4 minutes agoBobbie Masenda
RE: Masenda_Discusssion Board 2
After reviewing the article, one of the claims made is that the intervention “was proven to decrease MRSA acquisition rate and MRSA colonization pressure” (Chun et al., 2014).
The empirical statement: Frequent handwashing after contact with individuals with MRSA decrease the spreading of MRSA by 8.4% in 4 months.
Independent variable: hand washing education program
Dependent variable: MRSA
Subject: 24 MCIU nurses
Results: decrease in MRSA acquisition rate decreased and MRSA colonization.
The statistical evidence in the article that support the claim is as follow:
there was a decrease in the number of MRSA acquisition by more than eight percent.
The number of MRSA colonization decrease by more than ten percent.
The evidence supports the claim post first observation, however when the second post education was done the evidence does not support the claim because their was not a decease in MRSA after the second intervention.
I appraise this article using the tool that was created in the Cohn article. The tool contains nine criteria that were identified as important components of a statistical analysis (Cohn et al., 2009). The following are the nine criteria used to analysis the selected article with the following responses:
Study contains a power analysis.The study did not contain a power analysis. “A power analysis is conducted to ensure adequate sample size and therefore the ability to adequately test the intervention or hypothesis” (Shapiro et al., 2009).
The analytical approach was met by the author using a quasi-experimental design.
The hypothesis was met, and the research question was measured and addressed individually.
Chi-square test of independence was preformed to determine normality assumption was met in this study.
In this study the level of data was not identified.
The statistical/analytical approach was described throughout the study.
Descriptive data and inferential statistics were not shown to be reported in the study.
Analytic approach was described in this study.
The difference between clinical and statistical significance was not significant to the claim.
PLEASE RESPOND IN THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE