Effects Of External Cold And Vibration Stimulation Via Buzzy
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Effects Of External Cold And Vibration Stimulation Via Buzzy
- The two groups examined for differences have equal variance, which is best achieved by a random sample and random assignment to groups.
- All scores or observations collected within each group are independent or not related to other study scores or observations.
The t-test is robust, meaning the results are reliable even if one of the assumptions has been violated. However, the t-test is not robust regarding between-samples or within-samples independence assumptions or with respect to extreme violation of the assumption of normality. Groups do not need to be of equal sizes but rather of equal variance. Groups are independent if the two sets of data were not taken from the same subjects and if the scores are not related (Grove, Burns, & Gray, 2013; Plichta & Kelvin, 2013). This exercise focuses on interpreting and critically appraising the t-tests results presented in research reports. Exercise 31 provides a step-by-step process for calculating the independent samples t-test.
Research Article
Source
Canbulat, N., Ayhan, F., & Inal, S. (2015). Effectiveness of external cold and vibration for procedural pain relief during peripheral intravenous cannulation in pediatric patients. Pain Management Nursing, 16(1), 33–39.
Introduction
Canbulat and colleagues (2015, p. 33) conducted an experimental study to determine the “effects of external cold and vibration stimulation via Buzzy on the pain and anxiety levels of children during peripheral intravenous (IV) cannulation.” Buzzy is an 8 × 5 × 2.5 cm battery-operated device for delivering external cold and vibration, which resembles a bee in shape and coloring and has a smiling face. A total of 176 children between the ages of 7 and 12
years who had never had an IV insertion before were recruited and randomly assigned into the equally sized intervention and control groups. During IV insertion, “the control group received no treatment. The intervention group
received external cold and vibration stimulation via Buzzy . . . Buzzy was administered about 5 cm above the application area just before the procedure, and the vibration continued until the end of the procedure” (Canbulat et al.,
2015, p. 36). Canbulat et al. (2015, pp. 37–38) concluded that “the application of external cold and vibration stimulation were effective in relieving pain and anxiety in children during peripheral IV” insertion and were “quick-acting
and effective nonpharmacological measures for pain reduction.” The researchers concluded that the Buzzy intervention is inexpensive and can be easily implemented in clinical practice with a pediatric population.
Relevant Study Results
The level of significance for this study was set at α = 0.05. “There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age, sex [gender], BMI, and preprocedural anxiety according to the self, the parents’, and the observer’s reports (p > 0.05) (Table 1). When the pain and anxiety levels were compared with an independent samples t test, . . . the children in the external cold and vibration stimulation [intervention] group had significantly lower pain levels
than the control group according to their self-reports (both WBFC [Wong Baker Faces Scale] and VAS [visual analog scale] scores; p < 0.001) (Table 2). The external cold and vibration stimulation group had significantly lower fear and anxiety 163levels than the control group, according to parents’ and the observer’s reports (p < 0.001) (Table 3)” (Canbulat et al., 2015, p. 36).
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF GROUPS IN TERMS OF VARIABLES THAT MAY AFFECT PROCEDURAL PAIN AND ANXIETY LEVELS
Characteristic Buzzy (n = 88) Control (n = 88) χ2
pSex Female (%), n 11 (12.5) 13 (14.8) .82 Male (%), n 77 (87.5) 75 (85.2) .41 Characteristic Buzzy (n = 88) Control (n = 88) t
pAge (mean ± SD) 8.25 ± 1.51 8.61 ± 1.69 −1.498
.136BMI (mean ± SD) 25.41 ± 6.74 26.94 ± 8.68 −1.309
.192Preprocedural anxiety Self-report (mean ± SD) 2.03 ± 1.29 2.11 ± 1.58 −0.364
.716Parent report (mean ± SD) 2.11 ± 1.20 2.17 ± 1.42 −0.285
.776Observer report (mean ± SD) 2.18 ± 1.17 2.24 ± 1.37 −0.295
.768BMI, body mass index.
Canbulat, N., Ayban, F., & Inal, S. (2015). Effectiveness of external cold and vibration for procedural pain relief during peripheral intravenous cannulation in pediatric patients. Pain Management Nursing, 16(1), p. 36.
TABLE 2
Effects Of External Cold And Vibration Stimulation Via Buzzy
COMPARISON OF GROUPS’ PROCEDURAL PAIN LEVELS DURING PERIPHERAL IV CANNULATION
Buzzy (n = 88) Control (n = 88) t
pProcedural self-reported pain with WBFS (mean ± SD) 2.75 ± 2.68 5.70 ± 3.31 −6.498
0.000Procedural self-reported pain with VAS (mean ± SD) 1.66 ± 1.95 4.09 ± 3.21 −6.065
0.000IV, intravenous; WBFS, Wong-Baker Faces Scale; SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analog scale.
Canbulat, N., Ayban, F., & Inal, S. (2015). Effectiveness of external cold and vibration for procedural pain relief during peripheral intravenous cannulation in pediatric patients. Pain Management Nursing, 16(1), p. 37.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF GROUPS’ PROCEDURAL ANXIETY LEVELS DURING PERIPHERAL IV CANNULATION
Procedural Child Anxiety Buzzy (n = 88) Control (n = 88) t
pParent reported (mean ± SD) 0.94 ± 1.06 2.09 ± 1.39 −6.135
0.000Observer reported (mean ± SD) 0.92 ± 1.03 2.14 ± 1.34 −6.745
0.000SD, standard deviation; IV, intravenous.
Canbulat, N., Ayban, F., & Inal, S. (2015). Effectiveness of external cold and vibration for procedural pain relief during peripheral intravenous cannulation in pediatric patients. Pain Management Nursing, 16(1), p. 37.
164
Study Questions
- What type of statistical test was conducted by Canbulat et al. (2015)to examine group differences in the dependent variables of procedural pain and anxiety levels in this study? What two groups were analyzed for differences?
- What did Canbulat et al. (2015)set the level of significance, or alpha (α), at for this study?
- What are the t and p (probability) values for procedural self-reported pain measured with a visual analog scale (VAS)? What do these results mean?
- What is the null hypothesis for observer-reported procedural anxiety for the two groups? Was this null hypothesis accepted or rejected in this study? Provide a rationale for your answer.
- What is the t-test result for BMI? Is this result statistically significant? Provide a rationale for your answer. What does this result mean for the study?
- Effects Of External Cold And Vibration Stimulation Via Buzzy
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Effects Of External Cold And Vibration Stimulation Via Buzzy