Measures of Dispersion

Measures of Dispersion Responses 

1. According to the study by Roch, Dubois, and Clarke (2014) the caring practices variable was measured using a Caring Nurse-Patient Interaction Short Scale (CNPISS) which included a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from almost always to almost never. Ideally, high frequencies for this scale indicated higher frequency of caring practices by the nurses.
2. The data collected above was based on a categorical scale. Assessing the carting practices by the nurses, the data extracted was based on opinions or views of the nurses which later was coded along a 5-point Likert scale to make it simple in quantifying, reporting, and drawing conclusion. 
3. The main sub-scales used to assess the caring practices under the CNPISS were the overall rating scale, clinical care, relational care and comforting care. Each of these scales was important as it was part of the constructs used to assess or measure the overall Caring practices. Ideally, patients it gave a breakdown on how the nurses viewed their caring environment based on these single constructs which gave a clear picture of the nursing environment (Roch et al, 2014). 
4. The relational care sub-scale had the lowest mean (2.90) with a SD of 1.01 and this tells that the relational care of the nurses was relatively average since the scores were scattered between the mean of the scale (2.5). 
5. Again, the relational care had a standard deviation of 1.01 and this shows how the scores for the nurses’ responses were scattered along the 5 point scale. Ideally, the scores were 1.01 standard deviations from the mean, 2.90. 
6. The clinical care subscale had the lowest measure of dispersion – the standard deviation of 0.57 and this shows that its scores were closely dispersed around the mean, 4.02. 
7. Of all the caring practice scales used in this data, comforting care had the highest mean, represented as 4.08 with a SD of 0.72. Ideally, this shows that most nurses felt that comforting care was always available in their working environment. The mean is approaching 5 which indicates “almost always” and given that the SD is 0.72, it can be easily be concluded that, majority of the nurses felt that the comforting care practice was above average. 
8. Comparing the overall ratings for both organizational climate and the caring practices, they had overall scores above average. Ideally, each of them had an overall score above average; organizational climate rating had a mean of 3.13, SD = 0.56 while the caring practices had an overall rating of 3.62, SD = 0.66. Since the Likert score was based on 5 points, each of the two scores was above average (they were greater than 2.5). However, the caring practices were more available in the facility when compared to conduciveness of the overall organizational climate. Such an aspect is shown by the higher mean of caring practices than the organizational climate (3.62 > 3.13). 
9. As per Roch et al. (2014) the study response rate was 45% and this was a limitation. Actually, this indicates that the consistency of the responses from the nurses stand a chance of making the results not generalizable. A response rate of 100% of approaching 100% would be recommended for reliable and generalizable findings. The 45% of the nurses that responded to the survey could impart some biasedness in their reporting based on how they are sampled for the study. 
10. Roch et al. (2014) concluded that the caring practices were performed, regularly since the mean scores were above average. Additionally, the researchers concluded that, though relational care elements were often carried, they were less than the comforting and clinical practices. Such results indicate that there is a need to improve relational care between nurses and physicians in any facility to achieve the best care delivery. 

ReferencesRoch, G., Dubois, C., & Clarke, S. P. (2014). Research in Nursing & Health, 37(3), p. 234