Research Test 2

Front 1

Conceptual definitiond

Back 1

clearly stated abstract idea

Front 2

Operational definition

Back 2

numbers represent concept

Front 3

Why are questionaires good?

Back 3

Low cost, annonmous, no interview bias

Front 4

Interview advantage

Back 4

Diverse audience, can clearly explain, more response

Front 5

Reactivity

Back 5

People act different when observed

Front 6

Primary data

Back 6

Collected specifically for this study

Front 7

Secondary data

Back 7

Collected for another purpose but is useful

Front 8

Is pain scale physiological or psychometric

Back 8

physiological

Front 9

Dichotomous question

Back 9

yes/no

Front 10

Cafeteria vs multiple choice VS Forced choice

Back 10

Cap 8 slide 23

Front 11

Rank order questions

Back 11

Rank in order

Front 12

Rating

Back 12

0 1 2

Front 13

Likert scale

Back 13

-1 0 1

Disagree agree

Front 14

visual analog

Back 14

straight line 100mm and check a point

Front 15

guttman scale

Back 15

check next to agree

Front 16

social desirability response set bias

Back 16

want to answer how they should

Front 17

Acquiescence response set

Back 17

yes men

Front 18

very powerful secondary data

Back 18

Electronic health record

Front 19

4 levels of measurement

Back 19

nominal ordinal interval ratio

Front 20

nominal

Back 20

blue-1 green-2 red-3

Front 21

Ordinal

Back 21

low medium high education ( no real defining differences

Front 22

Interval

Back 22

12345 -mean with no zero

Front 23

Ratio

Back 23

01234 age weight

Front 24

error

Back 24

difference between true score(perfect) and obtained score

Front 25

situational contaminants

Back 25

Time, temp

Front 26

Transitory personal factors

Back 26

mood, fatigue

Front 27

Response set biases

Back 27

social desirability

Front 28

Administeration variation

Back 28

administerer slightly changes

Front 29

Item sampling

Back 29

How concrete are items

Front 30

psychometric assessment

Back 30

evaluating quality of instrument

Front 31

reliability coefficient

Back 31

reliability of pschometric .00-1.00

Front 32

bad reliability coefficient

Back 32

under 0.70

Front 33

good reliability coefficient

Back 33

0.80-1.00

Front 34

internal reliability

Back 34

stability of instrument

Front 35

item total correlation

Back 35

stability amoung individuals tools are used on

Front 36

Inter rater reliability

Back 36

stability between rater of tool

Front 37

test retest

Back 37

stability over time (IQ)

Front 38

Stability

Back 38

Test restest, same score twice

Front 39

score for tool stability

Back 39

cohens kappa 0.85

Front 40

Internal consistancy

Back 40

Cronbachs alpha or coefficient alpha > or equal to 0.80

Front 41

equivalance

Back 41

degree of similarity between users or intruments

Front 42

gold standard for a instument

Back 42

chronbachs, inter-rater, test restest

Front 43

Validity

Back 43

slightly harder than reliability, sees if instrument tests what it should test, can reliably ( consistantly) measture the wrong thing

Front 44

strong validity number

Back 44

0.5 or higher is strong but 0.2-0.4 may be ok

Front 45

content validity

Back 45

content of instrument reflects attriubte

Front 46

construct validity

Back 46

instrument represents concept

Front 47

gold standard validity

Back 47

concurrent predictive and discriminate

Front 48

face validity

Back 48

does it seem right

Front 49

look at

Back 49

chap 8 55+

Front 50

descriptive statistics

Back 50

describes data (numbers)

Front 51

Inferential statistics

Back 51

Infer about whole population based off sample

Front 52

frequency data

Back 52

how many times did x happen

Front 53

homogeneity

Back 53

little variability

Front 54

heterogeneity

Back 54

great variation

Front 55

correlation coefficient

Back 55

Pearsons R

-1 to 1

shows relationship further from zero more related

Front 56

confidence interval

Back 56

how confident a piece of population will fall within a range

(95%)

Front 57

common levels of significance

Back 57

0.05 and 0.01alpha or p

the lower the greater the chance it wasnt random- lower chance of type 1

Front 58

parametric statistic

Back 58

tries to make assumptions about whole population with normal distributions ect

Front 59

nonparametrics statistics

Back 59

states facts, nominal or ordinal

Front 60

T test

Back 60

2 groups 1 measure

but also what are the other differences besides the variable between my groups

Front 61

Paired T tests

Back 61

2 tests 1 group (before and after)

Front 62

each variable has what percentage of being random

Back 62

.05

Front 63

What avoids the .05 per variable rule

Back 63

ANOVA

Front 64

mulitiple linear regression

Back 64

all these factors predict

Front 65

logistic regression

Back 65

Odds prediction

Front 66

ancova

Back 66

covariates

Front 67

most common statistic software in nursing

Back 67

SPSS

Front 68

Purely mathmatic software

Back 68

sas

Front 69

internal validity

Back 69

confidence that variable made a difference

Front 70

external validity

Back 70

the variable will effect population

Front 71

temporal ambiguity

Back 71

which happened first?

Front 72

selection threat

Back 72

non equal groups

Front 73

History threat

Back 73

Changing events

Front 74

Maturation

Back 74

subjects change

Front 75

attrition threat

Back 75

patients leave or die

Front 76

testing threat

Back 76

subjects get better at test

Front 77

hawthorne effect

Back 77

subject wants to please authority

Front 78

diffusion of treatment

Back 78

subjects are talking

Front 79

equalization of treatment

Back 79

administrators want to compensate

Front 80

compensatory rivalry

Back 80

john henry

Front 81

look at chapter 9

Back 81

slide 22 for internal vs external balancing

Front 82

meta analyisis systematic review

Back 82

statistical integration

Front 83

metasynthesis

Back 83

theoretical integration of qualitiative findings

Front 84

objectivity in systematic review

Back 84

use everything

Front 85

increased power in systematic review

Back 85

reduces risk of type 2 error