Mayland et al. (2015)- Grand Canyon University

The degrees of freedom (df) Mayland et al. (2015) does not provide for the analysis. To calculate Group df and error df use the degrees of free formula given at the beginning of the exercise.
Df = k -1 (where k = research group number)
Three classes were used by Mayland. The degree of liberty (df) is therefore 2 (3-1).
What is the F value of the spiritual patient and the p value? What do the findings mean? At a = 0.05, the F value is 38.1 while p <0.0001. The p value for the spiritual-need patient (p < 0.0001) is less that 0.05 and as such there is a statistically significant difference among the three categories of health facilities (hospice, hospital with LCP and hospital without LCP) regarding spiritual-need patients. What is the post hoc result for facilities for the hospital with LCP vs. the hospital without LCP? Is this result significant? In your opinion, is this an expected finding? Post Hoc results for facilities comparison between hospital with LCP vs. hospital without LCP have an p value of 0.85. 0.85 is larger than 0.05 and as a result there is no significant difference in terms of facilities between hospitals with LCP and those without. The findings are largely expected because most health care facilities are expected to meet specific requirements in terms of facilities by regulators. What are the assumptions for the use of ANOVA? The core assumptions of ANOVA analysis are: The population from which the samples are obtained or the random samples are distributed normally. The groups have to be mutually exclusive The groups should have homogeinty of variance Observations have to be independent The independent variable is measured at the interval or ratio level. What variable on Table 3 has the result f = 10.6, p < 0.0001? What does the result mean? Symptom management has f = 10.6, p <0.0001. The results imply that there was a significant difference in respondents opinions regarding whether more should have been done by staff to control symptoms. ANOVA was used for analysis by Mayland et al. (2014). Would ttests have been appropriate? Provide a rationale for your answer. No, t-test could not have been applied. T-tests are applicable where two groups are involved and in the Mayland et al. (2014), 3 groups are involved. What ttype of post hoc analysis was performed? Is the post hoc analysis more or less conservative than the Scheffe’ test? Myland et al. (2014) used Turkey HSD Test to conduct the post hoc analysis. The Turkey Honesty Signficant Difference test is less conservative than Scheffe’ test. State the null hypothesis for care for the three study group. Should the null hypotheis be accepted or rejected? Provide a rationale for your answer. The null hypothesis is: The three care groups of hospice, hospital with LCP, and hospital without LCP have no significance difference in care for the next of kin who had ded of cancer. According to the results in Table 2, there is a significant difference in terms of care (p <0.0001) in the hospice, hospital with LCP an those without LCP. What are the post hoc results for care? Which results are statistically significant? What does the results mean? The post hoc analysis for hospice vs. hospital with LCP is p =0.0001, hospice vs. hospital without LCP is p=0.0001 and hospital with LCP vs. hospital without LCP is 0.05. All the three p-values are less or equal to 0.05 and as such they are statistically significant. There is a significant difference in care for next-of-kin of patients who died of cancer in the hospice, hospital with LCP and those without LCP. In your opinion, do the study findings in Tables 2 and 3 have implications for end of life care? Yes, next-of-kin have a significant role in the end of life care and integrating their input in the improvement of care is critical.