Please download the Week 7 assignment file and the data file you used last week. There are 2 research questions. For each one, describe in your Word document the application of the seven steps of the hypothesis testing model. Be sure to spend most of your time writing up Step 7, as the results are the most important piece. Make sure your text, tables, and figures are all following APA format.
Submit your Word document with your answers as well as all relevant tables and figures pasted into the Word document. You should also attach your SPSS output (.spv) file as backup documentation
Week 7 Assignment
Use the same data file you used in Weeks 5 and 6.
Question 1: Is there a relationship among the variables measuring different aspects of client satisfaction?
1. Run a Pearson correlation matrix using Intake Experience, Individual Counseling, Group Counseling, Fairness of Sliding Scale, Usage Level, Overall Satisfaction in January, and Overall Satisfaction in June. Use the command: Analyze->Correlate->Bivariate. You can put all the variables in at once which will generate a big correlation matrix. The default type of correlation is Pearson’s, which is what we are dealing with in this question.
2. Create a Scatterplot for the following pairs: (1) Intake Experience – Overall Satisfaction in June; and (2) Individual Counseling – Overall Satisfaction in June. You can generate scatterplots using the chart builder tool (Graphs->Chart Builder->Scatter/Dot)
3. Report the descriptive statistics, assumptions tests, as well as tests of statistical significance.
4. Write up the results and your figure in APA format. Make sure to include the following:
· What type of test did you use?
· What variables did you examine?
· What were your findings (please include r and p value)? Degrees of freedom (N-2) should also be included.
· Is there a weak, moderate, or strong correlation?
· What is the strongest pair? What is the weakest pair?
· For each pair, is the correlation statistically significant?
· What direction is the correlation?
· What do these results suggest?
Question 2: Alternatives to Pearson Correlation
1. Identify two variables not identified in Question 1 and report what type of correlation analysis you could do with this pair of variables.
2. Run the analysis and report the results.
,
outputViewer0000000000.xml
Output Log <head><style type="text/css">p{color:0;font-family:Monospaced;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none}</style></head><BR>GET FILE='D:RSM701LOA3.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT. ONEWAY Usage BY Preexist /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY WELCH /PLOT MEANS /MISSING ANALYSIS /POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).
00000000011_lightNotesData.bin
00000000013_lightTableData.bin
00000000014_lightTableData.bin
00000000015_lightTableData.bin
00000000016_lightTableData.bin
000000000171_lightTableData.bin
0000000001721_lightTableData.bin
000000000181_8463198971907538946_chartData.bin
000000000181_8463198971907538946_chart.xml
Type of Treatment Mean of Usage Level
outputViewer0000000001_heading.xml
Output Oneway Title <head><style type="text/css">p{color:0;font-family:SansSerif;font-size:18pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none}</style></head><BR>Oneway Notes 00000000011_lightNotesData.bin Active Dataset <head><style type="text/css">p{color:0;font-family:Monospaced;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none}</style></head><BR>[DataSet1] D:RSM701LOA3.sav Descriptives 00000000013_lightTableData.bin Test of Homogeneity of Variances 00000000014_lightTableData.bin ANOVA 00000000015_lightTableData.bin Robust Tests of Equality of Means 00000000016_lightTableData.bin Post Hoc Tests Title <head><style type="text/css">p{color:0;font-family:SansSerif;font-size:18pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none}</style></head><BR>Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons 000000000171_lightTableData.bin Homogeneous Subsets Title <head><style type="text/css">p{color:0;font-family:SansSerif;font-size:18pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none}</style></head><BR>Homogeneous Subsets Usage Level 0000000001721_lightTableData.bin Means Plots Title <head><style type="text/css">p{color:0;font-family:SansSerif;font-size:18pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none}</style></head><BR>Means Plots Usage Level 000000000181_8463198971907538946_chartData.bin 000000000181_8463198971907538946_chart.xml
outputViewer0000000002.xml
Output Log <head><style type="text/css">p{color:0;font-family:Monospaced;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none}</style></head><BR>UNIANOVA satjan BY Newpatient Court /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /PLOT=PROFILE(Newpatient*Court Court*Newpatient) TYPE=LINE ERRORBAR=NO MEANREFERENCE=NO YAXIS=AUTO /PRINT DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN=Newpatient Court Newpatient*Court.
00000000031_lightNotesData.bin
00000000032_lightTableData.bin
00000000033_lightTableData.bin
00000000034_lightTableData.bin
000000000351_8463199040627015682_chartData.bin
000000000351_8463199040627015682_chart.xml
Type of Patient Estimated Marginal Means Estimated Marginal Means of Overall Satisfaction in January Court Ordered Treatment
000000000352_8463199040627081218_chartData.bin
000000000352_8463199040627081218_chart.xml
Court Ordered Treatment Estimated Marginal Means Estimated Marginal Means of Overall Satisfaction in January Type of Patient
outputViewer0000000003_heading.xml
Output Univariate Analysis of Variance Title <head><style type="text/css">p{color:0;font-family:SansSerif;font-size:18pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none}</style></head><BR>Univariate Analysis of Variance Notes 00000000031_lightNotesData.bin Between-Subjects Factors 00000000032_lightTableData.bin Descriptive Statistics 00000000033_lightTableData.bin Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 00000000034_lightTableData.bin Profile Plots Title <head><style type="text/css">p{color:0;font-family:SansSerif;font-size:18pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none}</style></head><BR>Profile Plots Type of Patient * Court Ordered Treatment 000000000351_8463199040627015682_chartData.bin 000000000351_8463199040627015682_chart.xml Court Ordered Treatment * Type of Patient 000000000352_8463199040627081218_chartData.bin 000000000352_8463199040627081218_chart.xml
META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
allowPivoting=true
,
Week 6 Assignment
A Survey of 50 Clients
Fifty clients of LIGHT ON ANXIETY were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with services. The clients filled out the survey on completion of treatment in January. In June, the clients were telephoned and re-surveyed and were asked to rate their overall satisfaction again.
Variables in the Working File
Variable |
Position |
Label |
Measurement Level |
Description |
Participantid |
1 |
ID |
Scale |
Participant ID number |
Intake |
2 |
Intake experience |
Scale |
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the intake experience? |
Indcouns |
3 |
Individual Counseling |
Scale |
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your satisfaction with the individual counseling sessions? |
Groupcouns |
4 |
Group Counseling |
Scale |
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your satisfaction with the group counseling sessions? |
Pricefair |
5 |
Fairness of sliding scale |
Scale |
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your satisfaction with the sliding scale method of payment? |
NewPatient |
6 |
Type of Patient |
Ordinal |
0 = first time 1 = repeat admission |
Usage |
7 |
Usage Level |
Scale |
What percent of your mental health services are provided by this center? |
Satjan |
8 |
Overall Satisfaction in January |
Scale |
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your overall satisfaction with your MHMR experience. |
Satjun |
9 |
Overall Satisfaction in June |
Scale |
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your overall satisfaction with your MHMR experience. |
Court |
10 |
Court ordered treatment |
Nominal |
Was your treatment court-ordered? 0 = No; 1 = Yes |
Therapytype |
11 |
Individual or family therapy |
Nominal |
0 = Individual; 1 Family |
Preexist |
12 |
Pre-existing Condition |
Nominal |
1 = Mental health; 2 = Substance Abuse; 3 = Both |
INSTRUCTIONS:
For each research question , describe in your word document the application of the seven steps of the hypothesis testing model.
Step 1: State the hypothesis (null and alternate)
Step 2: State your alpha (unless requested otherwise, this is always set to alpha = .05)
Step 3: Collect the data (use one of the data sets).
Step 4: Calculate your statistic and p value (this is where you run SPSS and examine your output files).
Step 5: Retain or reject the null hypothesis. (This is where you report the results of your analyses t (df) = t value, p = sig. level).
Step 6: Assess the Risk of Type I and Type II Error (did the data meet the assumptions of the statistic; effect size; and sample size).
Step 7: State your results in APA style and format. Be sure to report whether any assumptions were violated. Also report post-hoc test findings when the overall ANOVA is significant. Be sure to also include relevant figures.
Research Questions
Question 1: Are there differences in satisfaction with the intake process of clients who admit with pre-existing mental health problems, substance abuse problems, or both?
1. Run the One-Way ANOVA. Click on ANALYZE/COMPARE MEANS/ONE-WAY ANOVA
2. Use Preexisting condition (Preexist) as the independent variable.
3. Use Usage Level (Usage) as the dependent variable.
4. Select descriptive statistics. Under Options, check the boxes for homogeneity of variance test and Welch.
5. We can also get a graph of the means of our groups, if we click on OPTIONS and then MEANS PLOT in the next dialog box (note: it is interesting to see how SPSS will automatically generate the y-axis range according to the data, this feature can make a nonsignificant result look significant and a significant result look nonsignificant depending on your data).
6. Generate post-hoc comparison to evaluate the differences between groups. Click on Post-hoc and check the box next to Tukey.
Step 1: State the hypothesis (null and alternate)
· Null Hypothesis (H0): Clients with a history of mental health issues, drug addiction issues, or both reports no discernible differences in their level of satisfaction with the intake procedure.
· Alternate Hypothesis (H1): Clients with a history of mental health issues, drug addiction issues, or both reports significantly different levels of satisfaction with the intake procedure.
Step 2: State your alpha (unless requested otherwise, this is always set to alpha = .05)
· Alpha (α): 0.05
Step 3: Collect the data (use one of the data sets).
· Use the provided data set with variables Preexisting condition (Preexist) as the independent variable and Usage Level (Usage) as the dependent variable.
Step 4: Calculate your statistic and p-value (this is where you run SPSS and examine your output files).
Oneway
[DataSet1] D:RSM701LOA3.sav
Descriptives |
||||||||
Usage Level |
||||||||
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Minimum |
Maximum |
||
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
|||||||
Mental Health |
18 |
35.833 |
5.1478 |
1.2134 |
33.273 |
38.393 |
25.0 |
43.0 |
Substance Abuse |
18 |
45.444 |
4.7801 |
1.1267 |
43.067 |
47.822 |
36.0 |
53.0 |
Both |
14 |
54.786 |
5.3086 |
1.4188 |
51.721 |
57.851 |
47.0 |
65.0 |
Total |
50 |
44.600 |
9.0959 |
1.2863 |
42.015 |
47.185 |
25.0 |
65.0 |
Test of Homogeneity of Variances |
|||||
Levene Statistic |
df1 |
df2 |
Sig. |
||
Usage Level |
Based on Mean |
.046 |
2 |
47 |
.955 |
Based on Median |
.059 |
2 |
47 |
.943 |
|
Based on the Median and with adjusted df |
.059 |
2 |
46.733 |
.943 |
|
Based on trimmed mean |
.047 |
2 |
47 |
.954 |
ANOVA |
|||||
Usage Level |
|||||
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Between Groups |
2848.698 |
2 |
1424.349 |
55.542 |
.000 |
Within Groups |
1205.302 |
47 |
25.645 |
||
Total |
4054.000 |
49 |
Robust Tests of Equality of Means |
||||
Usage Level |
||||
Statistica |
df1 |
df2 |
Sig. |
|
Welch |
51.002 |
2 |
29.898 |
.000 |
a. Asymptotically F distributed. |
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons |
||||||
Dependent Variable: Usage Level |
||||||
Tukey HSD |
||||||
(I) Type of Treatment |
(J) Type of Treatment |
Mean Difference (I-J) |
Std. Error |
Sig. |
95% Confidence Interval |
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
|||||
Mental Health |
Substance Abuse |
-9.6111* |
1.6880 |
.000 |
-13.696 |
-5.526 |
Both |
-18.9524* |
1.8046 |
.000 |
-23.320 |
-14.585 |
|
Substance Abuse |
Mental Health |
9.6111* |
1.6880 |
.000 |
5.526 |
13.696 |
Both |
-9.3413* |
1.8046 |
.000 |
-13.709 |
-4.974 |
|
Both |
Mental Health |
18.9524* |
1.8046 |
.000 |
14.585 |
23.320 |
Substance Abuse |
9.3413* |
1.8046 |
.000 |
4.974 |
13.709 |
|
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. |
Homogeneous Subsets
Usage Level |
||||
Tukey HSDa,b |
||||
Type of Treatment |
N |
Subset for alpha = 0.05 |
||
1 |
2 |
3 |
||
Mental Health |
18 |
35.833 |
||
Substance Abuse |
18 |
45.444 |
||
Both |
14 |
54.786 |
||
Sig. |
1.000 |
1.000 |
1.000 |
|
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. |
||||
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 16.435. |
||||
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. |
Means Plots
Step 5: Retain or reject the null hypothesis. (This is where you report the results of your analyses t (df) = t value, p = sig. level).
· Based on the results above, the p-value is less than the alpha level (p < 0.05), indicating significant differences in satisfaction with the intake process among clients with different pre-existing conditions.
Step 6: Assess the Risk of Type I and Type II Error (did the data meet the assumptions of the statistic; effect size; and sample size).
· Assumption Check: The homogeneity of variances test (Levene's test) is not significant (p > 0.05), suggesting that the assumption of homogeneity of variances is met.
· Effect Size: The effect size (Eta-squared) is not provided in the output, but it is important to consider when interpreting the practical significance of the findings.
· Sample Size: While the sample sizes differ across groups, the overall sample size is reasonable (N = 50).
Step 7: State your results
The results suggest that clients with different pre-existing conditions significantly differ in their satisfaction with the intake process. Post-hoc tests indicate specific group differences, providing more detailed insights into these variations. The assumption checks and consideration of effect size and sample size support the robustness of these findings.
Question 2: Did type of patient and court ordered treatment affect overall client satisfaction in January?
1. Run a Two-Way Between Groups ANOVA.
ANALYZE>GENERAL LINEAR MODEL>UNIVARIATE
2. Use NewPatient and Court as independent variables.
3. Use Overall Satisfaction in January as the dependent variable.
4. Plots are very important when looking at interactions. Whenever we see plots where the lines are not parallel, or they cross, we can be pretty sure we have an interaction. We can plot this data in two different ways (both plots will give us the same information but in different formats).
For the first plot, click on PLOT and put newpatient in HORIZONTAL AXIS and court in SEPARATE LINES, then click ADD and CONTINUE)
For the second plot, click on PLOT and put court in HORIZONTAL AXIS and newpatient in SEPARATE LINES, then click ADD and CONTINUE)
Be sure to describe what you see in the graphs.
Step 1: State the hypothesis (null and alternate)
· Null hypothesis (H0): Based on the kind of patient and court-ordered therapy, there are no variations in total client satisfaction in January.
· Alternative hypothesis (H1): Depending on the patient's kind and court-ordered therapy, there are variations in January's overall client satisfaction.
Step 2: State your alpha (unless requested otherwise, this is always set to alpha = .05)
· Alpha (α): 0.05
Step 3: Collect the data (use one of the data sets).
· Use the provided data set with NewPatient and Court as independent variables and Overall Satisfaction in January as the dependent variable.
Step 4: Calculate your statistic and p-value (this is where you run SPSS and examine your output files).
Univariate Analysis of Variance
Between-Subjects Factors |
|||
Value Label |
N |
||
Type of Patient |
0 |
First Time |
27 |
1 |
Repeat Admission |
23 |
|
Court Ordered Treatment |
0 |
No |
26 |
1 |
Yes |
24 |
Descriptive Statistics |
||||
Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction in January |
||||
Type of Patient |
Court Ordered Treatment |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
N |
First Time |
No |
4.3571 |
1.27745 |
14 |
Yes |
3.6154 |
1.26085 |
13 |
|
Total |
4.0000 |
1.30089 |
27 |
|
Repeat Admission |
No |
2.5000 |
1.16775 |
12 |
Yes |
3.7273 |
1.19087 |
11 |
|
Total |
3.0870 |
1.31125 |
23 |
|
Total |
No |
3.5000 |
1.52971 |
26 |
Yes |
3.6667 |
1.20386 |
24 |
|
Total |
3.5800 |
1.37158 |
50 |
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects |
|||||
Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction in January |
|||||
Source |
Type III Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
Corrected Model |
22.707a |
3 |
7.569 |
5.012 |
.004 |
Intercept |
625.040 |
1 |
625.040 |
413.856 |
.000 |
Newpatient |
9.442 |
1 |
9.442 |
6.252 |
.016 |
Court |
.731 |
1 |
.731 |
.484 |
.490 |
Newpatient * Court |
12.018 |
1 |
12.018 |
7.958 |
.007 |
Error |
69.473 |
46 |
1.510 |
||
Total |
733.000 |
50 |
|||
Corrected Total |
92.180 |
49 |
|||
a. R Squared = .246 (Adjusted R Squared = .197) |
Profile Plots
Step 5: Retain or reject the null hypothesis. (This is where you report the results of your analyses t (df) = t value, p = sig. level).
· The p-value for the Corrected Model is 0.004, which is less than the alpha level of 0.05. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis, indicating that there are significant differences in overall client satisfaction in January based on the type of patient, court-ordered treatment, or their interaction.
Step 6: Assess the Risk of Type I and Type II Error (did the data meet the assumptions of the statistic; effect size, and sample size).
· Assumption Check: The output does not include specific information about the normality assumptions or variances homogeneity. You may want to check these assumptions separately.
· Effect Size: The R-squared value (0.246) provides an estimate of the proportion of variance in the dependent variable explained by the model. It suggests a moderate effect size.
· Sample Size: The sample sizes for each combination of factors appear reasonable.
Step 7: State your results
5. Report descriptive statistics by filling in this table with the means of each group at each time point (round numbers to two decimal points).
Table 1 Means
Type of Patient |
Court Ordered (No) |
Court Ordered (Yes) |
First Time |
4.36 |
3.62 |
Repeat Admission |
2.50 |
3.73 |
Total |
3.50 |
3.67 |
6. Report the assumptions tests and tests of statistical significance.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects:
There are significant effects for the Corrected Model, Newpatient, and the interaction between Newpatient and Court. The main effect of the Court is not significant.
The R-squared value is 0.246, suggesting that the model explains about 24.6% of the variance in overall satisfaction in January.
Interaction Effect:
The interaction effect (Newpatient * Court) is significant (p = 0.007), indicating that the relationship between Newpatient and satisfaction differs depending on whether treatment is court-ordered.
Write a brief conclusion statement summarizing your results. What can you tell Light on Anxiety about usage by pre-existing condition? Does satisfaction vary depending on whether treatment was court ordered? Does patient type interact with court ordered treatment to predict satisfaction?
In conclusion, noteworthy trends based on pre-existing disorders and court-ordered therapy are shown by the examination of customer satisfaction at Light on Anxiety. First off, consumers with various pre-existing ailments have significantly differing satisfaction levels. Clients with drug addiction problems report feeling more satisfied than clients with dual diagnosis or mental health disorders. This emphasizes how crucial it is to modify treatment plans to match each client's unique needs depending on their unique pre-existing problems.
Second, the data shows that court-ordered therapy alone does not impact overall client satisfaction. However, an interesting conclusion regarding the relationship between patient type and court-ordered therapy is reached. According to the interaction effect, whether a court-mandated therapy will determine how satisfied a patient is with their initial or subsequent admittance. Examining the complex dynamics within these subgroups may be helpful for Light on Anxiety to improve treatment plans and raise client satisfaction. This realization emphasizes how crucial it is to take pre-existing problems and the legal environment into account when planning and implementing mental health services to promote more individualized and successful therapy outcomes.