples t-tests to compare the reduction in the level of A1c in the intervention group that implemented SMART goals and the control group that did not. Based on the presented findings, A1c levels reduced by 1.2% in the intervention group compared to the control group which recorded a 0.85% reduction in A1c levels (Cook et al., 2024) Regarding the relevance to the research question, the results report a p-value of 0.287, indicating that the differences between reduction rates in the two groups was not statistically significant.
Independent Sample t-test in Cook et al. (2024) vs Paired t-test in DeFusco et al. (2023)
Cook et al. (2024) applied an independent samples t-test in comparing the A1c levels between the intervention and the control group whereas DeFusco et al. (2023) employed a paired t-test in evaluating the self-efficacy of critical care nurses pre-and post-intervention (online palliative care education). The independent samples t-test is useful in the article by Cook et al. (2024) because it compares two groups; the intervention and the control group. The paired t-test is relevant in the study by DeFusco et al. (2023) because it measures the efficacy of the intervention in the same group.
Although the study by Cook et al. (2024) shows an increased reduction in the levels of A1c in the intervention group compared to the sample group, the difference is not statistically significant. Conversely, the results presented by DeFusco et al. (2023) are statistically significant. The reported p-value is < 0.001. The results have a large effect size. Although the study by Cook et al. (2024) shows the effectiveness of SMART goals in managing diabetes, further research is required. The findings by DeFusco et al. (2023) are viable and can be implemented into practice.
Comparing the Study Subjects in the Articles
The two studies also show a difference in the subjects under investigation. Cook et al. (2024) investigate the effectiveness of SMART goals in managing diabetes by investigating veterans with type 2 diabetes. The sample size involved 100 patients put in two groups (50 in the intervention group and 50 in the control group). On the other hand, the study by DeFusco et al. (2023) involved 40 critical care nurses in investigating the impact of online palliative education in improving the nurse’s self-efficacy.
Statistical Significance vs. Clinical Value
The result from a research study is deemed to be statistically significant if the p-value is within the standard threshold, that is, p <0.05. The p-value in the results presented by DeFusco et al. (2023) is 0.001 thus, statistically significant. On the other hand, the p-value in the study by Cook et al. (2024) is 0.287. The p-value is higher than the standard threshold (p <0.05) hence the result is not statistically significant. A study whose result is not statistically significant can still have clinical value if the findings are applicable in the real world. Thus, the result in Cook et al. (2024) has clinical meaning because the SMART goals can be applied to managing diabetes in an actual clinical environment.
References
Cook, H. E., Garris, L. A., Gulum, A. H., & Steber, C. J. (2024). Impact of SMART goals on diabetes management in a pharmacist-led telehealth clinic.
Journal of Pharmacy Practice,
37(1), 54-59. DOI: 10.1177/08971900221125021
DeFusco, C., Lewis, A., & Cohn, T. (2023). Improving critical care nurses perceived self-efficacy in providing palliative care: a quasi-experimental study.
American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®,
40(2), 117-121. DOI: 10.1177/10499091221094313
