| Course | NUR 617 Foundational Concepts in Science and Statistics |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | SPSS data analysis assignment with output and interpretation |
| Length | About 788 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Doctorate of Professional Practice in Regulatory and Clinical Research Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 617 Module 7
Does Health Literacy Predict Consent Comprehension? Correlation and Simple Linear Regression on Illustrative Enrollment Data
Student Name
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University
NUR 617: Foundational Concepts in Science and Statistics
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Does Health Literacy Predict Consent Comprehension? Correlation and Simple Linear Regression on Illustrative Enrollment Data
Data and Research Questions
The course provides its own datasets in Canvas; this sample uses an illustrative dataset made to demonstrate the procedures, so its values describe no real study. The scenario follows 60 adults who enrolled in an observational study at a research site. Before consent, each completed the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), a six-item health literacy screen based on a nutrition label and scored from 0 to 6, with scores of 0 to 1 suggesting a high likelihood of limited literacy and 4 to 6 suggesting adequate literacy (Weiss et al., 2005). After consent, each answered the knowledge items of the QuIC, the consent comprehension instrument developed by Joffe et al. (2001), which produces a 0 to 100 score.
Two questions guided the analysis. Is NVS score correlated with consent comprehension? And how well does NVS score predict comprehension in a simple linear regression? The null hypotheses are that the population correlation is zero and that the population slope is zero, each tested two-tailed at alpha = .05.
Descriptive Statistics and Assumptions
NVS scores averaged 3.43 (SD = 1.54) and comprehension scores averaged 73.12 (SD = 9.22). The scatterplot showed a positive, roughly linear pattern without curvature and with no point lying far from the cloud. Because the NVS has only seven possible values and is arguably ordinal, Spearman's rank-order correlation was calculated alongside Pearson's r as a check (Polit, 2010). For the regression, the residuals were examined after fitting: a Shapiro-Wilk test on the residuals was not significant, W = .98, p = .479, and a plot of residuals against predicted values showed an even band, supporting the normality and equal-variance assumptions.
SPSS Output
| Correlations | Value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson r, NVS with QuIC Part A | .677 | ||||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | < .001 | ||||
| N | 60 | ||||
| Spearman's rho, NVS with QuIC Part A | .685 | ||||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | < .001 | ||||
| Model Summary | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | |
| NVS predicting QuIC Part A | .677 | .458 | .449 | 6.85 | |
| Regression ANOVA | SS | df | MS | F | p |
| Regression | 2300.26 | 1 | 2300.26 | 49.09 | < .001 |
| Residual | 2717.92 | 58 | 46.86 | ||
| Total | 5018.18 | 59 | |||
| Coefficients | B | Std. Error | Beta | t | Sig. |
| (Constant) | 59.24 | 2.17 | 27.30 | < .001 | |
| NVS score | 4.04 | 0.58 | .677 | 7.01 | < .001 |
Interpretation
NVS score and consent comprehension were strongly and positively correlated, r(58) = .68, p < .001. Spearman's rho was nearly identical (.69), so treating the NVS as interval did not change the conclusion. The regression showed that NVS score significantly predicted comprehension, F(1, 58) = 49.09, p < .001, accounting for 45.8% of the variance in comprehension scores (adjusted R squared = .449).
The regression equation is: predicted comprehension = 59.24 + 4.04 x NVS score. Each additional point on the NVS was associated with a 4.04-point higher comprehension score, 95% CI [2.89, 5.20]. The constant of 59.24 is the predicted comprehension for someone scoring 0 on the NVS. Using the equation, a participant scoring 2 on the NVS is predicted to score 67.32, and a participant scoring 5 is predicted to score 79.45, a gap of about 12 points. The standard error of the estimate, 6.85, indicates that actual scores typically fall within about 7 points of the predicted value, so individual predictions remain imprecise even though the relationship is strong.
Conceptual Questions
What is the difference between r and R squared? The correlation coefficient describes the strength and direction of the linear relationship. R squared, its square in simple regression, describes the proportion of variance in the outcome explained by the predictor. A correlation of .68 sounds large, but it leaves more than half of the variation in comprehension unexplained.
Does this show that health literacy causes better consent comprehension? No. The data are correlational. Education, reading practice, prior research participation and familiarity with medical settings could all raise both scores. Random assignment is what supports causal claims, and health literacy cannot be assigned.
How might a research site use this result? It suggests that participants with low NVS scores are the ones most likely to leave consent with gaps in understanding, which supports adding a teach-back step for them. The prediction should not be used to exclude anyone from a study, and any change to consent procedures would go through the site's institutional review board.
Conclusion
In this illustrative dataset, health literacy was strongly associated with consent comprehension and predicted almost half of its variance, with each NVS point linked to about 4 more comprehension points. The relationship is large enough to inform where extra consent support is offered, but it is correlational and leaves wide room for individual variation, so it supports targeted teach-back rather than conclusions about cause.
References
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001). Quality of informed consent: A new measure of understanding among research subjects. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93(2), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.2.139
Polit, D. F. (2010). Statistics and data analysis for nursing research (2nd ed.). Pearson.
Weiss, B. D., Mays, M. Z., Martz, W., Castro, K. M., DeWalt, D. A., Pignone, M. P., Mockbee, J., & Hale, F. A. (2005). Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: The Newest Vital Sign. Annals of Family Medicine, 3(6), 514-522. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.405
What the NUR 617 Module 7 instructions ask for
The last analysis assignment in NUR 617 is due on the final Friday of the session and carries 20 points. It covers Chapter 9, correlation and simple regression, and it uses the same answer-file format as Assignments 1 and 2. Like its predecessors, it is graded on running the procedure, producing the output, explaining it and showing that you grasp the ideas. Expect questions on a scatterplot, the correlation coefficient and its significance, the regression model summary, the coefficients table and the regression equation, a prediction for a given value of the predictor and the difference between association and cause. Discussion Board 4 is due the same day.
How this NUR 617 Module 7 example is built
Laid out as a completed answer document, the sample first tells the reader its data are invented for teaching and then explains what each measure's scores mean. Descriptive statistics and assumptions come next, including a reason for adding Spearman's rho and residual checks for the regression. The output section reproduces four tables in the order SPSS produces them: correlations, model summary, the regression ANOVA and coefficients. The interpretation gives APA results for the correlation and the model, writes out the regression equation, explains the slope and the constant and works through two predictions with the standard error of the estimate as a caution. Conceptual answers distinguish r from R squared, rule out a causal reading and show how a research site could use the finding responsibly.
NUR 617 Module 7 rubric: what earns full marks
Your section's grading rubric for Assignment 3 is posted in Canvas, so check its criteria first. Regression assignments typically reward a correct model, complete output, an accurate equation, correct interpretation of the slope and R squared and conceptual answers that explain rather than define. Common deductions include writing the equation with the standardized beta instead of the unstandardized B, describing R squared as the correlation, interpreting the constant when zero is outside the data and implying causation. Because Assignment 3 is due on the last day of the session, the syllabus excludes it from the late window that applies to earlier work, so submit on time. Written feedback still follows within 72 hours, and your final grade rests on the 100-point total.
NUR 617 Module 7 help from the desk
Most errors here are reading errors. Use the B column, not Beta, when you write the regression equation, and state what one unit of the predictor means in real terms. Do not call R squared a percentage of people; it is a percentage of variance. Check the scatterplot before you trust r, since a curve or one extreme point can distort it. Avoid causal verbs such as "increases" or "leads to" when the data are correlational; "is associated with" or "predicts" is accurate. When you make a prediction, use a predictor value inside the observed range. Send the desk your coefficients table and the prompt if you would like a worked interpretation that uses your values.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More NUR 617 and Doctorate of Professional Practice in Regulatory and Clinical Research Management sample papers
- NUR 617 Module 3: Discussion Board 2: Challenging Concept (Confidence Intervals and Statistical Inference)
- NUR 617 Module 4: Assignment 1: Dependent and Independent Samples t-Tests in SPSS
- NUR 617 Module 5: Assignment 2: One-Way ANOVA in SPSS
NUR 617 Module 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 617 Module 7 sample paper?
The NUR 617 Module 7 sample here is a complete Assignment 3 answer document with Pearson and Spearman correlations, a simple regression, SPSS tables, the equation, predictions and conceptual answers.
How do I write a regression equation from SPSS output?
Take the constant and the unstandardized B for the predictor from the Coefficients table, then write predicted Y = constant + B x predictor value.
What is the difference between r and R squared?
The correlation r tells how strong a straight-line pattern is and whether it rises or falls; R squared gives the share of variance in the outcome explained by the predictor.
When should I use Spearman's rho instead of Pearson's r?
Use Spearman's rho when a variable is ordinal, the relationship is monotonic but not linear, or outliers and skew make Pearson's r unreliable.
When is NUR 617 Assignment 3 due?
Assignment 3 is due on the last Friday of the 7.5-week session, in Week 7, and it is not covered by the late-submission window that applies to earlier work.