Correlations Discussion Paper

Correlations Discussion Paper

Introduction

Correlation is a statistical technique used to measure the extent to which two variables are related to each other. The technique measures both the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables of interest. Whereas it can be used with categorical variables, it is widely used with continuous or ranked data. Correlation is measured by the correlation coefficient, which is a value that ranges between -1 to +1, with a perfect negative and positive correlation between two variables being equal to -1 and +1, respectively. The correlation coefficient is not affected by the units of measure/ dimension of variables as it is standardized. The relationship between two variables should be linear, and the variables should be normally distributed to use the technique effectively. This is assessed particularly for small samples, and caution should be taken with the presence of outliers (Walters et al., 2021).

According to Walters et al. (2021), the first procedure for using correlation in the analysis is assessing if the underlying assumptions are met. Scatter plots are used to check the nature of the relationship, whether linear or not, while a histogram or Q-Q plot is used to check normal distribution. If the underlying assumptions of normality and the presence of a linear relationship are met, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) is used. However, if the data does not follow a normal distribution, then Kendall tau or Spearman ranked correlation which does not require normality assumption is used to assess the relationship.

While interpreting the correlation coefficient, it should be noted the closer to +1 or -1, the stronger the relationship. The relationship can be weak (ranges 0.1-0.3) or moderate (0.31-0.5) and strong (over 0.5) (American Nurse, 2011).

Reflection

Correlation is applicable to diverse medical research and studies, considering it is best suited for assessing relationships between continuous or ranked data. In the medical field, measuring or diagnosing most diseases rely on the measurement of certain antibodies, blood count, blood sugar levels, body fat content, blood pressure, age, anxiety, and many more. Most of the measures or data generated in the medical setup are continuous in nature, and therefore, correlation can be easily employed to assess the relationship between variables of interest. Past studies have shown that level of anxiety is determined by a wide range of factors varying across different groups and settings.

An example of a study where we may consider using correlation techniques is, for instance, to assess the association/relationship between levels of anxiety with age, hours spent at work, and gender. In this case, the level of anxiety, the time it takes to get to the workplace, hours spent at work, and age are all continuous, while gender is categorical.

The research question would be, is there a relationship between anxiety and age, time spent at work, and gender? In this case, the null hypotheses would be a significant relationship between anxiety and age, time spent in the office, and gender, or the correlation between anxiety and age, time spent in the office, and gender is not significantly different from zero. The alternative hypothesis would be that there is a significant correlation between anxiety and age, the time it takes to get to the workplace, time spent in the office, and gender.

In this case, we would expect to see a positive correlation between anxiety and time spent in the office, meaning as time spent in the office increases, we would expect an increase in anxiety levels. Similarly, we would expect the same for anxiety with age; as age progresses, anxiety levels would increase due to several other factors that may confound the age. As for gender, a prediction may not be direct unless an analysis is carried out to determine which group is highly correlated with anxiety levels.

The effectiveness of using correlation statistical technic would depend on several factors, including study design, sample size, how quantities are measured if underlying assumptions are considered as they should be, and the interpretation of the coefficient done appropriately (Prestes et al., 2021). It should be noted that correlation does not imply causality; it only measures the strength and direction of the relationship. Once data is collected and cleaned, the next step is checking the underlying assumptions; if assumptions are met or not met, an appropriate approach is taken for analysis, after which results are interpreted. If the Pearson correlation coefficient is used when the normality assumption is violated, the results may not be reliable. It would also be important to look into the confounding factors that may influence the relationship between variables, as results are likely to be under the influence of other measured or unmeasured variables.  In the presence of a confounder that affects both variables being assessed, the partial correlation that controls for the confounder is used.

Conclusion

The correlation technique is robust and has a wide range of applications in the medical research field. Whereas it is best suited to assess relationships between continuous variables, it is also used with rank data and categorical (dichotomous). The reliability of results depends on several factors that should be considered while using this technique.

References

American Nurse. (2011). Understanding correlation analysis. https://www.myamericannurse.com/understanding-correlation-analysis/

Prestes, P. A. N., Silva, T. E. V. & Barroso, G. C. (2021). Correlation analysis using teaching and learning analytics. Heliyon, 7(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08435

Walters, S. J., Campbell, M. J. & Manchin, D. (2021). Medical Statistics: A Textbook for the Health Sciences. John Wiley & Sons.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Any topic related to dementia as a problem will work.
Week Six: Discussion Six Instructions
Discussion: Correlations
“Much of the clinical research relevant to nursing explores whether a relationship exists between two patient characteristics. Understanding potentially related characteristics helps nurses better identify which physical, psychological, or demographic factors are associated with reason for concern” (American Nurse, 2011).

Photo Credit: Getty Images
In order to explore relationships among associated variables, a DNP-prepared nurse may utilize correlational research. This type of research allows for the exploration of connections and measuring many variables. While not used to determine causality, this research can be integral in proving the theory. So, when might an issue or topic need to be explored through relationships and associations?
For this Discussion, review the Learning Resources and reflect on a particular topic of interest that may benefit from a correlational study. Formulate a research question and consider your hypotheses and prediction. Reflect on the effectiveness of conducting correlational research.
Reference:
American Nurse. (2011). Understanding correlation analysis. https://www.myamericannurse.com/understanding-correlation-analysis/
To Prepare:
• Review this week’s Learning Resources and focus on the types of research questions that can be answered using a correlational statistic.
• Brainstorm a number of healthcare delivery or nursing practice problems that could be explored using correlational statistics. Then, select one problem on which to focus for this Discussion.
• Formulate a research question to address the problem and that would lead you to employ correlational statistics.
• Develop a null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses.
• Ask yourself: What is the expected direction of the relationship?
By Day 3 of Week 6
Post a brief description of the selected problem that you identified for the focus of this Discussion and include your research question. Be specific. Explain your null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses for your research question and identify the dependent and independent variables that you would recommend to best support the research study. Then, explain your prediction for the expected relationship (positive or negative) between the variables that you identified. Why do you think that sort of relationship will exist? What other factors might affect the outcome? Be specific and provide examples.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric\’s layout.
Name: NURS_8201_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View
Show Descriptions
Main Posting:

Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.–
Excellent

90–100 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).

Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three current credible sources.
Good

80–89 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).

Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible references.
Fair

70–79 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).

One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Cited with fewer than two credible references.
Poor

0–69 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting:

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Writing–
Excellent

90–100 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Good

80–89 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Fair

70–79 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.
Poor

0–69 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:

Timely and full participation–
Excellent

90–100 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.
Good

80–89 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.
Fair

70–79 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Poor

0–69 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:

Post to colleague\’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–
Excellent

90–100 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Good

80–89 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Fair

70–79 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Poor

0–69 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response:

Writing–
Excellent

90–100 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good

80–89 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in standard, edited English.
Fair

70–79 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor

0–69 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
First Response:

Timely and full participation–
Excellent

90–100 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.
Good

80–89 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.
Fair

70–79 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Poor

0–69 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.
Second Response:
Post to colleague\’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–
Excellent

90–100 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Good

80–89 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Fair

70–79 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Poor

0–69 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing–
Excellent

90–100 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good

80–89 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in standard, edited English.
Fair

70–79 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor

0–69 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:
Timely and full participation–
Excellent

90–100 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.
Good

80–89 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.
Fair

70–79 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Poor

0–69 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_8201_Week6_Discussion_Rubric.
Above are the instructions and the grading rubric. Please read carefully. The instructor likes details and examples with headings. Again, thanks for your assistance.