2.Briefly summarize and report on each statistic and discuss whether the assumptions of each test were met and if the type of data was appropriate for each statistical test.
3.Include the following sections in your paper:
Section 1 – a review of the data analysis:
Provide a discussion of the following elements:
1. What is the problem or question(s) this research concerns?
2. Give a brief overview of how the data were collected.
What is the source of data? (I.e., questionnaire, physiological data, existing statistical information, etc.). In some studies there are two or more sources of data.
4. List the independent and dependent variables
5. Discuss sample size estimation. Consider the following
a.Was a power analysis conducted?
b.Was the sample size appropriate for the statistical test? Why or why not?
6. Describe the statistic used to measure the hypotheses/ research questions.
a.How is this appropriate?
b.How were assumptions met?
c.Is the level of measurement appropriate? Why or why not?
7. Discuss how the data were displayed (i.e. graphs, tables)
a.Were these appropriate? Why or why not?
Section II Data analysis Evaluation:
What did the data analysis show?
What conclusions were drawn by the authors?
Do you agree or disagree with the conclusions? Why or why not?
Were the study limitations discussed? What were the limitations if any? How did the authors deal with the limitations?
Give your overall evaluations of the methods used in this article, including a discussion of the following questions:
�What things were done well?
�What were done poorly?
�How much trust do you put in the findings
Section III: Understanding the Data:
1.Provide a discussion of the usefulness of each study to your nursing peers.
2.What might they think of the study?
3.What might they find confusing?
4.What aspects of the studies might they question?
5.Summarize why you think the studies do or do not provide sufficient evidence to change practice.
6.Summarize your thoughts related to the usefulness of the statistics.
The study aimed at determining if particular childhood trauma forms predicted eating psychopathologies. In addition, the study aimed at investigating the medicating impacts of obsessive-compulsion and depression psychological symptoms between eating psychopathologies and childhood trauma in patients suffering from eating disorders (King & Bernstein, 2009). The study took the form of a survey and data was collected through a Child Trauma Questionnaire and the participants self-reported if they were suffering from any conditions. The Eating Disorder Inventory-2, Beck Depression Inventory, and Maudsley Obsessional-Compulsive Inventory were used.
Independent and dependent variables
The independent variable was the five childhood trauma forms. The dependent variables were obsessive-compulsion, depression, and eating psychopathology.
Sample size estimation
A power analysis was used to estimate the sample size (a = 0.05, medium effect size f 2 = 0.15, two- tailed, 80% statistical power). The results of this formed the basis for establishing that a sample size of seventy six participants was adequate. A total of 78 patients suffering from eating disorders were recruited initially (King & Bernstein, 2009).However, 5 of them did not complete all the instruments and this led to 73 participants. While recruiting a large number of participants would have accounted for participant dropout or ineligibility, finding an adequately large number was difficult since Korea does not commonly recognize eating disorders as diseases.
Statistic for measuring the hypotheses/ research questions
There was use of SPSSWIN (version 12.0). There was estimation of bivariate correlates so as to test the link between eating psychopathology and childhood trauma through the use of Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. There was also investigation of the correlations between eating psychopathology or childhood trauma and symptoms of obsessive-compulsion and depression so as to examine the mediation analyses’ assumption (King & Bernstein, 2009). There was use of the multiple regression analyses so as to explore if any of the 5 childhood trauma forms could be essential in predicting eating psychopathology. Prior to the analysis, normality linked to multiple regression analysis had to be verified through drawing histograms. It was confirmed that homoscedasticity assumption was satisfied through a residual plot. In addition, there was a 1.69 to 2.56 range of Durbin-Watson statistic, and this satisfied the independence assumption. The multicollinearity results showed that variance and tolerances inflation factor were inspected and there was no problem. There was also a mediation analysis and Sobel’s test.
Data was displayed in the form of tables and this was appropriate as it was possible to easily view different data that was collected. In addition, if a reader was interested only in the data, it was possible to scroll down to the tables that presented the data (King & Bernstein, 2009).
Data analysis Evaluation
The data analysis showed that sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional abuse were significant eating psychopathology predictors. In addition, depression entirely mediated the link between eating psychopathology and some childhood trauma forms, while this association was not mediated by obsessive-compulsion.
The authors concluded that future interventions on patients suffering from eating disorders need to concentrate on the assessing childhood trauma possibilities, particularly in patients who had poor treatment outcomes (King & Bernstein, 2009). Another conclusion was that even if or if not the traumatized persons exhibited depression, it was a very significant eating psychopathology predictor compared to the traumatic experience. I agree with the authors since if there was early depression and childhood trauma interventions, eating disorders could be prevented successfully in traumatized individuals.
The authors discussed the limitations involved. There was no possibility of generalizing the findings beyond the population of study. In addition, the sample size was not adequate to allow multiple regression analysis. Considering that the Koreans did not classify eating disorders as diseases, it was not possible to get sufficient participants. Regardless of the fact that 76 participants were needed to promote adequate statistical power, including 73 participants would not have adequately affected the multiple regression analysis’ results. There was no inclusion of psychological symptoms such as alexithymia, dissociation, and anxiety. The article does not offer a discussion on how these limitations were dealt with (King & Bernstein, 2009).
Evaluations of the methods
It is noteworthy that the study used various forms of analysis and this can be considered as a strategy of promoting accuracy and validity. In addition, the study assessed various kinds of childhood trauma including physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. In addition, ethical considering were vital in the study where participation was voluntary and a written and verbal information was provided regarding the purpose, nature, and study instruments. The participants gave their written informed consent before the study. In cases of adolescents, consent was sought from their parents (King & Bernstein, 2009). Moreover, anonymity and confidentiality of the participants’ data was guaranteed. Ethical approval was necessary for the study following hospital policies on human experimentation. The hospital director gave the permission to conduct the study as well as access the subjects.
However, there was a failure in that the study did not consider anxiety, dissociation, and alexuthymia. In this regard, there is a need to conduct studies that consider these factors. The findings are trustworthy considering that all the steps of authentic research were followed (King & Bernstein, 2009).
Understanding the Data
The study is very useful to nursing peers since it offers the recommendation that early interventions for depression and childhood trauma are vital in curbing eating disorders in the traumatized patients. They would consider the study productive and one that offers insights into other areas that can be researched. There are no study aspects that are not well elaborated. However, there is a need to address the limitations in the study.
King, S., & Bernstein, K. (2009). Childhood trauma as a predictor of eating psychopathology and its mediating variables in patients with eating disorders. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18, 1897- 1907.