0.5 Alpha Level

satisfactory alpha level is 0.7. I am also not very confident in the INVR because the researchers cite another study that found that is has established validity and reliability, but it does not reveal at what level it is so it makes it harder to have confidence in them. I have confidence in the NKASRP as it has reliability of greater than 70, but the authors do not note what level of validity it is. The validity and reliability scores of the Nausea Management: Nurses’ Knowledge and Attitudes Survey, the measures of job satisfaction, and the chart audits are not reported which makes it hard to assess their quality and have confidence in their use. The researchers set their significance level at the 0.5 alpha level, which is the maximum level

Job satisfaction was found to be the high for both groups of nurses. Patients also reported high satisfaction with their care by both groups. There was no significant difference found in the amount of documentation on patient pain and nausea and the following of NCCN guidelines for CINV management. The researchers reported that they analyzed the data using SPSS 15.0. The researchers used independent sample t tests to determine the differences in nurse knowledge, symptom management, patient satisfaction, and nurse satisfaction between the groups. The only result that was statistically significant was the level of pain knowledge between certified and noncertified nurses. The certified nurses had a 0.02 difference, making it significant at the alpha level of 0.05. The fact only one dependent variable was found to be statically significant indicates that this study was not able to fully support its hypothesis and that the study had overall weak results. The researchers used t-tests, a form of inferential statistics, to calculate if certification caused differences in the dependent variable. The authors also used characteristics of descriptive statistics such as mean, range, and frequency. They talk frequency by using percentages to report the patient and nurse demographics. They also use percentages when

The study they relate their findings to is inappropriate as it does not relate directly to their hypothesis. The researchers compare the nurses’ survey scores in this study to nurses’ survey scores in a study by Xue, Schuluman-Green, Czaplinski, Harris, and McCorkle (2007). This comparison does not relate to the researchers’ hypothesis as the study by Xue et al. (2007) does not discuss certification, which confused the reader as it is not relevant. However, the authors do make reasonable interpretations of their findings. The authors have a separate paragraph for the limitation of the study. They note that the small sample size of the study is a limitation, as well as the fact that it was only conducted in one teaching hospital, which limits the study’s potential for generalizability. Another limitation of this study is the fact that some of the noncertified nurses were working toward obtaining their certification. While the authors do not include this point specifically in the limitations paragraph, they specify that another study should be completed where one group of cancer patients are cared for by certified nurses and another group is cared for by noncertified nurses not working towards