# These results indicate that the differences are probably an actual reflection

June 19, 2019
June 19, 2019

### EXERCISE 14 Questions to Be Graded

Name: _______________________________________________________ Class: _____________________

Date: ___________________________________________________________________________________

1. According to the study narrative and Figure 1 in the Flannigan et al. (2014) study, does the APLS UK formula under- or overestimate the weight of children younger than 1 year of age? Provide a rationale for your answer.

2. Using the values a = 3.161 and b = 0.502 with the novel formula in Figure 1, what is the predicted weight in kilograms (kg) for a child at 9 months of age? Show your calculations.

3. Using the values a = 3.161 and b = 0.502 with the novel formula in Figure 1, what is the predicted weight in kilograms for a child at 2 months of age? Show your calculations.

4. In Figure 2, the formula for calculating y (weight in kg) is Weight in kg = (0.176 × Age in months) + 7.241. Identify the y intercept and the slope in this formula.

150

5. Using the values a = 7.241 and b = 0.176 with the novel formula in Figure 2, what is the predicted weight in kilograms for a child 3 years of age? Show your calculations.

6. Using the values a = 7.241 and b = 0.176 with the novel formula in Figure 2, what is the predicted weight in kilograms for a child 5 years of age? Show your calculations.

7. In Figure 3, some of the actual mean weights represented by blue line with squares are above the dotted straight line for the novel formula, but others are below the straight line. Is this an expected finding? Provide a rationale for your answer.

8. In Figure 3, the novel formula is (weight in kilograms = (0.331 × Age in months) − 6.868. What is the predicted weight in kilograms for a child 10 years old? Show your calculations.

9. Was the sample size of this study adequate for conducting simple linear regression? Provide a rationale for your answer.

10. Describe one potential clinical advantage and one potential clinical problem with using the three novel formulas presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 in a PICU setting.

(Grove 139-150)

Grove, Susan K., Daisha Cipher. Statistics for Nursing Research: A Workbook for Evidence-Based Practice, 2nd Edition. Saunders, 022016. VitalBook file.

The citation provided is a guideline. Please check each citation for accuracy before use.

Exercise 19

## Understanding Pearson Chi-Square

### Statistical Technique in Review

The Pearson Chi-square (χ2 ) is an inferential statistical test calculated to examine differences among groups with variables measured at the nominal level. There are different types of χ2 tests and the Pearson chi-square is commonly reported in nursing studies. The Pearson χ2 test compares the frequencies that are observed with the frequencies that were expected. The assumptions for the χ2 test are as follows:

1. The data are nominal-level or frequency data.

2. The sample size is adequate.

3. The measures are independent of each other or that a subject’s data only fit into one category (Plichta & Kelvin, 2013).

The χ2 values calculated are compared with the critical values in the χ2 table (see Appendix D Critical Values of the χ2 Distribution at the back of this text). If the result is greater than or equal to the value in the table, significant differences exist. If the values are statistically significant, the null hypothesis is rejected (Grove, Burns, & Gray, 2013). These results indicate that the differences are probably an actual reflection of reality and not just due to random sampling error or chance.

In addition to the χ2 value, researchers often report the degrees of freedom (df). This mathematically complex statistical concept is important for calculating and determining levels of significance. The standard formula for df is sample size (N) minus 1, or df = N − 1; however, this formula is adjusted based on the analysis technique performed (Plichta & Kelvin, 2013). The df formula for the χ2 test varies based on the number of categories examined in the analysis. The formula for df for the two-way χ2 test is df = (R − 1) (C − 1), where R is number of rows and C is the number of columns in a χ2 table. For example, in a 2 × 2 χ2 table, df = (2 − 1) (2 − 1) = 1. Therefore, the df is equal to 1. Table 19-1 includes a 2 × 2 chi-square contingency table based on the findings of An et al. (2014) study. In Table 19-1, the rows represent the two nominal categories of alcohol 192use and alcohol nonuse and the two columns represent the two nominal categories of smokers and nonsmokers. The df = (2 − 1) (2 − 1) = (1) (1) = 1, and the study results were as follows: χ2 (1, N = 799) = 63.1; p < 0.0001. It is important to note that the df can also be reported without the sample size, as in χ2(1) = 63.1, p < 0.0001.