DBAX 9103 Week 6 Results Section Paper Example

Three Questions In, One Clear Answer Out: The Results Section for a Study of Supervisor Check-Ins, Onboarding and 90-Day Caregiver Retention, Reporting the Clear, the Null and the Inconclusive With Equal Care

Student Name

Walden University

DBAX 9103: Business Research Project Stage 3

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Three Questions In, One Clear Answer Out: The Results Section for a Study of Supervisor Check-Ins, Onboarding and 90-Day Caregiver Retention, Reporting the Clear, the Null and the Inconclusive With Equal Care

Overview

Three research questions went in and only one came back with a clear answer, which is the ordinary state of a results section. The study asked whether supervisor check-ins during a new caregiver's first 14 days, completion of onboarding modules within 14 days, and the combination of the two were associated with employment at day 90 among caregivers hired by a home care agency. This section reports all three answers with the same level of detail, beginning with the sample.

Sample

Of 612 caregivers hired over 24 months, 531 were included in the main analysis after excluding 22 rehires, 14 caregivers whose check-in logs were lost in a system change and 45 who left before day 14. Because the 14 missing logs resulted from a system replacement unrelated to the caregivers, their exclusion is unlikely to bias the estimates, a point Newman (2014) makes about values lost through causes independent of the outcome. Of the 531, 369 (69.5 percent) were employed at day 90. Caregivers received between 0 and 6 check-ins in their first 14 days, with a mean of 1.64. Eighty-seven received none. Of the 531, 384 (72.3 percent) completed all onboarding modules within 14 days.

Retention by Number of Check-Ins

Table 1

Ninety-Day Retention by Check-Ins in the First 14 Days

Unadjusted counts. Model estimates follow in the text.

Research Question 1: Check-Ins

Retention rose with each step in the number of check-ins, from 57.5 percent among caregivers with none to 77.2 percent among those with three or more. In the logistic regression controlling for starting pay, prior experience and travel distance, each additional check-in in the first 14 days was associated with higher odds of employment at day 90 (OR = 1.33; 95% confidence limits 1.10 and 1.61; p = .003). Standard errors were adjusted for clustering of caregivers within supervisors.

Research Question 2: Onboarding

Caregivers who completed onboarding within 14 days were retained at a rate of 70.3 percent (270 of 384), compared with 67.3 percent (99 of 147) among those who did not. In the adjusted model, onboarding completion showed no significant association with still being employed at day 90 (OR = 1.09; 95% confidence limits 0.71 and 1.67; p = .70). The interval is wide: it is compatible with a modest negative association, no association or a moderate positive one. The data cannot distinguish among these.

Research Question 3: The Combination

The interaction between check-ins and onboarding completion was estimated with an odds ratio of 0.94 (95% CI [0.72, 1.23], p = .66). The interval includes values that would mean check-ins matter more for caregivers who skipped onboarding and values that would mean they matter less. This question remains unanswered by the present data.

What the Table Shows Before the Model

The unadjusted pattern in the table is steady: each additional step in check-ins goes with a higher retention rate, with no reversal at any level. The largest jump, about nine percentage points, comes between caregivers who received no check-in and those who received one. That pattern is descriptive and could reflect differences in who receives check-ins, which the model addresses only partly through its controls for pay, experience and travel.

Control Variables

Higher starting pay (odds ratio = 1.29 per dollar, 95% CI [1.02, 1.63]) and prior caregiving experience (odds ratio = 1.52, 95% CI [1.02, 2.27]) were each associated with higher retention. Travel distance was not clearly associated (odds ratio = 0.81 per log unit, 95% CI [0.63, 1.04]).

Sensitivity Analysis

Using the originally proposed 30-day window with all 576 caregivers produced a larger check-in estimate (odds ratio = 1.41, 95% CI [1.22, 1.63]). That figure is inflated, since anyone who quit in the first weeks had less time in which a supervisor could check in; it is reported for transparency, as the deviation record explains.

Reporting Choices

Every estimate is reported with a confidence interval, as Appelbaum et al. (2018) recommend, and in line with Cumming (2014), the null and inconclusive results are described by their intervals rather than by the word nonsignificant alone. Interpretation, including whether check-ins cause retention, is left to the discussion chapter, where the limits of the design can be weighed.

References

Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191

Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966

Newman, D. A. (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 372-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114548590