Questionnaire Results About Help to the Victims of Family and Intimate Partner Violence - Paper Example

For the length of practice, the 12 respondents were questioned and the results collected had very interesting feedback. The mean was found to be 1.6667 as compared to the mode which was 1. This means that the response was skewed to the left of the mean. That means, that majority believed that the length of practice had nothing to do with the ability of personnel to help a victim open up and talk about being victimized by domestic violence (Mansley, 2009). Looking at the standard deviation, it is considerably small meaning that the data set is close to the mean meaning that majority of the respondents shared a common view. Which is that the length of practice does not necessarily determine ability to collect information from an IPV victim. The majority of the people who believed that helping the IPV victims was directly related to the length of practice were those staff who had practiced for about 2 3 years. Those who thought alike but distributed their populations were the groups who had worked in the range of 5 10 years and those who had worked for more than ten years.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Looking at the need for prior training on IPV, it is important to note that very many people do believe that the training has a large impact in getting the victims to open up (Hattery, 2009). The mean in this particular case is lesser than the mode meaning that graph would be skewed to the lift. Almost 50 % of the respondents interviewed believed that the training is important, as it would help get the victims to open up and tell more about their experience with the violence.

The degree that the personnel undertook in college is also very critical when practicing in this particular field. Looking at those who studied NP and RN, they form the majority of those who believe that their cause forms the basis of successful diagnosis of the victims of IPV. Almost 41% of the respondents studied RN and NP and, they believe that their course has helped them make the patients open up (Mansley, 2009). Another lot that believes that their course is helpful in pursing their current career is the MA. They form about 25% of the total respondents meaning that they also believe that the course the pursued was essential for opening up the victims of IPV. Looking at the standard deviation at this particular case, one finds that the standard deviation is very small of about 1.087 that means that the respondents responded in close range. The data set recorded close to the mean showing that they believed in almost the same fact.

Another important factor is primary specialty. For this particular case, all the respondents gave the same data. The value all the parties gave were the same and consistent throughout. That means that all the values provided were the same as the mean. As such, there was no deviation from the mean at all (Hattery, 2009). The variance, in this case, is usually zero meaning that the distance of all the set of data does not deviate from the mean. Thus, all the values are equal to the mean. This simply means that all the respondents shared the same opinion.

Considering the year of graduation, all the respondents gave their data. With the minimum being 1977 and the maximum being 2005. This means that their data set was distributed throughout the range. However, this would take a big standard deviation of 12.695 meaning that the data set was widely spread from the mean that shows that that majority of the respondents graduated from the University in their respective years that deviate from the mean of 2005.67. The mode, in this case, is 2015 which lies on the upper side of the mean hence showing that majority of the respondents graduated from the University (Mansley, 2009). The variance reiterates the point that the data set is not close to the mean since the variance itself is very big of about 161.152.

Among the 12 respondents, the age was considered with the range being 36. The maximum age that was interviewed was 58 and the minimum being 22. The mean of the age was roughly 32.75 and, when compared to the mode which is 22, the decision that can be made is that majority of those who had been interviewed were young individuals with an age of below 32.75. The standard deviation supports the idea as it takes a figure of 12.411 meaning that the age data set lies far from the mean.

References

The United States, & United States. (1998). Action plan to prevent family and intimate partner violence: National Family and Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Initiative. Rockville, Md.: Office of Minority Health.

Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill.

Hattery, A. (2009). Intimate partner violence (1st ed.). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Mansley, E. (2009). Intimate Partner Violence (1st ed.). El Paso: LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC.