Coronavirus made it tough but we keep working remotely with no delays. Get 15% OFF your First Order
Get 15% OFF your First Order

Quantitative Method Inquiry Assignment

This topic helps you develop a basic understanding of quantitative methods of inquiry. In this assignment, you will have the opportunity to use the SPSS program. SPSS makes it easy to analyze data using specific tests. This assignment will give you practice with means, medians, and modes.

General Requirements:

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Quantitative Method Inquiry Assignment
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

  • Review the Topic Material videos, A Brief Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods and Quantitative vs Qualitative Research, before undertaking this practice.
  • Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
  • This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
  • You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Directions:

After you have completed the assigned readings and viewed the assigned videos, write a 500-750 word paper that addresses quantitative methods of inquiry. Use the data provided in the Topic Material, “H Cup State Inpatient Databases (SID) File Composition – Number of Discharges by Year,” and appropriate statistics to address the following:

  1. Describe the different quantitative methods of inquiry.
  2. Describe the mean, median, and mode of discharges by state in 2014.
  3. Compare the number of discharges in 2010, 2012, and 2015 in all states. Are there significantly more discharges in 2015 versus 2010 in all states?
  4. Compare the number of discharges in 2011 in northwestern states (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montano, Wyoming), southwestern states (California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas), central states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois), southeastern states (West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida), and northeastern states (Main, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Washington DC, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland
  5. Summary of Paper

Rubic

70.0 %Content
10.0 %Quantitative Methods of Inquiry A description of the different quantitative methods of inquiry is not included. A description of the different quantitative methods of inquiry is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the different quantitative methods of inquiry is included but lacks supporting detail. A description of the different quantitative methods of inquiry is complete and includes sufficient detail. A description of the different quantitative methods of inquiry is extremely thorough and includes substantial detail.
15.0 %Mean, Median, and Mode Discharges by State in 2014 A description of the mean, median, and mode of discharges by state in 2014 is not included. A description of the mean, median, and mode of discharges by state in 2014 is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the mean, median, and mode of discharges by state in 2014 is included but lacks supporting detail. A description of the mean, median, and mode of discharges by state in 2014 is complete and includes sufficient detail. A description of the mean, median, and mode of discharges by state in 2014 is extremely thorough and includes substantial detail.
15.0 %Comparison of the Number of Discharges in 2010, 2012, and 2015 A comparison of the number of discharges in all states in 2010, 2012, and 2015 is not included. A comparison of the number of discharges in all states in 2010, 2012, and 2015 is incomplete or incorrect. A comparison of the number of discharges in all states in 2010, 2012, and 2015 is included but lacks supporting detail. A comparison of the number of discharges in all states in 2010, 2012, and 2015 is complete and includes sufficient detail. A comparison of the number of discharges in all states in 2010, 2012, and 2015 is extremely thorough and includes substantial detail.
20.0 %Comparison of the Number of Discharges in Northwestern, Southwestern, Central, Southeastern, and Northeastern states. A comparison of the number of discharges in Northwestern, Southwestern, Central, Southeastern, and Northeastern states is not included. A comparison of the number of discharges in Northwestern, Southwestern, Central, Southeastern, and Northeastern states is incomplete or incorrect. A comparison of the number of discharges in Northwestern, Southwestern, Central, Southeastern, and Northeastern states is included but lacks supporting detail. A comparison of the number of discharges in Northwestern, Southwestern, Central, Southeastern, and Northeastern states is complete and includes sufficient supporting detail. A comparison of the number of discharges in Northwestern, Southwestern, Central, Southeastern, and Northeastern states is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
10.0 %Summary A summary of the paper is not included. A summary of the paper is incomplete or incorrect. A summary of the paper is included but lacks detail. A summary of the paper is complete and includes sufficient detail. A summary of the paper is extremely thorough and includes substantial detail.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
10.0 %Format
5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error
100 %Total Weightage

Topic Material:

Electronic Resource1. A Brief Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods

View:

Clankie, S., & Mima, T. (2012). A brief comparison of qualitative and quantitative research methods [Video file].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYqDKEsy9gE

2. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

View:

Smcilquham. (2012). Quantitative vs qualitative research [Video file].

https://youtu.be/MlU22hTyIs4

3. HCUP State Inpatient Databases (SID) File Composition – Number of Discharges by Year

Review the data on the HCUP webpage to complete the topic assignment:

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. (2017). HCUP state inpatient databases (SID) file composition – number of discharges by year.

https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/state/siddist/siddist_discharge.jsp

4. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis

Read Chapter 12 in:

Flick, U. (2014). The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. London, UK: SAGE. doi: 10.4135/9781446282243

http://methods.sagepub.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/book/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-data-analysis