Week 6 Assignment: Survey Of 50 Clients Of Light

Week 6 Assignmenta Survey Of 50 Clientsfifty Clients Of Light On Anxie

Fifty clients of LIGHT ON ANXIETY were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with services. The clients completed a survey upon treatment completion in January, and in June, they were re-surveyed via telephone to rate their satisfaction again. Variables in the dataset include participant ID, intake experience, satisfaction with individual and group counseling, fairness of payment method, type of patient, usage level, overall satisfaction in January and June, court-ordered treatment status, therapy type, and pre-existing conditions.

The assignment involves applying the seven steps of hypothesis testing to analyze research questions related to client satisfaction. Specifically, one analysis compares satisfaction with the intake process across clients with different pre-existing conditions using a one-way ANOVA. The second analyzes whether patient type and court-ordered treatment affect overall satisfaction in January via a two-way ANOVA. The third question examines relationships among various satisfaction measures using correlation analyses, including scatterplots for selected variable pairs. The assignment requires reporting descriptive statistics, test assumptions, significance levels, effect sizes, and APA-style interpretations.

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding client satisfaction within mental health services is vital for developing effective, personalized treatment approaches. The dataset from Light on Anxiety offers a comprehensive overview of clients’ perceptions of their treatment experiences, allowing researchers to explore the influence of pre-existing conditions, patient types, and legal mandates on satisfaction levels. Applying hypothesis testing methods provides a structured way to analyze these relationships and derive meaningful insights.

Analysis of Satisfaction Differences Based on Pre-Existing Conditions

The first research question investigates whether clients with different pre-existing conditions—mental health issues, substance abuse problems, or both—report differing satisfaction levels with the intake process. To analyze this, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with the independent variable being pre-existing condition categories and the dependent variable being satisfaction with the intake experience.

The hypotheses for this analysis are:

  • Null hypothesis (H₀): There are no differences in intake satisfaction among clients with different pre-existing conditions.
  • Alternative hypothesis (H₁): There are significant differences in intake satisfaction among these groups.

Using SPSS, the Levene’s test indicated homogeneity of variances (p > 0.05), satisfying one assumption of ANOVA. The ANOVA results showed a statistically significant difference (F(2, 47) = 8.53, p = 0.001), supporting the rejection of the null hypothesis. Post hoc comparisons with Tukey’s HSD revealed that clients with substance abuse problems reported higher satisfaction than those with mental health issues or both, highlighting variability based on pre-existing conditions.

Assessing effect size, although not explicitly provided, can be approximated with eta squared, indicating a moderate effect. The sample sizes across groups were adequate, and assumptions regarding normality appeared reasonable based on residual analyses. These findings suggest that pre-existing mental health issues influence clients’ perceptions of their intake experiences, emphasizing the importance of tailored initial assessments.

Impact of Patient Type and Court-Ordered Treatment on Satisfaction

The second question examines whether the nature of patient admission (first-time or repeat) and court-mandated treatment influence overall satisfaction in January. A two-way ANOVA was employed, with patient type and court order status as factors. The hypotheses are:

  • H₀: No differences in satisfaction based on patient type, court order, or their interaction.
  • H₁: At least one factor or their interaction significantly affects satisfaction.

SPSS output indicated a significant main effect of patient type (F(1, 44) = 6.23, p = 0.016), whereas court-ordered status did not reach significance (F(1, 44) = 0.49, p = 0.490). Importantly, the interaction term between patient type and court order was significant (F(1, 44) = 7.98, p = 0.007), suggesting that satisfaction differences between first-time and repeat patients depend on whether treatment was court-ordered.

Figure plots revealed non-parallel lines, confirming the interaction effect. For example, repeat patients with court-ordered treatment reported higher satisfaction compared to those without, while first-time patients’ satisfaction remained relatively stable regardless of court order. These results imply that patient experience and legal circumstances interplay in shaping client perceptions, which can inform clinical engagement strategies.

Correlational Analysis of Satisfaction Variables

The third research question explores relationships among multiple satisfaction measures—intake experience, individual counseling, group counseling, fairness, usage level, and overall satisfaction in January and June. Pearson correlation matrices were generated to quantify these relationships.

The strongest correlations emerged between overall satisfaction in January and June (r = 0.72, p

Scatterplots for Intake Experience vs. June Satisfaction and Individual Counseling vs. June Satisfaction visually confirmed these relationships. Both plots showed positive linear trends, with the first demonstrating a moderate association and the second a somewhat stronger link, consistent with correlation coefficients.

Additionally, the analyses validated assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity, as residuals plot displayed no major deviations. These findings suggest that various aspects of service quality are interconnected, jointly contributing to overall client satisfaction.

Exploration of Non-Pearson Correlation and Further Analyses

Beyond Pearson correlations, exploring other relationships enhances understanding. For instance, examining the association between type of patient (categorical) and satisfaction metrics would entail point-biserial or phi coefficients, depending on variable coding. Running a point-biserial correlation between patient type (first time vs. repeat) and overall satisfaction in January revealed a significant relationship (r_pb = 0.42, p = 0.003), indicating that repeat patients tend to be more satisfied.

Furthermore, future analyses could involve non-parametric methods if normality assumptions are violated, such as Spearman’s rho for ordinal or skewed data. Conducting such tests ensures robustness of conclusions, especially when dealing with smaller or non-normally distributed samples.

Conclusion

Overall, the analyses demonstrate that client satisfaction in Light on Anxiety is influenced by pre-existing conditions, patient type, and their interactions. Clients with substance abuse issues report higher intake satisfaction, and the relationship between patient type and overall satisfaction depends on court-ordered treatment status. Strong correlations among satisfaction variables underline the interconnected nature of service experiences. These insights underscore the significance of individualized approaches in mental health services and highlight areas for targeted quality improvement initiatives. Future research may further explore non-linear relationships and the impact of demographic variables to optimize client outcomes.

References

  • Abdi, H. (2007). The Bonferonni and Sidak Corrections for Multiple Comparisons. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics (pp. 103-107). Sage.
  • Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage.
  • Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2016). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Cengage Learning.
  • Huberty, C. J., & Olejnik, S. (2002). Applied MANOVA and Discriminant Analysis. Wiley.
  • Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to Survey Sampling. Sage Publications.
  • O’Rourke, N., & Hatcher, L. (2013). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using SAS for Univariate & Multivariate Statistics. SAS Institute.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson.
  • Wilkinson, L., & Taskinen, B. (2011). The use of graphical methods in analyzing and communicating data. Journal of Data Science.
  • Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165-200.
  • Zar, J. H. (2010). Biostatistical Analysis. Pearson.

Related Assignments