Expert answer:Statistics for people who think they hate statisti

Expert answer:I need immediate help with this assignmentSalkind, N. J. (2013). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (5th ed.). SAGEChapter 11:Chapter 12:Chapter 13:Chapter 14:Engel, R. J. & Schutt, R. K. (2013). The practice of research in social work (3rd ed.). SAGEYou will submit a scholarly critique on the research quality of the quantitative study being presented in the research article: Mentoring At-Risk Latino Children and Their Parents: Impact on Social Skills and Problem Behaviors: Here is the article .In your article critique, please consider how adequately the author(s) address the areas below, and please make sure that you also justify and “back up” the critique.You will address:Social problemLiterature reviewInterventionResearch questions or hypothesesStudy variablesData collection processSample selectionMethodological study designPresentation of data analysis and findingsAuthors’ presented discussion3 days agoATTACHMENTS
590_final_article_critique_rubric_current.docx

20171210212533week_8_handout_2_learning_spss_interpretation_for_t_test__anova___dr._farber_2015__1_.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

590: CRITIQUE RUBRICS
GRADING CRITERIA
1
POINTS
POSSIBLE
POINTS
EARNED
1. Social problem: Identify the social condition or social problem under study in this article.
Explain how and why this topic is relevant and important to social work practice and
evaluation.
Responsiveness
Adequacy
Depth of Coverage
Accuracy
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
1
2
1
2
1
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
2
1
2. Literature review: Does it justify and support the intent or purpose of the research study,
and does it justify any research questions or hypotheses that the authors developed? Is the
literature review adequate?
Responsiveness
Adequacy
Depth of Coverage
Accuracy
1
2
1
2
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
1
2
1
3. Intervention: Read carefully the description of the intervention. To what extent do the
authors use any theoretical framework for presenting the intervention or in relation to the
social issue being studied? Is the intervention clearly described in respect to how it was
applied and implemented in this evaluation?
Responsiveness
Adequacy
1
2
Depth of Coverage
Accuracy
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
1
2
1
2
1
590: CRITIQUE RUBRICS
GRADING CRITERIA
2
POINTS
POSSIBLE
POINTS
EARNED
4. Research questions or hypotheses: Present any research questions or hypotheses guiding
the study and the evaluation process. Do the authors explain the importance of the research
questions or hypotheses? Are these justified based on the article’s literature review?
Responsiveness
Adequacy
Depth of Coverage
Accuracy
1
2
1
2
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
1
2
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
1
5. Study variables: Identify the main variables in the study, and explain how they are
conceptually and operationally defined. Do the instruments have adequate information
regarding their reliability and validity? How well is this information presented?
Responsiveness
Adequacy
Depth of Coverage
1
2
1
Accuracy
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
2
1
2
1
6. Data collection process: Examine the data collection approach. How well do the authors
describe it and does it seem adequate? Do the authors explain how any ethical or diversity
considerations were addressed?
Responsiveness
Adequacy
Depth of Coverage
1
2
1
Accuracy
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
2
1
2
1
590: CRITIQUE RUBRICS
GRADING CRITERIA
3
POINTS
POSSIBLE
POINTS
EARNED
7. Sample selection: Examine the sampling strategy or method. What specific sampling
method was used? How were participants selected and recruited? To whom are the results
generalizable? Is this a representative sample of the population that authors sought to study?
Responsiveness
Adequacy
Depth of Coverage
Accuracy
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
1
2
1
2
1
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
2
1
8. Methodological study design: Identify the research design. Is it adequate for this
evaluation? In what way does it support any causal inference the authors are trying to show?
What are the specific threats/biases to internal or external validity this design poses? Based
on the authors’ discussion, could the study be replicated?
Responsiveness
Adequacy
Depth of Coverage
1
2
1
Accuracy
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
2
1
2
1
9. Presentation of data analysis and findings: Does the data analysis approach meet the
needs or purpose of this investigation? Are the findings explained clearly and logically in
view of the study’s research questions and hypotheses?
Responsiveness
Adequacy
1
2
Depth of Coverage
Accuracy
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
1
2
1
2
1
590: CRITIQUE RUBRICS
GRADING CRITERIA
4
POINTS
POSSIBLE
POINTS
EARNED
10. Authors’ presented discussion: Evaluate the article’s summarizing discussions. Do the
authors adequately acknowledge the strengths and limitations of their evaluation approach?
Do they make sound recommendations for future research? Finally, would you recommend
this study for social work practice? Why or why not?
Responsiveness
Adequacy
Depth of Coverage
Accuracy
1
2
1
2
Sources of Evidence (re: citations)
Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics
1
2
APA–6 referencing (re: reference page)
1
TOTAL POINTS
SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015
EXAMPLES
OF
BIVARIATE ANALYSES: COMPARING MEANS – COMPUTER OUTPUTS
AND
INTERPRETATION
Example #1: One-Sample T-test
Here we are investigating whether the mean number of hours of caregiving [HRSWK] reported by respondents
in the sample is significantly different than the mean number of hours of caregiving reported in a larger
population (in this case, a national study of caregivers). Benchmark = 24 is the mean number of hours in
the national study – the criterion that was used for comparison.]
1st step: Look at significance level
of the t value. (In this case, p =
.000 or p < .001 because the real number is beyond 3 decimal points – e.g., .0003. It’s just not shown on the computer output.) T-Test One-Sample Statistics N HRSWK Mean 300 62.10 Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 51.350 2nd step: Compare Mean in sample with Mean in population. (In this case, sample Mean = 62.10 and population Mean = 24.00 – How did I know this?) 2.965 One-Sample Test Test Value = 24 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference t HRSWK 12.850 df Sig. (2-tailed) 299 .000 Mean Difference 38.097 Lower Upper 32.26 43.93 3rd step: Write interpretation based on: a) whether you are trying to determine if sample is representative of the population; or b) whether you are testing a stated hypothesis(e.g., “African American caregivers will report a significantly higher number of hours of caregiving per week than a national, multi-racial population of caregivers.)” Note how you report the t value, the degrees of freedom (df), and the significance level (placed in brackets) in 1st sentence; Means are placed in parentheses in 2nd sentence. Interpretation a: (Representative of population) The sample of African a national population of multi-racial caregivers in terms of hours per [t(299)=12.85, p < .001]. Specifically, African American caregivers in higher number of hours of care than the larger caregiver population (M American caregivers is not representative of week of caregiving provided to elders the sample reported a = 62.10 vs. M = 24.00, respectively). Interpretation b: (Hypothesis testing) There is a statistically significant difference between the sample of African American caregivers and a national population of multi-racial caregivers on hours per week of caregiving 1 SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015 provided to elders [t(299)= 12.85, p < .001]. Specifically, African American caregivers in the sample reported a higher number of hours than the larger caregiver population (M = 62.10 vs. M = 24.00, respectively). Example #2: Independent-Sample T-test Here we are investigating whether there is a significant difference between male and female caregivers [SEX] on their use of the coping strategy of receiving “Help from Others” [OTHCOPE]. T-Test Group Statistics SEX OTHCOPE N MALE FEMALE Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 34 10.0882 2.95796 .50729 266 10.5865 3.43045 .21033 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F OTHCOPE Equal variances assumed Sig. 2.714 .101 Equal variances not assumed 2 1st step: Note: You must determine whether to interpret the “equal variances assumed” version of the t statistic or the “equal variances not assumed.” You do this by interpreting the “Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances.” Specifically, you look at the significance level of the F value (statistic for the Levene’s Test). If the F value is NOT SIGNIFICANT, you interpret the “Equal variances assumed” version of t. If the F value IS SIGNIFICANT, you interpret the “Equal variances not assumed” version. (In this case, you interpret the “Equal variances assumed” version.) [t value on next page.] SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015 Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference t OTHCOPE df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Error Difference Difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed -.809 298 .419 -.49823 .61585 -1.71019 .71373 Equal variances not assumed -.907 45.155 .369 -.49823 .54916 -1.60420 .60774 Interpretation: There is no significant difference between male and female African American caregivers on scores on the “Help from Others” Coping subscale [t(298)= -.81, p = .419]. 2nd step: Look at the significance level of the selected version of the t-test. (In this case, p > .05 and thus,
not significant.)
3rd step: Write an interpretation of
the results. (In this case, a 1
sentence interpretation informing
reader of no significant difference
between two groups.)
Note that you report the t value,
the degrees of freedom (df), and
the significance level. All of this
is placed in brackets because the
df is in parentheses.
You DO NOT report the Means because
that would give the impression that
the difference is significant when
it’s not!!!
3
SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015
Example #3: Independent-Sample T-test
Here we are investigating whether there is a significant difference between caregivers who are providing
care to an older person with Alzheimer’s or caregivers providing care to an older person with some other
condition [ALZHEIM]on scores on the “Finding Meaning Through Caregiving” [MEANING] scale.
T-Test
Group Statistics
ALZHEIM
MEANING
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Yes
117
107.0598
12.21312
1.12910
No
177
111.5254
8.04326
.60457
1st step:
value of
Equality
.05 – so
Independent Samples Test
The significance of the F
the Levene’s Test for
of Variances is less than
it is significant.
Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances
F
MEANING
Equal variances assumed
11.258
Sig.
.001
Equal variances not assumed
4
***Therefore, you must interpret
the “Equal variances not assumed”
version of the t-value. (See next
page.)
SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
t
MEANING
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Std. Error
Difference
Difference
Lower
Upper
Equal variances assumed
-3.781
292
.000
-4.46559
1.18102
-6.78999
-2.14120
Equal variances not assumed
-3.487
182.179
.001
-4.46559
1.28077
-6.99265
-1.93854
Interpretation:
There is a significant difference
between African American caregivers providing care
for elders with Alzheimer’s or other dementia and
caregivers caring for elders with some other
condition on scores on the “Finding Meaning Through
Caregiving” scale[t(182.179)= -3.78, p = .001].
Specifically, caregivers of elders with Alzheimer’s or
other dementia have lower scores on this scale
than caregivers of elders with other conditions
(M = 107.06 vs. M = 111.53, respectively).
5
2nd step: Look at the significance level
of the correct version of the t-value.
(In this case, the “Equal variances not
assumed” version.)
3rd step: Write an interpretation of the
results.
Question: Where do we look to get the
Means of the 2 groups?
Answer: In the “Group Statistics” Box
(see previous page).
Note: The significance level of t is
reported as 2-tailed (thus, the
difference could be in either
direction). If you posed a 1-tailed
hypothesis AND the results were
significant in the direction you
predicted, you can then divide the 2tailed significance level in half. In
this case, p would equal .0005 if you
had predicted that caregivers of elders
with Alzheimer’s/other dementia would
have lower scores.
SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015
Example #4: Paired-Sample T-test
Here we are investigating whether there is a significant difference between pretest and posttest scores
[TIMETEST] on the “Reactivity/Impulsivity” scale [RISCORE] among participants in an anger management
intervention.
1st step: Look at the
significance level of the t
value. (In this case, p =
.000 or p < .001.) -Test Paired Samples Statistics Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Pretest Posttest N 12.8000 10.2667 Std. Deviation 30 30 Mean 6.42409 6.09654 2nd step: Look at Means (Pretest and Posttest). 1.17287 1.11307 3rd step: Interpret. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Mean Pair 1 Pretest Posttest 2.5333 Std. Std. Error Deviation Mean 1.04166 .19018 Difference Lower Sig. Upper 2.1444 2.9223 t 13.321 df (2-tailed) 29 .000 Interpretation: Based on two-tail hypothesis, there is a significant difference between pretest and posttest scores on the “Reactivity/Impulsivity” scale [t(29)= 13.32, p < .001]. Specifically, participants’ scores were lower on posttest than pretest (M = 10.27 vs. M = 12.80, respectively). 6 SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015 Example #5: Oneway ANOVA Here we are investigating whether there is a significant difference among 3 groups of African American caregivers based on the number of hours of caregiving provided per week [LEVHRSWK] on scores on the “Time-Dependence Burden” subscale [TIMEDEBURDEN]. The three groups were formed by delineating participants as “Low,” “Moderate,” or “High” in terms of the number of hours of caregiving per week [HRSWK] that they reported. RECODE HRSWK (4 thru 24=1) (25 thru 70=2) (72 thru 168=3) INTO LEVHRSWK. ONEWAY TIMEDEPBURD BY LEVHRSWK /MISSING ANALYSIS /POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05). Oneway ANOVA 1st step: Look at the significance level of the F value in the “ANOVA” box. (In this case, p = .000 or p < .001.) TIMEDEBURDEN Sum of Squares Between Groups df Mean Square 690.317 2 345.158 Within Groups 6251.030 297 21.047 Total 6941.347 299 F 16.399 Sig. .000 This only tells you that there are significant differences somewhere among the 3 groups. You must look at the Post Hoc Tests information in the “Multiple Comparison” box to determine where these significant differences lie. 7 SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015 Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons TIMEDEBURDEN Tukey HSD 95% Confidence Interval (I) Levels of Hours (J) Levels of Hours per Week Care Low Moderate High per Week Care Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Moderate -2.34509 * .65393 .001 -3.8855 -.8047 High -3.69316* .65083 .000 -5.2262 -2.1601 Low 2.34509 * .65393 .001 .8047 3.8855 High -1.34807 .64244 .092 -2.8614 .1652 Low 3.69316* .65083 .000 2.1601 5.2262 1.34807 .64244 .092 -.1652 2.8614 Moderate *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Interpretation: There are significant differences among the three African American caregiver groups on “Time-Dependence Burden” scores [F(2,297)= 16.39, p < .001]. Specifically, respondents in the “Low” hours per week of caregiving group had lower burden scores (M = 14.23) than caregivers in both the “Moderate” hours per week and “High” hours per week caregiver groups (M = 15.57 and M = 17.92, respectively), whereas Moderate and High “hours per week” groups did not differ in their burden. 3rd step: Write an interpretation of the results. 8 2nd step: Look for asterisks (*) in the “Mean Difference” column, which identifies the specific significant differences between groups. It’s best to walk yourself through comparisons among all 3 groups, as some of this is repeated information. a. The “Low” group has 2 asterisks, which means this group’s scores are signifi-cantly different than both the “Moderate” and “High” groups. b. The “Moderate” group only has significant differences with the “Low” group. c. The “High” group shows only significant differences with the “Low” Group. Note that “b” and “c” information is repetitive of information in “a”. There are no significant differences (no *) between the “Moderate” and “High” groups. SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015 Example #6: Oneway ANOVA This example provides findings for investigating whether there is a significant difference among three groups of African American caregivers based on level of caregiving burden [BURDLEV] on scores on the “Emotional Distress” subscale [EMODIS]. The three groups were formed based on their scores on the overall “Caregiving Burden” [BURDEN] scale (“Low,” “Moderate,” or “High” burden). Oneway ANOVA EMOTDIS Sum of Squares df Mean Square Between Groups 2056.295 2 1028.148 Within Groups 3516.435 297 11.840 Total 5572.730 299 F Sig. 86.838 .000 1st step: What do you focus on in the “ANOVA” box? What does this information tell you? Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons EMOTDIS 95% Confidence Interval (I) Burden Levels Low (J) Burden Levels Mean Difference (I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound .48917 .000 -3.3837 -1.0792 -6.27830 * .48301 .000 -7.4160 -5.1405 2.23150 * .48917 .000 1.0792 3.3837 * .48799 .000 -5.1963 -2.8973 Low 6.27830 * .48301 .000 5.1405 7.4160 Moderate 4.04680* .48799 .000 2.8973 5.1963 Low High High Sig. -2.34150 Moderate High Moderate Std. Error * -4.04680 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 9 2nd step: What do you focus on in the “Multiple Comparison” box? What does this information tell you? 3rd step: Interpret the results. SSS 590 – Online –Week 8 – Learning SPSS EXAMPLES FOR MEAN COMPARISONS – Dr. Farber 2015 Interpretation: There are significant differences among the three African American caregiver groups on “Emotional Distress” scores [F(2,297)= 86.84, p < .001]. Specifically, there are significant differences among all three groups with respondents in the “High” burden group showing the highest mean emotional distress scores (M = 12.89), followed by the “Moderate” burden group (M = 8.85), and the “Low” burden group (M = 6.61). 10 ... Purchase answer to see full attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades