Coyne and Messina Articles: Part 1 - Analysis

Coyne and Messina Article Analysis
Name:
Institution:
Date of submission
Coyne and Messina Article Analysis
The essay herein presents an analytic comparison of Coyne and the colleagues (2009), and Messina et al. (2009) reveal the major elements that exist between the articles. Furthermore, the analysis would delve into aspects of differences or commonalities between the two works. For example, both studies are majorly purposed to better the conditions of the healthcare systems and the service that the institutions offer to the patients or any other person within the premises. Both studies have dependent and independent variables and then conducted research and analyzed the variables differently to come up with the best solutions that improve the quality of the healthcare system in America. Coyne and his colleagues chose causative variables which included the hospital ownership and size to have effects on efficiency within the healthcare framework services. Conversely, Messina and colleagues based their research on patient satisfaction and the efficiency in determining the success of healthcare enterprise. In both instances, the studies questions bring about an aspect of monetary motivation to enhance efficiency either through expansion of sizes of the hospitals and the inpatient admission about patient satisfaction. Concerning the two studies, the comparison will majorly be based on reliability, statistical analysis, samples for the studies and the results of the study.
Reliability of the Variables
Coyne et al., (2009) and Messina et al., (2009) have ensured reliability and the validity of the findings. Coyne et al. (2009) used financial instruments as indicators which were developed by Pink and the colleagues (2006). The study was based on a report for a critical access hospital (CAH) with 20 financial tools which were essential and could be applied in financial administrations in hospitals. The reliability of the instruments was determined and found to be effective in measuring revenues, profitability, costs, and utilization. Research conducted by Griffith et al. (2006) in a span of five years analyzed data from 2,500 hospitals and indicated that the content of the financial instruments used was valid and reliable based on nine variables.
Contrarily, Messina et al. (2009) used questionnaire schedule that was developed in the 1980s in their study. This kind of questionnaire was redefined and advanced after a focus an experiment on a focus group in 1997 to enhance its reliability in the collection. Besides, a review of the literature regarding patients' satisfaction was also included to improve its accuracy and internal consistency. Press Ganey (2002) affirmed that the questionnaire schedule used was psychometrically stable hence could be implemented across numerous tests and provide the most reliable information. The result on the validity and reliability as performed by Messina et al. (2009) indicated that the overall reliability was 0.94 based on Cronbach's alpha.
Sample Selection in both studies
The study conducted by Messina et al. (2009) employed a descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies, medians, means and standard deviations. These descriptive elements were used to measure the volumes of inpatient and their satisfactions. The Kurtosis and Skewness well elaborated the distribution of the data and the shape. Though the sample size of the study was significantly small compared to a study conducted by the Coyne all colleagues (2009). All in all, Coy...