As A Practice Scholar You Are Searching For Evidence To Tran ✓ Solved

As A Practice Scholar You Are Searching For Evidence To Translate Int

As a practice scholar, you are searching for evidence to translate into practice. In your review of evidence, you locate a quasi-experimental research study as possible evidence to support a practice change. You notice that the study aims to make a prediction that relates to correlation between study variables. The study sample size is large and normally distributed. Reflect upon this scenario to address the following.

In your appraisal of the evidence, you note that an independent variable is not present and that a Spearman's ranked correlation is used to analyze data. Is this the correct level of correlational analysis? Explain your rationale. Are association and correlational analysis equivalent in determining relationships between variables? Do these findings impact your decision about whether to use this evidence to inform practice change? Why or why not?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The process of translating evidence into practice requires careful appraisal of research studies to determine their relevance, validity, and applicability. In the scenario where a quasi-experimental study employs Spearman's rank correlation to analyze the relationship between variables, several critical considerations emerge. This essay evaluates whether Spearman’s correlation is appropriate given the study’s design and data characteristics, discusses the difference between association and correlation, and examines how these factors influence the use of such evidence for practice change.

Firstly, assessing whether Spearman's rank correlation is the correct level of analysis hinges on the nature of the data and the research questions. Spearman’s correlation is a non-parametric measure of the strength and direction of association between two ranked variables. Its appropriateness is particularly noted when data are ordinal, not normally distributed, or when the relationship between variables is non-linear but monotonic. The question indicates that the sample size is large and normally distributed; typically, in such cases, Pearson's correlation coefficient would be suitable because it measures linear relationships between continuous variables. However, if the data are ordinal or do not meet parametric assumptions, Spearman’s is appropriate even if the data are normally distributed, especially if the relationship is not linear but monotonic.

Secondly, regarding the equivalence of association and correlational analysis, it is essential to distinguish the two concepts. Correlation is a specific statistical measure that quantifies the strength and direction of a linear or monotonic relationship between variables. Associations, however, refer more broadly to any relationship between variables, which may be causal, correlational, or otherwise. Therefore, correlation is a form of association, but not all associations are measured by correlation coefficients. This distinction is vital because correlational analysis quantifies the degree of relationship, while association may encompass other forms of relationships or dependencies.

Finally, the absence of an independent variable and the use of Spearman's correlation influence decisions about practice implementation. Quasi-experimental studies typically aim to evaluate causality by examining the effect of an intervention (independent variable) on outcomes. The lack of an independent variable suggests the study is more correlational than causal. While such findings can inform understanding of relationships between variables, they do not establish causality necessary for confident practice change. The utilization of Spearman’s correlation further indicates the focus is on association rather than causal inference. Consequently, while the evidence might provide valuable insights into relationships, it should be interpreted cautiously when deciding on practice modifications.

In conclusion, the appropriateness of Spearman’s rank correlation depends on data characteristics and research objectives. Recognizing that correlation measures association but does not imply causation is vital in evidence appraisal. Given that the study lacks an independent variable and employs correlation analysis, caution is warranted before translating findings into practice. Stronger evidence derived from experimental or well-designed quasi-experimental studies with clear intervention variables would better support practice change. Nonetheless, the findings may contribute to the broader understanding of variable relationships but should be integrated with other evidence sources to make informed practice decisions.

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA Publishing.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2017). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. Routledge.

Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2013). Fundamentals of research methods for applied research. Routledge.

Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.

Vogt, W. P., & Johnson, R. B. (2015). The SAGE dictionary of statistics. Sage Publications.

Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Sage Publications.

Zikmund, W., Babin, B., Carr, J., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.