Social Science - Sociology Assignment 7
Please see attached file
6 months ago 7
TRANSCRIPT-Chi-Square2.pdf
StatisticalanalysissoftwaresuchasSPSSisavaluabletoolthathelpsresearchersperformcomplexcalculations.docx
TRANSCRIPT-Chi-Square2.pdf
1
© 2022 Walden University, LLC. Adapted from Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Social
work case studies: Concentration year. Laureate International Universities Publishing.
Chi-Square
SOCW 6311
Molly, an administrator with a regional organization that advocates for alternatives to
long-term prison sentences for nonviolent offenders, asked a team of researchers to
conduct an outcome evaluation of a new vocational rehabilitation program for recently
paroled prison inmates. The primary goal of the program is to promote full-time
employment among its participants.
To evaluate the program, the evaluators decided to use a quasi-experimental research
design. The program enrolled 30 individuals to participate in the new program.
Additionally, there was a waiting list of 30 other participants who planned to enroll after
the first group completed the program. After the first group of 30 participants completed
the vocational program (the “intervention” group), the researchers compared those
participants’ levels of employment with the 30 on the waiting list (the “comparison”
group).
The research question for the study is: Is there a relationship between the independent
variable, treatment, and the dependent variable, employment level? In other words, is
there a difference in the number of participants who are not employed, employed part-
time, and employed full-time in the program and the control group (i.e., waitlist group)?
Data Collection and Analysis
In order to collect data on employment levels, the probation officers for each of the 60
people in the sample (those in both the intervention and comparison groups) completed
a short survey on the status of each client in the sample. The survey contained
demographic questions that included an item that inquired about the employment level
of the client. This was measured through variables identified as none, part-time, or full-
time. A hard copy of the survey was mailed to each probation officer and a stamped,
self-addressed envelope was provided for return of the survey to the researchers.
After the surveys were returned, the researchers entered the data into an SPSS
program for statistical analysis. Because both the independent variable (participation in
the vocational rehabilitation program) and dependent variable (employment outcome)
used nominal/categorical measurement, the bivariate statistic selected to compare the
outcome of the two groups was the Pearson chi-square.
The chi-square test for independence is used to determine whether there is a
relationship between the two variables that are categorical in the level of measurement.
In this case, the variables are: employment level and treatment condition. It tests
whether there is a difference between groups.
The hypotheses are:
H0 (The null hypothesis): There is no difference in the proportions of individuals in the
three employment categories between the treatment group and the waitlist group. In
2
© 2022 Walden University, LLC. Adapted from Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Social
work case studies: Concentration year. Laureate International Universities Publishing.
other words, the frequency distribution for variable 2 (employment) has the same
proportions for both categories of variable 1 (program participation).
• Note: It is the null hypothesis that is actually tested by the statistic. A chi-square
statistic that is found to be statistically significant (p < .05) indicates that we can
reject the null hypothesis (understanding that there is less than a 5% chance that
the relationship between the variables is due to chance).
H1 (The alternative hypothesis): There is a difference in the proportions of individuals in
the three employment categories between the treatment group and the waitlist group.
• Note: The alternative hypothesis states that there is a difference. It would allow
us to say that it appears that the treatment (vocational rehab program) is
effective in increasing the employment status of participants.
Results
After all of the information was entered into the SPSS program, the following output
charts were generated:
Table 1. Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Program Participation *Employment
59 98.3% 1 1.7% 60 100.0%
The first table, titled “Case Processing Summary,” provided the sample size (N = 59).
Information for one of the 60 participants was not available, while the information was
collected for all of the other 59 participants.
Table 2. Program Participation
*Employment Cross Tabulation
Employment
Total None Part-Time Full-Time
Program Participation
Intervention Group
Count % within Program Participation
5 16.7%
7 23.3%
18 60.0%
30 100.0%
Comparison Group
Count % within Program Participation
16 55.2%
7 24.1%
6 20.7%
29 100.0%
Total Count % within
21 35.6%
14 23.7%
24 40.7%
59 100.0%
3
© 2022 Walden University, LLC. Adapted from Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Social
work case studies: Concentration year. Laureate International Universities Publishing.
Program Participation
The second table, “Program Participation Employment Cross Tabulation,” provided the
frequency table, which showed that among participants in the intervention group, 18 or
60% were found to be employed full time, while 7 or 23% were found to be employed
part time, and 5 or 17% were unemployed. The corresponding numbers for the
comparison group (parolees who had not yet enrolled in the program but were on the
waiting list for admission) showed that only 6 or 21% were employed full-time, while 7 or
24% were employed part time, and 16 or 55% were unemployed.
Table 3. Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.748a 2 .003
Likelihood Ratio 12.321 2 .002
Linear-by-Linear Association
11.548 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 59 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.88.
The third table, which provided the outcome of the Pearson chi-square test, found that
the difference between the intervention and comparison groups were highly significant,
with a p value of .003, which is significantly beyond the usual alpha-level of .05 that
most researchers use to establish significance.
Discussion
These results indicate that the vocational rehabilitation intervention program may be
effective at promoting full-time employment among recently paroled inmates. However,
there are multiple limitations to this study, including that 1) no random assignment was
used, and 2) it is possible that differences between the groups were due to preexisting
differences among the participants (such as selection bias).
Potential future studies could include a matched comparison group or, if possible, a
control group. In addition, future studies should assess not only whether or not a
recently paroled individual obtains employment but also the degree to which he or she
is able to maintain employment, earn a living wage, and satisfy other conditions of
probation.
StatisticalanalysissoftwaresuchasSPSSisavaluabletoolthathelpsresearchersperformcomplexcalculations.docx
Statistical analysis software such as SPSS is a valuable tool that helps researchers perform complex calculations. However, to use such a tool effectively, the study must be well designed. The social worker must understand the study’s purpose and select the most appropriate design. The social worker must correctly represent the relationship being examined and the variables involved. Finally, they must enter those variables correctly into the software package.
In this Assignment, you analyze in detail the decisions made in the Chi-Square case study and the relationship between study design and statistical analysis.
· Access the Social Work Case Studies media and navigate to the Chi-Square case study. Note attached separately.
· As you again review the case, this time focus on the purpose of the evaluation, the choice of a chi-square statistic, and the research design. Consider what the statistical results indicate about the program.
ASSIGNMENT BELOW
Submit a 1-page paper analyzing the relationship between study design and statistical analysis used in the case study.
· Explain why you think that the agency created a plan to evaluate the program.
· Explain why the social work agency chose to use a chi-square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. (Hint: Think about the level of measurement of the variables.)
· Describe the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group.
· Interpret the chi-square output data and provide support for your interpretation. (Hint: Review the value.) What do the data say about the program?
Use the Learning Resources to support your paper. Make sure to include appropriate APA citations and a reference list.
submission information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
SOCW_6311_Week7_Assignment_Rubric
|
SOCW_6311_Week7_Assignment_Rubric |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSubmit a 1-page paper analyzing the relationship between study design and statistical analysis used in the case study. ...Explain why you think that the agency created a plan to evaluate the program. |
10 to >8.9 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Response meets expectations and exceeds through additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. 8.9 to >7.9 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Response fully explains why the agency created a plan to evaluate the program. ... Response demonstrates clear connection to the Learning Resources. 7.9 to >6.9 ptsFair 70%–79%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of why the agency created a plan to evaluate the program. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 6.9 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Response makes little or no attempt to explain why the agency created a plan to evaluate the program. ... Response does not demonstrate connection to the Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response. |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain why the social work agency chose to use a chi-square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. (Hint: Think about the level of measurement of the variables.) |
10 to >8.9 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Response meets expectations and exceeds through additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. 8.9 to >7.9 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Response fully and accurately explains why the social work agency chose to use a chi square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. ... Response demonstrates clear connection to the Learning Resources. 7.9 to >6.9 ptsFair 70%–79%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of why the social work agency chose to use a chi-square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. Explanation may include occasional inaccuracies. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 6.9 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Response is wholly inaccurate and/or makes little or no attempt to explain why the social work agency chose to use a chi-square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. ... Response does not demonstrate connection to the Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response. |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribe the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group. |
10 to >8.9 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Response meets expectations and exceeds through additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. 8.9 to >7.9 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Response fully and accurately describes the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group. ... Response demonstrates clear connection to the Learning Resources. 7.9 to >6.9 ptsFair 70%–79%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed description of the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group. Description may include occasional inaccuracies. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 6.9 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Response is wholly inaccurate and/or makes little or no attempt to describe the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group. ... Response does not demonstrate connection to the Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response. |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInterpret the chi-square output data and provide support for your interpretation. (Hint: Review the p value.) What do the data say about the program? |
12.5 to >11.13 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Response meets expectations and exceeds through additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. 11.13 to >9.88 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Response accurately interprets the chi-square output data and fully explains what the data say about the program. Response includes robust support for the interpretation. ... Response demonstrates clear connection to the Learning Resources. 9.88 to >8.63 ptsFair 70%–79%Response accurately interprets the chi-square output data but provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of what the data say about the program. Response includes limited support for the interpretation. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 8.63 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Response is inaccurate and/or makes little or no attempt to interpret the chi-square output data. Response makes little or no attempt to explain what the data say about the program. Response does not include support for the interpretation. ... Response does not demonstrate connection to the Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response. |
12.5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting |
7.5 to >6.68 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Paper meets length requirements, meets expectations, is generally error-free (two or fewer), and further exceeds by showcasing an exemplary scholarly voice to develop its message or communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately paraphrases sources, using one or fewer quotes. Presents polished APA Style. Citations, reference list, and paper formatting are generally error-free (two or fewer). ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 6.68 to >5.93 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Paper meets length requirements and is clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor, minimal (three to five), and do not interfere with the scholarly message. The paper displays effective organization and focus to communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately paraphrases sources. Paper may use two to three short quotes but provides appropriate reference. Consistently documents sources in APA Style. Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with a few minimal errors (three to five). The reference list is complete and contains only minimal errors (three to five). Paper formatting is appropriate. There is a clear distinction between cited content and original thought. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 5.93 to >5.18 ptsFair 70%–79%Paper does not meet length requirements (either somewhat too short or too long). The paper is somewhat clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor but frequent (5–10) and occasionally interfere with the message. The paper lacks clear organization or occasionally strays from the focus. ... Paper may rely on four short quotes or one to two long quotes (over 40 words) and/or does not sufficiently paraphrase material from other resources into student’s own words. Attempts to document sources in APA Style. Citations are present but contain frequent APA errors or omissions. A reference list is provided but is incomplete and/or contains frequent APA errors. Paper formatting may be incorrect (e.g., single-spaced or without a title page). ... Occasionally lacks a clear distinction between cited content and original thought. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 5.18 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Paper does not meet length requirements (either significantly too short or too long). The paper lacks clarity and coherence. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are major, pervasive (11+), and interfere with the message. The paper is not organized or lacks focus. ... Paper relies excessively on quoting (five or more short quotes or three or more long quotes [over 40 words]) and/or uses quoted material without paraphrasing or referencing the source of the material. Little or no attempt has been made to document sources in APA Style. Citations are infrequent or missing, and a reference list is not provided. Little or no attempt has been made to format the paper in APA Style. ... There is no distinction between cited content and original thought. ... Tone and presentation of ideas reveal bias and subjectivity. |
7.5 pts |
Total Points: 50
TRANSCRIPT-Chi-Square2.pdf
1
© 2022 Walden University, LLC. Adapted from Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Social
work case studies: Concentration year. Laureate International Universities Publishing.
Chi-Square
SOCW 6311
Molly, an administrator with a regional organization that advocates for alternatives to
long-term prison sentences for nonviolent offenders, asked a team of researchers to
conduct an outcome evaluation of a new vocational rehabilitation program for recently
paroled prison inmates. The primary goal of the program is to promote full-time
employment among its participants.
To evaluate the program, the evaluators decided to use a quasi-experimental research
design. The program enrolled 30 individuals to participate in the new program.
Additionally, there was a waiting list of 30 other participants who planned to enroll after
the first group completed the program. After the first group of 30 participants completed
the vocational program (the “intervention” group), the researchers compared those
participants’ levels of employment with the 30 on the waiting list (the “comparison”
group).
The research question for the study is: Is there a relationship between the independent
variable, treatment, and the dependent variable, employment level? In other words, is
there a difference in the number of participants who are not employed, employed part-
time, and employed full-time in the program and the control group (i.e., waitlist group)?
Data Collection and Analysis
In order to collect data on employment levels, the probation officers for each of the 60
people in the sample (those in both the intervention and comparison groups) completed
a short survey on the status of each client in the sample. The survey contained
demographic questions that included an item that inquired about the employment level
of the client. This was measured through variables identified as none, part-time, or full-
time. A hard copy of the survey was mailed to each probation officer and a stamped,
self-addressed envelope was provided for return of the survey to the researchers.
After the surveys were returned, the researchers entered the data into an SPSS
program for statistical analysis. Because both the independent variable (participation in
the vocational rehabilitation program) and dependent variable (employment outcome)
used nominal/categorical measurement, the bivariate statistic selected to compare the
outcome of the two groups was the Pearson chi-square.
The chi-square test for independence is used to determine whether there is a
relationship between the two variables that are categorical in the level of measurement.
In this case, the variables are: employment level and treatment condition. It tests
whether there is a difference between groups.
The hypotheses are:
H0 (The null hypothesis): There is no difference in the proportions of individuals in the
three employment categories between the treatment group and the waitlist group. In
2
© 2022 Walden University, LLC. Adapted from Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Social
work case studies: Concentration year. Laureate International Universities Publishing.
other words, the frequency distribution for variable 2 (employment) has the same
proportions for both categories of variable 1 (program participation).
• Note: It is the null hypothesis that is actually tested by the statistic. A chi-square
statistic that is found to be statistically significant (p < .05) indicates that we can
reject the null hypothesis (understanding that there is less than a 5% chance that
the relationship between the variables is due to chance).
H1 (The alternative hypothesis): There is a difference in the proportions of individuals in
the three employment categories between the treatment group and the waitlist group.
• Note: The alternative hypothesis states that there is a difference. It would allow
us to say that it appears that the treatment (vocational rehab program) is
effective in increasing the employment status of participants.
Results
After all of the information was entered into the SPSS program, the following output
charts were generated:
Table 1. Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Program Participation *Employment
59 98.3% 1 1.7% 60 100.0%
The first table, titled “Case Processing Summary,” provided the sample size (N = 59).
Information for one of the 60 participants was not available, while the information was
collected for all of the other 59 participants.
Table 2. Program Participation
*Employment Cross Tabulation
Employment
Total None Part-Time Full-Time
Program Participation
Intervention Group
Count % within Program Participation
5 16.7%
7 23.3%
18 60.0%
30 100.0%
Comparison Group
Count % within Program Participation
16 55.2%
7 24.1%
6 20.7%
29 100.0%
Total Count % within
21 35.6%
14 23.7%
24 40.7%
59 100.0%
3
© 2022 Walden University, LLC. Adapted from Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Social
work case studies: Concentration year. Laureate International Universities Publishing.
Program Participation
The second table, “Program Participation Employment Cross Tabulation,” provided the
frequency table, which showed that among participants in the intervention group, 18 or
60% were found to be employed full time, while 7 or 23% were found to be employed
part time, and 5 or 17% were unemployed. The corresponding numbers for the
comparison group (parolees who had not yet enrolled in the program but were on the
waiting list for admission) showed that only 6 or 21% were employed full-time, while 7 or
24% were employed part time, and 16 or 55% were unemployed.
Table 3. Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.748a 2 .003
Likelihood Ratio 12.321 2 .002
Linear-by-Linear Association
11.548 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 59 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.88.
The third table, which provided the outcome of the Pearson chi-square test, found that
the difference between the intervention and comparison groups were highly significant,
with a p value of .003, which is significantly beyond the usual alpha-level of .05 that
most researchers use to establish significance.
Discussion
These results indicate that the vocational rehabilitation intervention program may be
effective at promoting full-time employment among recently paroled inmates. However,
there are multiple limitations to this study, including that 1) no random assignment was
used, and 2) it is possible that differences between the groups were due to preexisting
differences among the participants (such as selection bias).
Potential future studies could include a matched comparison group or, if possible, a
control group. In addition, future studies should assess not only whether or not a
recently paroled individual obtains employment but also the degree to which he or she
is able to maintain employment, earn a living wage, and satisfy other conditions of
probation.
StatisticalanalysissoftwaresuchasSPSSisavaluabletoolthathelpsresearchersperformcomplexcalculations.docx
Statistical analysis software such as SPSS is a valuable tool that helps researchers perform complex calculations. However, to use such a tool effectively, the study must be well designed. The social worker must understand the study’s purpose and select the most appropriate design. The social worker must correctly represent the relationship being examined and the variables involved. Finally, they must enter those variables correctly into the software package.
In this Assignment, you analyze in detail the decisions made in the Chi-Square case study and the relationship between study design and statistical analysis.
· Access the Social Work Case Studies media and navigate to the Chi-Square case study. Note attached separately.
· As you again review the case, this time focus on the purpose of the evaluation, the choice of a chi-square statistic, and the research design. Consider what the statistical results indicate about the program.
ASSIGNMENT BELOW
Submit a 1-page paper analyzing the relationship between study design and statistical analysis used in the case study.
· Explain why you think that the agency created a plan to evaluate the program.
· Explain why the social work agency chose to use a chi-square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. (Hint: Think about the level of measurement of the variables.)
· Describe the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group.
· Interpret the chi-square output data and provide support for your interpretation. (Hint: Review the value.) What do the data say about the program?
Use the Learning Resources to support your paper. Make sure to include appropriate APA citations and a reference list.
submission information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
SOCW_6311_Week7_Assignment_Rubric
|
SOCW_6311_Week7_Assignment_Rubric |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSubmit a 1-page paper analyzing the relationship between study design and statistical analysis used in the case study. ...Explain why you think that the agency created a plan to evaluate the program. |
10 to >8.9 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Response meets expectations and exceeds through additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. 8.9 to >7.9 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Response fully explains why the agency created a plan to evaluate the program. ... Response demonstrates clear connection to the Learning Resources. 7.9 to >6.9 ptsFair 70%–79%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of why the agency created a plan to evaluate the program. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 6.9 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Response makes little or no attempt to explain why the agency created a plan to evaluate the program. ... Response does not demonstrate connection to the Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response. |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain why the social work agency chose to use a chi-square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. (Hint: Think about the level of measurement of the variables.) |
10 to >8.9 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Response meets expectations and exceeds through additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. 8.9 to >7.9 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Response fully and accurately explains why the social work agency chose to use a chi square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. ... Response demonstrates clear connection to the Learning Resources. 7.9 to >6.9 ptsFair 70%–79%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of why the social work agency chose to use a chi-square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. Explanation may include occasional inaccuracies. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 6.9 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Response is wholly inaccurate and/or makes little or no attempt to explain why the social work agency chose to use a chi-square statistic to evaluate whether there is a difference between those who participated in the program and those who did not. ... Response does not demonstrate connection to the Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response. |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribe the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group. |
10 to >8.9 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Response meets expectations and exceeds through additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. 8.9 to >7.9 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Response fully and accurately describes the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group. ... Response demonstrates clear connection to the Learning Resources. 7.9 to >6.9 ptsFair 70%–79%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed description of the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group. Description may include occasional inaccuracies. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 6.9 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Response is wholly inaccurate and/or makes little or no attempt to describe the research design in terms of observations (O) and interventions (X) for each group. ... Response does not demonstrate connection to the Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response. |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInterpret the chi-square output data and provide support for your interpretation. (Hint: Review the p value.) What do the data say about the program? |
12.5 to >11.13 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Response meets expectations and exceeds through additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. 11.13 to >9.88 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Response accurately interprets the chi-square output data and fully explains what the data say about the program. Response includes robust support for the interpretation. ... Response demonstrates clear connection to the Learning Resources. 9.88 to >8.63 ptsFair 70%–79%Response accurately interprets the chi-square output data but provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of what the data say about the program. Response includes limited support for the interpretation. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 8.63 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Response is inaccurate and/or makes little or no attempt to interpret the chi-square output data. Response makes little or no attempt to explain what the data say about the program. Response does not include support for the interpretation. ... Response does not demonstrate connection to the Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response. |
12.5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting |
7.5 to >6.68 ptsExceeds Expectation 90%-100%Paper meets length requirements, meets expectations, is generally error-free (two or fewer), and further exceeds by showcasing an exemplary scholarly voice to develop its message or communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately paraphrases sources, using one or fewer quotes. Presents polished APA Style. Citations, reference list, and paper formatting are generally error-free (two or fewer). ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 6.68 to >5.93 ptsMeets Expectation 80%–89%Paper meets length requirements and is clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor, minimal (three to five), and do not interfere with the scholarly message. The paper displays effective organization and focus to communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately paraphrases sources. Paper may use two to three short quotes but provides appropriate reference. Consistently documents sources in APA Style. Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with a few minimal errors (three to five). The reference list is complete and contains only minimal errors (three to five). Paper formatting is appropriate. There is a clear distinction between cited content and original thought. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 5.93 to >5.18 ptsFair 70%–79%Paper does not meet length requirements (either somewhat too short or too long). The paper is somewhat clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor but frequent (5–10) and occasionally interfere with the message. The paper lacks clear organization or occasionally strays from the focus. ... Paper may rely on four short quotes or one to two long quotes (over 40 words) and/or does not sufficiently paraphrase material from other resources into student’s own words. Attempts to document sources in APA Style. Citations are present but contain frequent APA errors or omissions. A reference list is provided but is incomplete and/or contains frequent APA errors. Paper formatting may be incorrect (e.g., single-spaced or without a title page). ... Occasionally lacks a clear distinction between cited content and original thought. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 5.18 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 0%–69%Paper does not meet length requirements (either significantly too short or too long). The paper lacks clarity and coherence. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are major, pervasive (11+), and interfere with the message. The paper is not organized or lacks focus. ... Paper relies excessively on quoting (five or more short quotes or three or more long quotes [over 40 words]) and/or uses quoted material without paraphrasing or referencing the source of the material. Little or no attempt has been made to document sources in APA Style. Citations are infrequent or missing, and a reference list is not provided. Little or no attempt has been made to format the paper in APA Style. ... There is no distinction between cited content and original thought. ... Tone and presentation of ideas reveal bias and subjectivity. |
7.5 pts |
Total Points: 50
- wk11 bus402 dis 2
- Will anyone help with my BUS 110 Company Research Project.
- response #2 to nursing db
- Philanthropic Proposal
- Long Term Strategies and Globalization
- In health care, what are the pros and cons of collaborating with other health care departments both internal and external when separated by physical barriers (e.g., floors, buildings, geography, and training professional differences)
- accounting
- final assignment
- wk3
- unit 2