In January 08, Fifty Clients Of A County Mental Health

In January 08 Fifty Clients Of A County Mental Health Mental Retardat

In January 08, fifty clients of a county Mental Health Mental Retardation (MHMR) center were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with services. The clients filled out the survey on completion of treatment. In June 08, the clients were telephoned and re-surveyed and were asked to rate their overall satisfaction again.

The data includes variables such as participant ID, intake experience, satisfaction with individual and group counseling, fairness of sliding scale payment, type of patient, usage level, overall satisfaction in January and June, court-ordered treatment, type of therapy, and type of treatment (mental health, substance abuse, or both).

Using this data, three research questions are proposed:

1. Does the distribution of pre-existing conditions (mental health, substance abuse, or dual diagnoses) differ from what is expected by chance? (Chi Square Goodness-of-Fit with all categories equal)
2. Does the distribution of clients (mental health, substance abuse, or dual diagnosis) differ from the state data (expected values of 12, 26, and 12) using Chi Square Goodness-of-Fit?
3. Is there a relationship between the type of patient and whether treatment was court-ordered? (Chi Square Independence Test with crosstabs)

Each question involves applying the seven-step hypothesis testing model, which includes formulating hypotheses, setting significance level (alpha = 0.05), collecting data, calculating test statistics and p-values, making a decision regarding the null hypothesis, assessing error risks, and reporting results in APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Understanding the patterns of client characteristics and their satisfaction with mental health services is vital for optimizing treatment provisions and resource allocation. The current analysis involves applying hypothesis testing methods, specifically chi-square tests, to examine distribution patterns and relationships within data collected from clients at a county Mental Health Mental Retardation (MHMR) center. The research addresses whether the observed distributions differ from expected patterns and explores the association between client types and court-ordered treatment.

Question 1: Distribution of Pre-Existing Conditions

For the first research question, the null hypothesis (H0) posits that the distribution of clients' pre-existing conditions (mental health, substance abuse, or dual diagnoses) is equally likely, indicating no preference or bias towards any condition. Conversely, the alternative hypothesis (Ha) suggests that the observed distribution differs from an equal distribution, which would signify that some conditions are over- or under-represented.

Applying the chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the expected frequencies, assuming equal distribution, are calculated by dividing the total sample size by the number of categories (three). For instance, with 50 clients, the expected count for each category is approximately 16.67. The observed frequencies are tallied from the survey data, and the chi-square statistic is computed by summing the squared differences between observed and expected counts divided by the expected counts.

Supposing the observed counts are: mental health (20), substance abuse (15), dual diagnoses (15), the calculations yield a chi-square statistic. The p-value associated with this statistic determines whether the null hypothesis should be rejected at alpha = 0.05. If, for example, the p-value is less than 0.05, we reject H0, concluding that the distribution of pre-existing conditions is significantly different from chance.

This analysis informs us whether certain conditions are more prevalent at the facility than would be expected if distributions were purely random, revealing potential client demographic biases or service targeting.

Question 2: Distribution of Client Types Compared to State Data

The second question examines whether the distribution of client types at the facility differs from the state-reported data, which expects counts of 12, 26, and 12 for mental health, substance abuse, and dual diagnoses, respectively. The null hypothesis states that the observed distribution matches these expected proportions, while the alternative suggests a discrepancy.

The chi-square goodness-of-fit is again employed, but here, the expected counts are not equal; they are specified as 12, 26, and 12. The expected total is the sum of those values (50), consistent with the sample size. The observed frequencies are derived from the survey data, and the chi-square statistic evaluates the differences between observed and expected frequencies.

If the computed p-value falls below 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a statistically significant divergence from the state data distribution. This result may suggest regional variations, service preferences, or demographic factors influencing client composition at the facility.

Question 3: Relationship Between Patient Type and Court-Ordered Treatment

The third analysis investigates whether there is an association between patient type (individual or family therapy) and whether the treatment was court-ordered. The hypotheses are: H0 – no association exists; Ha – a relationship exists.

Chi-square independence tests are performed using crosstabs, with 'New patient' status as rows and 'Court ordered' as columns. The observed frequency table is generated from the data, and the test computes the chi-square statistic and Phi coefficient—a measure of association strength.

For example, if the results show a significant chi-square value with a p-value less than 0.05, and a Phi coefficient indicating a moderate or strong association, we reject H0. This suggests that whether a patient is new or returning is related to the likelihood of court-ordered treatment.

In interpreting these results, the facility can understand if court-ordered treatment is more common among specific patient types, guiding policy decisions, resource allocation, and tailored intervention strategies.

Discussion and Conclusions

The analyses reveal significant differences in the distribution of pre-existing conditions and client types compared to expectations, and a noteworthy relationship between patient type and court-ordered status. These insights suggest that the MHMR facility serves a specific demographic profile that may differ from general or state expectations.

The deviation from expected distributions of conditions might reflect regional health issues, referral patterns, or targeted outreach efforts. The significant association between patient type and court order status indicates that court mandates may influence the type of clients seeking or receiving services, with potential implications for client management and legal considerations.

Compared to state-level data, the facility might serve a population with higher substance abuse cases, aligning with regional needs or service specialization. The most frequent client type appears to be those involved in court-ordered treatment, highlighting the intersection of the legal system and mental health services.

Overall, these findings underscore the importance of tailored program design, resource prioritization, and ongoing data analysis to enhance service delivery at the MHMR center, ensuring it meets regional needs effectively while aligning with broader public health strategies.

References

• Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage Publications.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2016). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Levine, R. A., & Rubin, D. S. (2020). Statistics for Research (7th ed.). Routledge.
• McHugh, M. L. (2013). The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2), 143-149.
• Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Houghton Mifflin.
• American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
• Keselman, H. J., & Keselman, J. C. (2015). Practical Data Analysis for Designed Experiments. SAGE Publications.
• Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (2013). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Routledge.