Response to peer Lourdes

Hello Dr. Cluver, and classmates.

Please see my calculations and descriptive analysis of pre- and post-intervention weights from the sample study, and the responses to the discussion.

Perform the following calculations:

a. Based on the data set provided, calculate the mean pre-implementation and post-implementation weight values for patients involved in this practice change project.

Pre-implementation:

225+196+190+229+292+188+188+201+179+191=2079

The sum divided by the total number of data points 2079/10= 207.9

mean= 207.9

Post-implementation:

218+190+188+225+288+178+190+190+175+186= 2025

The sum divided by the total number of data points 2025/10= 202.5

mean = 202.5

b. Now calculate the pre-implementation and post-implementation median weight of the patients.

Pre-implementation median weight: Ordinal number.

179, 188, 188, 190, 191, 196, 201, 225, 229, 292

191+196= 387 median: 387/2=193.5

Post-implementation median weight: Ordinal number.

172, 178, 186, 188, 190,190, 190, 218, 225, 288

190+190= 380 median: 380/2= 190

c. Next, calculate the pre-implementation and post-implementation modes.

Pre-implementation: must frequently repeated

179, 188, 188, 190, 191, 196, 201, 225, 229, 292

Modes: 188

Post-implementation:

172, 178, 186, 188, 190,190, 190, 218, 225, 288

Modes: 190

d. Finally, calculate the pre-implementation and post-implementation range of patient weights. If no outliers exist, the range will determine how close the weights are to the patients involved.

Pre-implementation range: 292-179= 113

Post-implementation range: 288-172= 116

Based on your analysis of the descriptive statistics, what determinations related to the mean weights following implementation of the evidence-based intervention can be made?

The descriptive analysis of this sample showed a reduction in patient weight after implementing an evidence-based exercise intervention. The mean weight decreased from 207.9 lb. to 202.5 lb., and the median dropped from 193.5 lb. to 190.0 lb. This indicates a general reduction, not just an isolated improvement. The mode changed from 188 lb. before the intervention to 190 lb. after. The range stayed about the same (113 lb. pre-implementation; 116 lb. post-implementation). This suggests that variability did not increase.

As you reflect upon the weights of the patients, you observe that patient #5 has weights that are outliers. What does this do to your understanding of the data?

Interpretation of the mean should be contextualized with other measures of central tendency, particularly given the presence of an outlier. Patient #5s higher weight likely increased the overall mean. However, the noticeable decrease in both the mean and the median supports the conclusion that the intervention was associated with a consistent reduction in weight across the group, rather than by a single participant. As Harbison and Simmons (2024) highlight, examining the mean, median, and range confirms the reliability of the measures in small samples, and in this case, the measures of central tendency remain aligned and stable. This underscores the importance of using multiple descriptive measures when evaluating outcomes in small samples.

Limitations of the Study

The small sample size (n=10) limits precision and generalizability, increasing vulnerability to sampling variation or subgroup over-representation (Coughlan et al., 2007). In the absence of a control group, the influence of external factors cannot be excluded.

Overall Assessment

Descriptive statistics indicate that the intervention was associated with a meaningful average weight reduction of 5.4 lb. in this study sample, with consistent central tendency observed throughout. A larger, representative sample in controlled studies is necessary to confirm broader effectiveness.

References

Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658663.

Harbison, L., & Simmons, K. (2024, October 1). Fundamentals of descriptive statistics. Journal of Dental Hygiene : Jdh, 98(5), 5154.

RESPOND TO THIS PEER PLEASE. THIS IS HER DISCUSSION POST. ATTACHED ARE INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT THE RESPONSE TO PEER DISCUSSION POST SHOULD INCLUDE. PLEASE/THANKYOU