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

_final_article_critique_rubric_current.docx

week_8_handout_2_learning_spss_interpretation_for_t_test__anova___dr._farber_2015__1_.docx

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Statistics for people who think they hate statistics

Just from $13/Page

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

APA6 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

APA6 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

APA6 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 articles literature review?

Responsiveness

Adequacy

Depth of Coverage

Accuracy

1

2

1

2

Sources of Evidence (re: citations)

Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics

1

2

APA6 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

APA6 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

APA6 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

APA6 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

APA6 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 studys research questions and hypotheses?

Responsiveness

Adequacy

1

2

Depth of Coverage

Accuracy

Sources of Evidence (re: citations)

Academic Expression/Writing Mechanics

APA6 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 articles 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

APA6 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. Its 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

Levenes Test for Equality of

Variances. Specifically, you look at

the significance level of the F value

(statistic for the Levenes 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

its 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 Alzheimers 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 Levenes 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 Alzheimers 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 Alzheimers 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 Alzheimers/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. Its 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 groups 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

Basic features

- Free title page and bibliography
- Unlimited revisions
- Plagiarism-free guarantee
- Money-back guarantee
- 24/7 support

On-demand options

- Writer’s samples
- Part-by-part delivery
- Overnight delivery
- Copies of used sources
- Expert Proofreading

Paper format

- 275 words per page
- 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
- Double line spacing
- Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.

That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more
The price is based on these factors:

Academic level

Number of pages

Urgency