As a practice scholar, you are searching for evidence to translate into practice. In your review of evidence, you locate a quasi-experimental research study as possible evidence to support a practice change. You notice that the study aims to make a prediction that relates to correlation between study variables. The study sample size is small and is not normally distributed. Reflect upon this scenario to address the following.

• In your appraisal of the evidence, you note that a Pearson’s r correlation is used to analyze data. Is this the correct level of correlational analysis? Explain your rationale.
• Are association and correlational analysis equivalent in determining relationships between variables?
• Do these findings impact your decision about whether to use this evidence to inform practice change? Why or why not?

Answer

In this quasi-experimental research study, they applied Pearson’s R correlation. However, this choice is not appropriate due to the small sample size and the non-normal distribution of the data.  Using Pearson’s r in this context would have been unsuitable as it assumes a normal distribution and is more reliable with larger sample sizes………………………. Kindly click the purchase icon to access the full solution for $6 or WHATSAPP +254712575747