Quantmentation Meosurement : Project Outcome Measurements

Copies of completed surveys attached as an appendix and ensuring that you demonstrate that you have followed the appropriate protocols to protect the identities of the participants you have interviewed.

2. What data and method does the author use to evaluate this intervention? Why was that data and method used?

A research team leader will randomly select eligible participants and divided them into two equal groups, A and B. Group A pre-intervention and Group B post intervention. There are multiple delivery methods available for collection data such as interview (one-on-one, via telephone or in person), focus groups, and observation. The traditional method paper-and-pencil survey whose results are subsequently entered into a software program will be used as well as an online based collection to reducing the cost of data collection and encouraging voluntary participants. The data will be electronically downloaded directly to an Excel spreadsheet for analysis and minimizing data entry error or bias. There will be four different types

The information used in this report was gained from several different sources. For example, I have used information from my P4 survey, as well as my P3, M2 presentation and my M1 table of various data collection methods.

Engage current and past participants in surveys and process evaluations to assess program’s efficacy and

Results (what were the basic results of the study, how did the authors draw conclusions, how did they display their data, are their conclusions justified) (1pt)

Interested participants were issue a questionnaire for completion and following a six Week intervention, each participant patients

The evaluation also used a pre and post survey design. The survey was created through conversations with program leaders to find out the key intervention targets. This survey was used to gain an understanding of the impacts that the NYSP program had on student skill and behaviors and allowed researchers to determine areas of programmatic strength and weakness.

The information is presented in a direct manner, lacking unnecessary information, and written in a style which is easy for a range of readers to understand. They provide a thorough description of the development of the instrument, the norm population used, and an example of the survey, thus enabling the study to be replicated. A table of the frequencies and percentages of respondents’

The second assessment that another volunteer completed was the Outcome Questionnaire-45.2 (OQ-45.2). The authors of this assessment are, Michael L. Lambert, Jared J. Morton, Derick Hatfield, Cory Harmon, Stacy Hamilton, Rory C. Reid, Kenichi Shimokawa, Cody Christopherson, and Gary M. Burlingame. However, is important to mention that the main researcher for the OQ-45.2 for almost two decades is Dr. Michael Lambert. The publisher of the OQ-45.2 is the American Professional Credentialing Services, L.L.C and the original date of publication was 1994. However, the OQ-45.2 second edition was published on1996 and the third edition was published in 2004. The third edition was revised in January 2004, which is the one that the volunteer fill out for the purpose of this

Outcomes based solely on knowledge and attitudes are no longer acceptable. Variation in measures makes comparisons across studies difficult. Also, the frequent use of study-specific composite scales (based on combinations of individual measures) often makes practical interpretations of findings difficult. This latter problem, coupled with the failure to report effect sizes, makes it difficult to judge the likely benefit from implementing programs on a large scale (Gorman 1995). Analysis based on intention-to-treat is the most relevant from a public health standpoint, but application of this analytic standard often eliminates statistical significance (Foxcroft et al. 2003). Differences in program intensity (number of sessions), followup periods, age/grade of students, program goals, population characteristics, and attrition also impede meta-analysis and cross-study

The four accepted articles were analyzed and summarized. Article validity, reliability, and bias are included in the discussion. An overview of the articles are included in Table 2, indicating evidence level, design, population characteristics, intervention specifics, outcome measures, and PICO question relevance.

The focus of this project is to do an evaluation of the preliminary results observed in the first two years of the study. I am interested in answering the following questions:

effect of using unit based, high fidelity simulation as an educational tool (Disher et al, 2014)” on the knowledge of the bedside nurse, while the second addressed the level of self confidence the nurse felt when handing a critically ill patient in a compromised state. These questions differ from a hypothesis because they do not involve a population, variable and relationship but rather, include a population, intervention, comparison, and outcome.

The questionnaires will be distributed to 150-200 OST program students randomly selected across Moffet, McKinley, and Hunter elementary schools participating in the OST program (Treatment