descriptive statistics

NameCourseCourse instructorDate of submissionDescriptive statistics

The study comprised of 30 participants who were picked from a stratified group (international paramedic students) to participate in the survey. Data was collected by the use of structured questionnaires. The data were mainly quantitative hence appropriate analyses were conducted using Statistical package for social sciences version 16.0 (SPSS) (Green and Salkind, 2010). Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for gender, age group and year of study of the participants.

TABLE 1

Gender, age group and year of education of the study participants

Frequency Valid Percent

Gender

Male 30 100.0

What is your age group?

below 22 years 3 10.0

22-25 years 4 13.3

25-30 years 14 46.7

30-35 years 9 30.0

What year in your bachelor degree?

1st 3 10.0

2nd 13 43.3

3rd 14 46.7

All of the study participants (100%) were male. The largest proportion of the participants (46.7%) indicated that they were in the age category 25-30 years. Notably, only a small proportion of the participants (10%) indicated that they were less than 22 years. Figure 1 presents a chart of the participants’ responses on age category. A major proportion of the study participants (46.7%) indicated that they were in the third year of their bachelor’s degree. Only a minor proportion (10%) indicated that they were in their first year of study.

Preliminary analysis of the main outcomes

The present study aimed at evaluating the benefits of technology in the medical field, particularly amongst paramedics. In this regard, the results for the participants’ views on the benefits accrued from technology are shown in table 2.

TABLE 2Benefits of technology

Frequency Valid Percent

Do you think there is a value to investing in this new technology?

yes 25 86.2

no 4 13.8

Do you think that this new technology improves efficiency?

yes 26 86.7

no 4 13.3

Do you think that this new technology improves patient care?

yes 23 76.7

no 7 23.3

Do you think that this new technology saves lives?

yes 29 96.7

no 1 3.3

The results indicate that a majority of the participants, 86.2%, think that investing in the new technology is valuable. Moreover, a significant proportion of the participants, 86.7%, think that the new technology improves efficiency. A major proportion of the participants, 76.7%, think that the new technology improves patient care. In addition, 96.7% of the participants think that the new technology saves lives. Evidently, the benefits of new technology cannot be overlooked.

CHI-Square analysis

The results of a contingency table X2 statistical test.

Data: contingency table

A B C D

1 25 26 23 29 103

2 4 4 7 1 16

29 30 30 30 119

Expected: contingency table

A B C D

1 25.1 26.0 26.0 26.0

2 3.90 4.03 4.03 4.03

Chi-square = 5.16 degrees of freedom = 3probability = 0.160

Findings

P>0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis that students are averse to technological use.

REFERENCESAllio, M.K., 2005. “A Short, Practical Guide to Implementing Strategy”. Journal of Business Strategy, 26, pp.12-21.

Bossidy,L., Charan, R. and Burk, G., 2002. Execution – The discipline of getting things done. London: Random House Business Books.

Brockbank, A., 2004. The action learning handbook: Powerful techniques for education, Professional development and training. London: Routledge.

Brown, S. and Blackmon, K., 2005. Linking Manufacturing Strategy to the strategy mainstream: The case for strategic resonance. Journal of Management Studies, 42(4), pp 793-815.

Chia, R., (n.d.). Writing an academic Thesis, Dissertation or Essay: Guidelines, Academic Conventions, Rationale and Good Practice. University of Exeter. Available at HYPERLINK “https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-RoS9BOCBbab2o5U0w5QVZUYjQ”https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-RoS9BOCBbab2o5U0w5QVZUYjQ [Accessed 10th May 2013].