Answer 2 for DNP 820 Compare statistical and clinical significance
Also recognized as practical significance, the clinical significance becomes assigned to a result where a treatment course has objective and quantifiable effects. Moreover, statistical significance undergoes an assignment to a result when an event is unlikely to have occurred by chance (Sharma, 2021). Jacobson-Truax is a standard method of calculating clinical significance. It involves calculating a Reliability Change Index (RCI) (Sharma, 2021). The RCI equals the difference between a participant’s pre-test and post-test scores and encounters division by means of difference presented by the standard error. Statistical significance also involves observing any contrasting differences between groups to distinguish whether outcomes are derived from chance or actuality (Sharma, 2021). These can be groups of workers participating in a workplace health and safety intervention or patients participating in a clinical trial. In research, statistical significance measures the probability that the null hypothesis is accurate compared to the acceptable level of uncertainty regarding the actual answer (Sharma, 2021). In clinical research, statistically significant study results are often clinically meaningful. While statistical significance indicates the reliability of the study results, clinical significance reflects its impact on clinical practice (Sharma, 2021).
While most research focuses on statistical significance, clinicians and clinical researchers should focus on clinically significant changes (Harris et al., 2017). A study outcome can present statistical but not clinically significant, and vice‐versa. Moreover, a study outcome provides more likelihood of occurring should the study be underpowered, and possession of an undersupplied sample size fails to incorporate any observable group differences (Harris et al., 2017). Furthermore, you might fail to detect a significant difference between groups in this scenario. Some statistically significant results may have limited practical significance, and some results that are not statistically significant can lead to practical acceptance of the null hypothesis of no difference (Harris et al., 2017).
An outcome measure assesses a patient’s current status and may provide a score, an interpretation of results, and at times a risk categorization of the patient (Chappuis et al., 2017). Prior to providing any intervention, an outcome measure provides baseline data. Focusing on outcomes helps direct clinical attention towards a single goal—the patient’s health status—rather than specific interventions (Chappuis et al., 2017). In addition, it can promote ‘whole system’ collaboration between different parts of the healthcare system. Evaluating clinical effectiveness and improving future care involves examining several indicators (Chappuis et al., 2017). These include patient safety indicators, patient satisfaction, productivity measurement tools, and clinicians’ effectiveness in supporting people to achieve their best clinical outcomes (Chappuis et al., 2017).
Resources
Chappuis, V., Araújo, M. G., & Buser, D. (2017). Clinical relevance of dimensional bone and soft tissue alterations post‐extraction in esthetic sites. Periodontology 2000, 73(1), 73-83.
Harris, J. D., Brand, J. C., Cote, M. P., Faucett, S. C., & Dhawan, A. (2017). Research pearls: The significance of statistics and perils of pooling. Part 1: Clinical versus statistical significance. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 33(6), 1102-1112.
