Data Analyses - Spss

To begin my data management, I started by entering my project data
into Excel. The top row contained my data categories, such as population, ID,
descriptive and outcome variables, for my project. I then entered mock data
into the spreadsheet. I assigned an identification number to each patient, 1-
40. I then entered in my population data. Group 1 (n=20) was the group with
the standard pain management treatment. Group 2 (n=20) was the group
that received the EBP recommended pain management treatment. The
variable, gender, was entered as 0-male and 1-female. The participants age
was entered as current age in years. The variable, location of pain, was
entered as: 1-head, 2-neck/back, 3-upper extremity, 4-lower extremity, 5-hip,
6-stomach, 7-other. The participants level of pain was entered using the
value obtained from the Numeric Pain Scale, with 0 being no pain and 10
being the worst pain. Intensity values were obtained pre-treatment and post-
treatment in both groups. The variable, quality, was entered as: 1-flickering,
quivering, pulsing, throbbing, beating, pounding, 2-jumping, flashing
shooting, 3-prickling, boring, drilling, 4-sharp, cutting, lacerating, 5-pinching,
pressing, gnawing, crushing, 6-tugging, pulling, wrenching, 7-hot, burning,
scalding, searing, 8-tingling, itching, stinging, 9-dull, sore, hurting, aching,
heavy, 10-tender, taut, rasping, splitting, 11-tiring, exhausting, 12-sickening,
suffocating, 13-fearful, frightful, terrifying, 14-punishing, grueling, cruel,
vicious, 15-wretched, blinding, 16-annoying, troublesome, miserable,
intense, unbearable, 17-spreading, radiating, penetrating, piercing, 18-tight,
numb, drawing, squeezing, tearing, 19-cool, cold, freezing, 20-nagging,

nauseating, agonizing, dreadful, torturing. The first short-term outcome
variable, My pain is better now than it was one month ago, was entered as:
1-strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-slightly agree, 4-not sure, 5-slightly disagree, 6-
disagree, and 7-strongly disagree. The second short-term outcome variable,
I am satisfied with the current treatment I am receiving for my pain, was
entered as: 1-strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-slightly agree, 4-not sure, 5-slightly
disagree, 6-disagree, and 7-strongly disagree. The long-term outcome
variable, My pain is better now than it was six months ago, was entered as:
1-strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-slightly agree, 4-not sure, 5-slightly disagree, 6-
disagree, and 7-strongly disagree.
The data was entered into the statistical software program Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) by importing the above Excel
spreadsheet. I then adjusted my data categories to accurately reflect
nominal or scale input methods in SPSS. I also entered in any coding
necessary for clarifying my data, such as 0-male, 1-female. I then performed
descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. Each groups data was
analyzed for improvement using paired t-Tests and the groups were
compared using independent t-Tests. The variables compared were short-
term outcome variables and long-term outcome variables, to see if there was
any significant change in levels of pain and satisfaction of treatment
between the two groups. Pain intensity was also compared pre and post
treatment between the two groups and individually within each group. The
level of significance was set at alpha=.05.

In Group 1, there were a total of 20 participants, 10 male and 10
female, with a mean age of 52.45 (SD 17.95). The most common location of
pain in Group 1 was neck/back at 35%. The most common qualities of pain
reported were pinching, pressing, gnawing, crushing at 10% and sickening,
suffocating at 10%. The mean pain score pre-treatment implementation in
Group 1 was 6.20 (SD 2.69). The mean pain score post-treatment
implementation in Group 1 was 4.00 (SD 2.51). In Group 2, there were a
total of 20 participants, 10 male, 9 female, and 1 missing entry, with a mean
age of 45.35 (SD 18.69). The most common location of pain in Group 2 was
neck/back at 20% and upper extremity at 20%. The most common quality
was tugging, pulling, wrenching. The mean pain score pre-treatment
implementation in Group 2 was 7.10 (SD 2.15). The mean pain score post-
treatment implementation in Group 2 was 3.25 (SD 2.73).
Paired sample statistics were computed for pain scores pre and post
treatment implementation for Groups 1 and 2 separately. Again, for Group 1,
the mean pain score pre-treatment implementation was 6.20 (SD 2.69) and
post-treatment implementation in Group 1 was 4.00 (SD 2.51), with a
difference in mean pain scores of 2.20 (SD 2.22). This demonstrated a drop
in the mean scores, with the result being significant with a t-score of 4.442
and a p-value of .000. And again for Group 2, the mean pain score pre-
treatment implementation in Group 2 was 7.10 (SD 2.15) and the mean pain
score post-treatment implementation in Group 2 was 3.25 (SD 2.73), with a
difference in mean pain scores of 3.85 (SD 1.90). This also demonstrated a
drop in the mean scores, with the result being significant with a t-score of
9.065 and a p-value of .000.
The SPSS program was then utilized to compute change scores
between two groups. Independent t-test sample tests were then used to
determine significant differences between the groups. The mean short-term
outcome (STO) 1 variable in Group 1, receiving the standard treatment, was
3.50 (SD 1.99). The mean STO 1 variable in Group 2, receiving the EBP
treatment recommendation, was 3.15 (SD 1.79). This difference yielded a t-
score of .586 and p-value of .561. This means the resulting difference was
not statistically significant as the p-value is greater than alpha (.05), and the
null hypothesis should not be rejected. The mean STO 2 variable in Group 1
was 2.95 (SD 1.73) and the mean STO 2 variable in Group 2 was 2.80 (SD
1.74). This difference yielded a t-score .274 and a p-value of .786. This
means the resulting difference was not statistically significant as the p-value
is greater than alpha (.05), and the null hypothesis should not be rejected.
The mean long-term outcome (LTO) 1 variable in Group 1 was 1.90 (SD 1.02)
and the mean LTO 1 variable in Group 2 was 2.10 (SD 1.12). This difference
yielded a t-score of -.590 and a p-value of .558. Again, this means the
resulting difference was not statistically significant as the p-value is greater
than alpha (.05), and the null hypothesis should not be rejected.
Lastly, a new variable was established for Groups 1 and 2, called
Intensitydiff. This variable computed the difference in pain scores pre and
post treatment implementation for each participant individually in Groups 1

and 2. Then, the SPSS program was utilized to compute change scores
between Groups 1 and 2. Independent t-test sample tests were then used to
determine significant differences between the groups. The mean Intensitydiff
score for Group 1 was 2.20 (SD 2.22). The mean Intensitydiff score for Group
2 was 3.85 (SD 1.90). This difference yielded a t-score of -2.529 and a p-
value of .016. This means the resulting difference was statistically significant
as the p-value is less than alpha (.05), and null hypothesis should be
rejected.
Your license will expire in 16 days.

GET DATA /TYPE=XLSX
/FILE='C:\Users\mab0079\Desktop\MBSPSSLAB.xlsx'
/SHEET=name 'Sheet1'
/CELLRANGE=full
/READNAMES=on
/ASSUMEDSTRWIDTH=32767.
EXECUTE.
DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.
SAVE OUTFILE='C:\Users\mab0079\Desktop\MBSPSSLAB.xlsx'
/COMPRESSED.
Error # 62 in column 14. Text: C:\Users\mab0079\Desktop\MBSPSSLAB.xlsx

The file is already in use.
Execution of this command stops.
USE ALL.
COMPUTE filter_$=(Pop=1).
VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'Pop=1 (FILTER)'.
VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'.
FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Gender Age Location InensityPre IntensityPost
Quality STO1 STO2 LTO1
/STATISTICS=STDDEV RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Notes
Output Created 15-OCT-2014 20:20:28

Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter Pop=1 (FILTER)
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data
20
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with
valid data.
Syntax FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Gender
Age Location InensityPre IntensityPost
/STATISTICS=STDDEV RANGE
MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN
MODE
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.02
[DataSet1]
Statistics
Gender Age Location Inensity Pre Intensity Post Quality
N Valid 20 20 20 20 20 20
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean .50 52.45 3.15 6.20 4.00 10.20
Median .50 52.00 3.00 7.00 4.50 10.50
a a
Mode 0 18 2 8 5 5a
Std. Deviation .513 17.952 1.631 2.687 2.513 5.988
Range 1 67 6 9 9 19
Minimum 0 18 1 1 0 1
Maximum 1 85 7 10 9 20
Statistics
STO1 STO2 LTO1
N Valid 20 20 20
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 3.50 2.95 1.90
Median 3.00 2.50 2.00
a
Mode 1 2 1a
Std. Deviation 1.987 1.731 1.021
Range 6 6 4
Minimum 1 1 1
Maximum 7 7 5
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Frequency Table
Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 10 50.0 50.0 50.0
Female 10 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Age
Cumulative
Valid 18 1 5.0 5.0 5.0
26 1 5.0 5.0 10.0
31 1 5.0 5.0 15.0
38 1 5.0 5.0 20.0
39 1 5.0 5.0 25.0
40 1 5.0 5.0 30.0
42 1 5.0 5.0 35.0
46 1 5.0 5.0 40.0
48 1 5.0 5.0 45.0
51 1 5.0 5.0 50.0
53 1 5.0 5.0 55.0
55 1 5.0 5.0 60.0
57 1 5.0 5.0 65.0
61 1 5.0 5.0 70.0
69 1 5.0 5.0 75.0
70 1 5.0 5.0 80.0
71 1 5.0 5.0 85.0
74 1 5.0 5.0 90.0
75 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
85 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Location
Cumulative
Valid Head 2 10.0 10.0 10.0
Neck/Back 7 35.0 35.0 45.0
Upper Extremity 4 20.0 20.0 65.0
Lower Extremity 3 15.0 15.0 80.0
Hip 2 10.0 10.0 90.0
Stomach 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
Other 1 5.0 5.0 100.0

Total 20 100.0 100.0
Inensity Pre
Cumulative
Valid 1 1 5.0 5.0 5.0
2 1 5.0 5.0 10.0
3 2 10.0 10.0 20.0
4 2 10.0 10.0 30.0
5 2 10.0 10.0 40.0
6 1 5.0 5.0 45.0
7 3 15.0 15.0 60.0
8 4 20.0 20.0 80.0
9 2 10.0 10.0 90.0
10 2 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Intensity Post
Cumulative
Valid 0 2 10.0 10.0 10.0
1 2 10.0 10.0 20.0
2 2 10.0 10.0 30.0
3 3 15.0 15.0 45.0
4 1 5.0 5.0 50.0
5 4 20.0 20.0 70.0
6 3 15.0 15.0 85.0
7 2 10.0 10.0 95.0
9 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Quality
Cumulative
Valid Flickering, quivering, pulsing,

1 5.0 5.0 5.0
throbbing, beating, pounding
Jumping, flashing, shooting 1 5.0 5.0 10.0
Prickling, boring, drilling 1 5.0 5.0 15.0
Sharp, cutting, lacerating 1 5.0 5.0 20.0
Pinching, pressing, gnawing,

2 10.0 10.0 30.0
crushing
Tugging, pulling, wrenching 1 5.0 5.0 35.0
Hot, burning, scalding,

1 5.0 5.0 40.0
searing
Tingling, itching, stringing 1 5.0 5.0 45.0
Tender, taut, rasping, splitting 1 5.0 5.0 50.0
Tiring, exhausting 1 5.0 5.0 55.0
Sickening, suffocating 2 10.0 10.0 65.0
Fearful, frightful, terrifying 1 5.0 5.0 70.0
Wretched, blinding 1 5.0 5.0 75.0
Annoying, troublesome,
miserable, intense, 1 5.0 5.0 80.0
unbearable
Spreading, radiating,
1 5.0 5.0 85.0
penetrating piercing
Tight, numb, drawing,

1 5.0 5.0 90.0
squeezing, tearing
Cool, cold, freezing 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
Nagging, nauseating,
1 5.0 5.0 100.0
agonizing, dreadful, torturing
Total 20 100.0 100.0
STO1
Cumulative
Valid Strongly Agree 4 20.0 20.0 20.0
Agree 3 15.0 15.0 35.0

Slightly Agree 4 20.0 20.0 55.0
Not Sure 3 15.0 15.0 70.0
Slightly Disagree 2 10.0 10.0 80.0
Disagree 2 10.0 10.0 90.0
Strongly Disagree 2 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
STO2
Cumulative
Agree 6 30.0 30.0 50.0
Not Sure 2 10.0 10.0 80.0
Disagree 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
LTO1
Cumulative
Agree 8 40.0 40.0 80.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
USE ALL.
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Gender Age Location InensityPre IntensityPost
/STATISTICS=STDDEV RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Notes

Comments
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
20
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with
valid data.
Syntax FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Gender
Age Location InensityPre IntensityPost
/STATISTICS=STDDEV RANGE
MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN
MODE
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Statistics
Gender Age Location Inensity Pre Intensity Post Quality
N Valid 19 20 20 20 20 20
Missing 1 0 0 0 0 0
Mean .47 45.35 3.55 7.10 3.25 10.05
Median .00 47.00 3.00 7.50 2.50 8.50
a a
Mode 0 18 2 8 1 6
Std. Deviation .513 18.687 1.932 2.150 2.731 6.419
Range 1 58 6 7 9 19
Minimum 0 18 1 3 0 1
Maximum 1 76 7 10 9 20
Statistics
STO1 STO2 LTO1
N Valid 20 20 20
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 3.15 2.80 2.10
Median 3.00 2.00 2.00
a
Mode 1 2 1a
Std. Deviation 1.785 1.735 1.119
Range 6 6 4
Minimum 1 1 1
Maximum 7 7 5
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Frequency Table
Gender
Cumulative
Valid Male 10 50.0 52.6 52.6
Female 9 45.0 47.4 100.0
Total 19 95.0 100.0

Missing System 1 5.0
Total 20 100.0
Age
Cumulative
Valid 18 1 5.0 5.0 5.0
19 1 5.0 5.0 10.0
21 1 5.0 5.0 15.0
22 1 5.0 5.0 20.0
25 1 5.0 5.0 25.0
32 1 5.0 5.0 30.0
36 1 5.0 5.0 35.0
39 1 5.0 5.0 40.0
42 1 5.0 5.0 45.0
46 1 5.0 5.0 50.0
48 1 5.0 5.0 55.0
50 1 5.0 5.0 60.0
51 1 5.0 5.0 65.0
52 1 5.0 5.0 70.0
58 1 5.0 5.0 75.0
63 1 5.0 5.0 80.0
66 1 5.0 5.0 85.0
69 1 5.0 5.0 90.0
74 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
76 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Location
Cumulative
Valid Head 3 15.0 15.0 15.0
Neck/Back 4 20.0 20.0 35.0
Upper Extremity 4 20.0 20.0 55.0
Lower Extremity 3 15.0 15.0 70.0
Hip 2 10.0 10.0 80.0

Stomach 2 10.0 10.0 90.0
Other 2 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Inensity Pre
Cumulative
Valid 3 1 5.0 5.0 5.0
4 2 10.0 10.0 15.0
5 2 10.0 10.0 25.0
6 3 15.0 15.0 40.0
7 2 10.0 10.0 50.0
8 4 20.0 20.0 70.0
9 3 15.0 15.0 85.0
10 3 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Intensity Post
Cumulative
Valid 0 3 15.0 15.0 15.0
1 4 20.0 20.0 35.0
2 3 15.0 15.0 50.0
3 2 10.0 10.0 60.0
4 1 5.0 5.0 65.0
5 3 15.0 15.0 80.0
7 3 15.0 15.0 95.0
9 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Quality
Cumulative
Valid Flickering, quivering, pulsing,

1 5.0 5.0 5.0
throbbing, beating, pounding
Jumping, flashing, shooting 2 10.0 10.0 15.0
Sharp, cutting, lacerating 1 5.0 5.0 20.0
Pinching, pressing, gnawing,

2 10.0 10.0 30.0
crushing
Tugging, pulling, wrenching 3 15.0 15.0 45.0
Tingling, itching, stringing 1 5.0 5.0 50.0
Dull, sore, huring, aching,

1 5.0 5.0 55.0
heavy
Tiring, exhausting 1 5.0 5.0 60.0
Punishing, gueling, cruel,

2 10.0 10.0 70.0
vicious
Wretched, blinding 1 5.0 5.0 75.0
Spreading, radiating,
1 5.0 5.0 80.0
penetrating piercing
Tight, numb, drawing,

2 10.0 10.0 90.0
squeezing, tearing
Nagging, nauseating,
2 10.0 10.0 100.0
agonizing, dreadful, torturing
Total 20 100.0 100.0
STO1
Cumulative
Agree 3 15.0 15.0 40.0
Not Sure 5 25.0 25.0 80.0
Disagree 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0

STO2
Cumulative
Agree 8 40.0 40.0 60.0
Not Sure 1 5.0 5.0 80.0
Disagree 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
LTO1
Cumulative
Agree 7 35.0 35.0 70.0
Not Sure 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
FILTER OFF.
USE ALL.
EXECUTE.
T-TEST GROUPS=Pop(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=STO1 STO2 LTO1
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes

Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
40
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User defined missing values are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based
on the cases with no missing or out-of-
range data for any variable in the
analysis.
Syntax T-TEST GROUPS=Pop(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=STO1 STO2 LTO1
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Group Statistics
Pop N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
STO1 Standard Pain Treatment 20 3.50 1.987 .444
EBP Treatment
20 3.15 1.785 .399
Recommendation
STO2 Standard Pain Treatment 20 2.95 1.731 .387
EBP Treatment
20 2.80 1.735 .388
Recommendation
LTO1 Standard Pain Treatment 20 1.90 1.021 .228
EBP Treatment
20 2.10 1.119 .250
Recommendation
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of

Variances Means
F Sig. t df
STO1 Equal variances assumed .341 .563 .586 38
Equal variances not

.586 37.573
assumed
STO2 Equal variances assumed .001 .976 .274 38
Equal variances not
.274 38.000
assumed
LTO1 Equal variances assumed .286 .596 -.590 38
Equal variances not

-.590 37.683
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Error Difference
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Difference Lower
STO1 Equal variances assumed .561 .350 .597 -.859
Equal variances not assumed .561 .350 .597 -.860

STO2 Equal variances assumed .786 .150 .548 -.960
Equal variances not assumed .786 .150 .548 -.960
LTO1 Equal variances assumed .558 -.200 .339 -.886
Equal variances not assumed .558 -.200 .339 -.886
95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference
Upper
STO1 Equal variances assumed 1.559
Equal variances not assumed 1.560

STO2 Equal variances assumed 1.260
Equal variances not assumed 1.260
LTO1 Equal variances assumed .486
Equal variances not assumed .486
COMPUTE Intensitydiff=InensityPre - IntensityPost.

EXECUTE.
T-TEST GROUPS=Pop(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Intensitydiff
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes

Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
40
File
as missing.
analysis.
Syntax T-TEST GROUPS=Pop(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Intensitydiff
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).

Group Statistics
Pop N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Intensitydiff Standard Pain Treatment 20 2.2000 2.21478 .49524
EBP Treatment
20 3.8500 1.89945 .42473
Recommendation
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of

Variances Means
F Sig. t df
Intensitydiff Equal variances assumed .049 .826 -2.529 38
Equal variances not

-2.529 37.138
assumed
Std. Error
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Difference
Intensitydiff Equal variances assumed .016 -1.65000 .65242
Equal variances not assumed .016 -1.65000 .65242
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Intensitydiff Equal variances assumed -2.97076 -.32924
Equal variances not assumed -2.97177 -.32823
USE ALL.
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
T-TEST PAIRS=InensityPre WITH IntensityPost (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-Test
Notes

Comments
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
20
File
as missing.
analysis.
Syntax T-TEST PAIRS=InensityPre WITH
IntensityPost (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Inensity Pre 6.20 20 2.687 .601
Intensity Post 4.00 20 2.513 .562

Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Inensity Pre & Intensity Post 20 .639 .002
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower
Pair 1 Inensity Pre - Intensity Post 2.200 2.215 .495 1.163
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1 Inensity Pre - Intensity Post 3.237 4.442 19 .000
USE ALL.
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
T-TEST PAIRS=InensityPre WITH IntensityPost (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-Test
Notes

Comments
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
20
File
as missing.
analysis.
Syntax T-TEST PAIRS=InensityPre WITH
IntensityPost (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Inensity Pre 7.10 20 2.150 .481
Intensity Post 3.25 20 2.731 .611
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Inensity Pre & Intensity Post 20 .722 .000
Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower
Pair 1 Inensity Pre - Intensity Post 3.850 1.899 .425 2.961
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1 Inensity Pre - Intensity Post 4.739 9.065 19 .000

Data Analyses - Spss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Data Analyses - Spss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

To begin my data management, I started by entering my project data

into the spreadsheet. I assigned an identification number to each patient, 1-

that received the EBP recommended pain management treatment. The

entered as: 1-head, 2-neck/back, 3-upper extremity, 4-lower extremity, 5-hip,

quivering, pulsing, throbbing, beating, pounding, 2-jumping, flashing

shooting, 3-prickling, boring, drilling, 4-sharp, cutting, lacerating, 5-pinching,

pressing, gnawing, crushing, 6-tugging, pulling, wrenching, 7-hot, burning,

scalding, searing, 8-tingling, itching, stinging, 9-dull, sore, hurting, aching,

heavy, 10-tender, taut, rasping, splitting, 11-tiring, exhausting, 12-sickening,

suffocating, 13-fearful, frightful, terrifying, 14-punishing, grueling, cruel,

vicious, 15-wretched, blinding, 16-annoying, troublesome, miserable,

intense, unbearable, 17-spreading, radiating, penetrating, piercing, 18-tight,

numb, drawing, squeezing, tearing, 19-cool, cold, freezing, 20-nagging,

1-strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-slightly agree, 4-not sure, 5-slightly disagree, 6-

disagree, and 7-strongly disagree. The second short-term outcome variable,

I am satisfied with the current treatment I am receiving for my pain, was

disagree, 6-disagree, and 7-strongly disagree. The long-term outcome

1-strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-slightly agree, 4-not sure, 5-slightly disagree, 6-

disagree, and 7-strongly disagree.

spreadsheet. I then adjusted my data categories to accurately reflect

nominal or scale input methods in SPSS. I also entered in any coding

necessary for clarifying my data, such as 0-male, 1-female. I then performed

descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. Each groups data was

compared using independent t-Tests. The variables compared were short-

any significant change in levels of pain and satisfaction of treatment

level of significance was set at alpha=.05.

reported were pinching, pressing, gnawing, crushing at 10% and sickening,

suffocating at 10%. The mean pain score pre-treatment implementation in

implementation in Group 1 was 4.00 (SD 2.51). In Group 2, there were a

total of 20 participants, 10 male, 9 female, and 1 missing entry, with a mean

was tugging, pulling, wrenching. The mean pain score pre-treatment

treatment implementation in Group 2 was 3.25 (SD 2.73).

treatment implementation for Groups 1 and 2 separately. Again, for Group 1,

post-treatment implementation in Group 1 was 4.00 (SD 2.51), with a

score post-treatment implementation in Group 2 was 3.25 (SD 2.73), with a

9.065 and a p-value of .000.

The SPSS program was then utilized to compute change scores

determine significant differences between the groups. The mean short-term

outcome (STO) 1 variable in Group 1, receiving the standard treatment, was

treatment recommendation, was 3.15 (SD 1.79). This difference yielded a t-

resulting difference was not statistically significant as the p-value is greater

Lastly, a new variable was established for Groups 1 and 2, called

post treatment implementation for each participant individually in Groups 1

determine significant differences between the groups. The mean Intensitydiff

Your license will expire in 16 days.

Error # 62 in column 14. Text: C:\Users\mab0079\Desktop\MBSPSSLAB.xlsx

Output Created 15-OCT-2014 20:20:28

Elapsed Time 00:00:00.02

Gender Age Location Inensity Pre Intensity Post Quality

STO1 STO2 LTO1

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

Valid Male 10 50.0 50.0 50.0

Female 10 50.0 50.0 100.0

Total 20 100.0 100.0

Valid 18 1 5.0 5.0 5.0

26 1 5.0 5.0 10.0

31 1 5.0 5.0 15.0

38 1 5.0 5.0 20.0

39 1 5.0 5.0 25.0

40 1 5.0 5.0 30.0

42 1 5.0 5.0 35.0

46 1 5.0 5.0 40.0

48 1 5.0 5.0 45.0