Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
SCHOLAR PRACTITIONER PROJECT: MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
GettyLicense_707452595.jpgResearchers use data analytics to investigate various factors and their impact on situations and outcomes. When dealing with data that contains more than two variables, multivariate analysis is used to gain a deeper understanding of data in relation to specific scenarios, such as the possibility of a correlation between “weekly hours of exercise” and “cholesterol level.” This can help lead to an understanding of certain outcomes and their triggers, which in turn can lead to informed public health predictions and policy decisions.
In this third part of the Scholar Practitioner Project (SPP), you will develop an interpretation of a multivariate analysis based on your selected data set, your prepared database, and SPSS calculations. You will make sense of this interpretation and communicate it to users by using tables and/or graphs. SCHOLAR PRACTITIONER PROJECT – MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
For each of the research questions that you developed, provide interpretation of your multivariate inferential statistical analyses (using linear and/or logistic regression) SPSS outputs. Include diagnostics in your submission. Be sure to address the following:
State the research question(s).
State the null and alternative hypotheses.
Perform the diagnostics and record the results.
Summarize the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including your interpretation. Follow APA rules for tables and graphs.
Explain how your results could positively impact social change (use outside sources as needed in your explanation).
this is the grading rubric:PUBH_8546_Module5_SPP_Rubric
PUBH_8546_Module5_SPP_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch Question, Null and Alternative Hypotheses: For each research question, state the research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis. Perform the diagnostics and record the results.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Fully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly statement of each research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, with appropriate diagnostics performed and results appropriately recorded.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Thorough, well-organized, and supported statement of each research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, with appropriate diagnostics performed and results appropriately recorded.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Adequate statement of each research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, with appropriate diagnostics performed and results appropriately recorded.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Missing, unoriginal, or does not adequately state each research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, or does not appropriately perform the diagnostics and appropriately record the results.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMultivariate inferential analysis: Summarize the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation. Follow APA rules for tables and graphs.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Fully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly summary of the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation, following APA rules for tables and graphs.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Thorough, well-organized, and supported summary of the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation, following APA rules for tables and graphs.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Adequate summary of the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation, following APA rules for tables and graphs.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Missing, unoriginal, or does not adequately summarize the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation, or does not follow APA rules for tables and graphs.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSocial Change: Explain how the results could positively impact social change.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Fully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly explanation of how the results could positively impact social change.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Thorough, well-organized, and supported explanation of how the results could positively impact social change.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Adequate explanation of how the results could positively impact social change.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Missing, unoriginal, or does not adequately explain how the results could positively impact social change.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResources: Support your response with at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) and properly cite/reference using APA 7.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Fully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly support for responses with at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) properly cited in APA 7. No referencing/citing errors.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Thorough, well organized, and supported support for responses with at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) properly cited in APA 7. Only one minor referencing/citing error.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Adequate support for responses with at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) properly cited in APA 7. Two to three minor referencing/citing errors.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Missing, unoriginal, or does not adequately support your responses with at least at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) or properly cite/reference using APA 7.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Communication: Extent to which writing is professional, appropriate, clear, properly formatted, grammatically and structurally correct, synthesized, supported, and scholarly.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Writing is fully developed, exceptionally well organized, synthesized, supported, scholarly, and free of writing errors. Concepts are connected throughout paper with appropriate transitions and multiple appropriate resources and examples.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Writing is generally thorough and grammatically correct, with proper formatting and minimal concerns. Synthesis is demonstrated and ideas are supported without reliance on quoting.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Writing adequately meets expectations for writing and synthesis but with infrequent and minor issues.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Writing does not meet basic expectations (e.g., clarity, tone, organization, grammar, spelling, punctuation, source citation, references, title page, synthesis of source material, insufficient originality, etc.).
20 pts
Total Points: 100
SCHOLAR PRACTITIONER PROJECT: MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
GettyLicense_707452595.jpgResearchers use data analytics to investigate various factors and their impact on situations and outcomes. When dealing with data that contains more than two variables, multivariate analysis is used to gain a deeper understanding of data in relation to specific scenarios, such as the possibility of a correlation between “weekly hours of exercise” and “cholesterol level.” This can help lead to an understanding of certain outcomes and their triggers, which in turn can lead to informed public health predictions and policy decisions.
In this third part of the Scholar Practitioner Project (SPP), you will develop an interpretation of a multivariate analysis based on your selected data set, your prepared database, and SPSS calculations. You will make sense of this interpretation and communicate it to users by using tables and/or graphs. TO PREPARE
Review the module Learning Resources.
Review your selected data set, your prepared database, and SPSS analyses.
Review the research questions that you developed based on the selected data set, health topic, and population.
SCHOLAR PRACTITIONER PROJECT – MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
For each of the research questions that you developed, provide interpretation of your multivariate inferential statistical analyses (using linear and/or logistic regression) SPSS outputs. Include diagnostics in your submission. Be sure to address the following:
State the research question(s).
State the null and alternative hypotheses.
Perform the diagnostics and record the results.
Summarize the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including your interpretation. Follow APA rules for tables and graphs.
Explain how your results could positively impact social change (use outside sources as needed in your explanation).LEARNING RESOURCES
Required Readings
Baskin, L., Abdullah, A., Guo, M., & Naugler, C. (2015). Use of geospatial mapping to determine suitable locations for patient service centers for phlebotomy services.Links to an external site. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 144(5), 727-730. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url＝https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCP4J1XKDVJIUGS
Banerjee, S., & Jones, M. (2021). Using Geographically weighted linear regression for county-level breast cancer modeling in the United States.Links to an external site. JSM Proceedings. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Srikanta-Sri-Banerjee/publication/352105041_Using_Geographically_Weighted_Linear_Regression_for_County-Level_Breast_Cancer_Modeling_in_the_United_States/links/60b9169c299bf10dff916cbe/Using-Geographically-Weighted-Linear-Regression-for-County-Level-Breast-Cancer-Modeling-in-the-United-States.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Links to an external site. (2019). Chronic disease GIS exchange. https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/maps/gisx/index.html
Environmental Systems Research Institute (2019). Responding to the Opioid Crisis with GISLinks to an external site.. https://www.esri.com/content/dam/esrisites/en-us/media/pdf/responding-to-the-opioid-crisis-with-gis-173104.pdf
Hallas, D., Klar, R. T., Baldyga, J. A., Rattner, I., Waingortin, R., & Fletcher, J. (2019). Traditional and nontraditional collaborations to improve population health using geospatial information system maps: Analysis of the opioid crisisLinks to an external site.. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 33(3), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2018.10.006
Kamanga, A., Renn, S., Pollard, D., Bridges, D.J., Chirwa, B., Pinchoff, J., Larson, D.A., & Winters, A.M. (2015). Open-source satellite enumeration to map households: Planning and targeting indoor residual spraying for malariaLinks to an external site.. Malaria Journal, 14, 345. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url＝https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-015-0831-z
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2018). 2014–2016 NSDUH substate region shapefile.Links to an external site. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2014-2016-nsduh-substate-region-shapefile
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. (2020). National Survey on Drug Use and Health.Links to an external site. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/data-we-collect/nsduh-national-survey-drug-use-and-health
University of Auckland. (2020). Three minute Thesis Competition.Links to an external site. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/students/academic-information/postgraduate-students/3-minute-thesis-competition.html
Walden University Academic Skills Center. (n.d.). Course-level statisticsLinks to an external site.. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/academic-skills-center/course-level-statistics
this professor grades very hard and goes off the grading rubric so here it is :PUBH_8546_Module5_SPP_Rubric
PUBH_8546_Module5_SPP_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch Question, Null and Alternative Hypotheses: For each research question, state the research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis. Perform the diagnostics and record the results.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Fully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly statement of each research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, with appropriate diagnostics performed and results appropriately recorded.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Thorough, well-organized, and supported statement of each research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, with appropriate diagnostics performed and results appropriately recorded.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Adequate statement of each research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, with appropriate diagnostics performed and results appropriately recorded.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Missing, unoriginal, or does not adequately state each research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, or does not appropriately perform the diagnostics and appropriately record the results.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMultivariate inferential analysis: Summarize the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation. Follow APA rules for tables and graphs.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Fully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly summary of the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation, following APA rules for tables and graphs.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Thorough, well-organized, and supported summary of the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation, following APA rules for tables and graphs.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Adequate summary of the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation, following APA rules for tables and graphs.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Missing, unoriginal, or does not adequately summarize the numerical results with multivariate inferential analysis (using linear and/or logistic regression) tables or graphs, including interpretation, or does not follow APA rules for tables and graphs.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSocial Change: Explain how the results could positively impact social change.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Fully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly explanation of how the results could positively impact social change.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Thorough, well-organized, and supported explanation of how the results could positively impact social change.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Adequate explanation of how the results could positively impact social change.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Missing, unoriginal, or does not adequately explain how the results could positively impact social change.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResources: Support your response with at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) and properly cite/reference using APA 7.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Fully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly support for responses with at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) properly cited in APA 7. No referencing/citing errors.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Thorough, well organized, and supported support for responses with at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) properly cited in APA 7. Only one minor referencing/citing error.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Adequate support for responses with at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) properly cited in APA 7. Two to three minor referencing/citing errors.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Missing, unoriginal, or does not adequately support your responses with at least at least five peer-reviewed articles/scholarly resources (less than 5 years old) or properly cite/reference using APA 7.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Communication: Extent to which writing is professional, appropriate, clear, properly formatted, grammatically and structurally correct, synthesized, supported, and scholarly.
20 to ˃17.0 pts
Outstanding
Writing is fully developed, exceptionally well organized, synthesized, supported, scholarly, and free of writing errors. Concepts are connected throughout paper with appropriate transitions and multiple appropriate resources and examples.
17 to ˃15.0 pts
Very Good
Writing is generally thorough and grammatically correct, with proper formatting and minimal concerns. Synthesis is demonstrated and ideas are supported without reliance on quoting.
15 to ˃13.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Writing adequately meets expectations for writing and synthesis but with infrequent and minor issues.
13 to ˃0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Writing does not meet basic expectations (e.g., clarity, tone, organization, grammar, spelling, punctuation, source citation, references, title page, synthesis of source material, insufficient originality, etc.).
20 pts
Total Points: 100
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.