Question 2: Discussion
For the first group of participants who cannot identify hypertension lifestyle factors and willingness to engage in self-care scores there are a total of 14 participants. The levels of central tendency consist of the mean of 5.5 which is the average score, the median of 5.5 which is the exact middle number and the mode of 7 which is the most frequent occurring score (Salkind, 2013). There was an average deviation from the sample mean of 2.35, therefore it can be said that 95% of cases would fall between -2 standard deviation (SD) and +2SD (Loiselle et al., 2011). At -2SD is a score of 0.80 and +2SD is a score of 10.2, any scores that occur below 0.80 and above 10.2 would be considered an extreme score and occur 5% …show more content…
A decision to reject the null and accept the research hypothesis was made based on the calculated F statistic value in comparison to the critical F value (Salkind, 2013). There is a potential error that can occur and a type I error is associated with level of significance which was set at 0.05 (Salkind, 2013). The conclusion made was there is a statistical significance, therefore the writer has concluded that there is a difference between participants who can identify hypertension lifestyle factors and their willingness to engage in self care. With these results, there is a potential for more health care funding to go into ensuring that there is knowledge about hypertension lifestyle factors as this impacts an individual’s willingness to engage in self care. If the results are false considering the possible type I error, funding has been spent where it is not needed and could have been used elsewhere. In order to avoid the potential of a type I error from occurring, the researcher can increase the sample size and the selection of participants. A larger sample size that yields statistical significance will increase the generalizability to the population (Loiselle et al.,
For the first group of participants who cannot identify hypertension lifestyle factors and willingness to engage in self-care scores there are a total of 14 participants. The levels of central tendency consist of the mean of 5.5 which is the average score, the median of 5.5 which is the exact middle number and the mode of 7 which is the most frequent occurring score (Salkind, 2013). There was an average deviation from the sample mean of 2.35, therefore it can be said that 95% of cases would fall between -2 standard deviation (SD) and +2SD (Loiselle et al., 2011). At -2SD is a score of 0.80 and +2SD is a score of 10.2, any scores that occur below 0.80 and above 10.2 would be considered an extreme score and occur 5% …show more content…
A decision to reject the null and accept the research hypothesis was made based on the calculated F statistic value in comparison to the critical F value (Salkind, 2013). There is a potential error that can occur and a type I error is associated with level of significance which was set at 0.05 (Salkind, 2013). The conclusion made was there is a statistical significance, therefore the writer has concluded that there is a difference between participants who can identify hypertension lifestyle factors and their willingness to engage in self care. With these results, there is a potential for more health care funding to go into ensuring that there is knowledge about hypertension lifestyle factors as this impacts an individual’s willingness to engage in self care. If the results are false considering the possible type I error, funding has been spent where it is not needed and could have been used elsewhere. In order to avoid the potential of a type I error from occurring, the researcher can increase the sample size and the selection of participants. A larger sample size that yields statistical significance will increase the generalizability to the population (Loiselle et al.,