Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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
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,
variable, My pain is better now than it was one month ago, was entered as:
entered as: 1-strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-slightly agree, 4-not sure, 5-slightly
variable, My pain is better now than it was six months ago, was entered as:
The data was entered into the statistical software program Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) by importing the above Excel
analyzed for improvement using paired t-Tests and the groups were
term outcome variables and long-term outcome variables, to see if there was
between the two groups. Pain intensity was also compared pre and post
treatment between the two groups and individually within each group. The
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
Group 1 was 6.20 (SD 2.69). The mean pain score post-treatment
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
implementation in Group 2 was 7.10 (SD 2.15). The mean pain score post-
Paired sample statistics were computed for pain scores pre and post
the mean pain score pre-treatment implementation was 6.20 (SD 2.69) and
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
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
between two groups. Independent t-test sample tests were then used to
3.50 (SD 1.99). The mean STO 1 variable in Group 2, receiving the EBP
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
than alpha (.05), and the null hypothesis should not be rejected.
Intensitydiff. This variable computed the difference in pain scores pre and
between Groups 1 and 2. Independent t-test sample tests were then used to
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.
SAVE OUTFILE='C:\Users\mab0079\Desktop\MBSPSSLAB.xlsx'
/COMPRESSED.
Notes
[DataSet1]
Statistics
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
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
Frequency Table
Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Age
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Location
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Inensity Pre
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Intensity Post
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Quality
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Annoying, troublesome,
miserable, intense, 1 5.0 5.0 80.0
unbearable
Spreading, radiating,
1 5.0 5.0 85.0
penetrating piercing
Nagging, nauseating,
1 5.0 5.0 100.0
agonizing, dreadful, torturing
STO1
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
STO2
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
LTO1
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
USE ALL.
COMPUTE filter_$=(Pop=2).
VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'Pop=2 (FILTER)'.
VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'.
FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Gender Age Location InensityPre IntensityPost
Quality STO1 STO2 LTO1
/STATISTICS=STDDEV RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Notes
Statistics
N Valid 19 20 20 20 20 20
Missing 1 0 0 0 0 0
Mean .47 45.35 3.55 7.10 3.25 10.05
Median .00 47.00 3.00 7.50 2.50 8.50
a a
Mode 0 18 2 8 1 6
Std. Deviation .513 18.687 1.932 2.150 2.731 6.419
Range 1 58 6 7 9 19
Minimum 0 18 1 3 0 1
Maximum 1 76 7 10 9 20
Statistics
N Valid 20 20 20
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 3.15 2.80 2.10
Median 3.00 2.00 2.00
a
Mode 1 2 1a
Std. Deviation 1.785 1.735 1.119
Range 6 6 4
Minimum 1 1 1
Maximum 7 7 5
Frequency Table
Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Location
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Inensity Pre
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Intensity Post
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Quality
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Spreading, radiating,
1 5.0 5.0 80.0
penetrating piercing
Nagging, nauseating,
2 10.0 10.0 100.0
agonizing, dreadful, torturing
STO1
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
LTO1
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
FILTER OFF.
USE ALL.
EXECUTE.
T-TEST GROUPS=Pop(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=STO1 STO2 LTO1
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes
Group Statistics
EBP Treatment
20 3.15 1.785 .399
Recommendation
STO2 Standard Pain Treatment 20 2.95 1.731 .387
EBP Treatment
20 2.80 1.735 .388
Recommendation
LTO1 Standard Pain Treatment 20 1.90 1.021 .228
EBP Treatment
20 2.10 1.119 .250
Recommendation
Independent Samples Test
F Sig. t df
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Upper
T-Test
Notes
EBP Treatment
20 3.8500 1.89945 .42473
Recommendation
F Sig. t df
Std. Error
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Difference
Lower Upper
USE ALL.
COMPUTE filter_$=(Pop=1).
VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'Pop=1 (FILTER)'.
VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'.
FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
T-TEST PAIRS=InensityPre WITH IntensityPost (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-Test
Notes
N Correlation Sig.
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
USE ALL.
COMPUTE filter_$=(Pop=2).
VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'Pop=2 (FILTER)'.
VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'.
FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
T-TEST PAIRS=InensityPre WITH IntensityPost (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-Test
Notes
N Correlation Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference