Week 4 Discussion: Levels of Measurement

Week 4 Discussion: Levels of Measurement

Week 4 Discussion: Levels of Measurement

What is the incidence of blood clots from COVID-19 in females over the age of 35?

The above question is an example of a research question. A research question consists of three parts and guides the methods and approaches in which you will study the question to find answers. The research question includes: the question, the topic, and the population or variables. In the example provided above, the question is examining the prevalence of blood clots from severe COVID-19 in a selected population. From this question, the variables can be assessed, considerations can be analyzed, and populations can be sampled in order to guide the research.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER 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

During Week 2, you developed a research problem statement based on a topic of interest to you or your specific area of practice. Using this research problem statement, you will develop a research question. “A research question is a concise, interrogative statement that is worded in the present tense and includes one or more of a study’s principal concepts or variables” (Gray & Grove, 2020). These questions typically point to the type of study that will be conducted and serves as a guide for the research.

For this Discussion, reflect on your research problem statement. Consider the independent and dependent variables of your research problem through the construction of a research question. Reflect on the potential levels of measurement for your variables and the rationale for the labels, as well as consider the advantages and challenges that you might experience in the statistical analysis of your proposed variables.

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

Week 4: 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 21, “Introduction to Statistical Analysis” (pp. 635–651)

Chapter 22, “Using Statistics to Describe Variables” (pp. 652–662)

Chapter 26, “Interpreting Research Outcomes” (pp. 699–716)

Gholami, S., Mojen, L. K., Rassouli, M., Pahlavanzade, B., & Farahani, A. S. (2020). The predictors of postoperative pain among children based on the theory of unpleasant symptoms: A descriptive-correlational study

Links to an external site.. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 55, 141–146. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2020.08.006

Huang, J., Qi, H., Lv, K., Chen, X., Zhuang, Y., & Yang, L. (2020). Emergence delirium in elderly patients as a potential predictor of subsequent postoperative delirium: A descriptive correlational study

Links to an external site.. Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing, 35(5), 478–483. doi:10.1016/j.jopan.2019.11.009

Document: Week 4 Descriptive Statistics SPSS Output

Download Week 4 Descriptive Statistics SPSS Output (PDF)

Document: CITI Program Learner Registration Guide

Download CITI Program Learner Registration Guide (PDF)

To Prepare:

Review your research problem statement from Week 2 to develop your research question.

Review the Learning Resources on how to describe variables.

Consider the levels of measurement for your variables: nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio.

After reviewing your research question and considering the levels of measurement, analyze your classification for each variable. What was behind your reasoning for labeling the variables? How might the data be analyzed based on these labels?

Consider advantages and challenges that you might encounter in the statistical analysis of your proposed variables.

By Day 3 of Week 4

Post your research question and describe the independent and dependent variables. Then, identify the level of measurement of both your independent and dependent variables. Provide a brief rationale for your classification of each variable. Be specific. Explain considerations of analyzing data related to each variable based on its level of measurement. Be sure to include any advantages or challenges that you might encounter in your statistical analysis of each variable and explain why.

By Day 6 of Week 4

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by noting any discrepancies and/or suggesting alternatives in the levels of measurement and statistical analyses described.

NURS_8201_Week4_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8201_Week4_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome CONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

 

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome QUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)
10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
10 pts

Total Points: 1