Three clusters were named: High Distance High Affinity or HDHA, High Distance Low Affinity or HDLA, and Low Distance Average Affinity or LDAA.
The results suggested that (a) in comparison with students in High Distance Low Affinity or HDLA cluster, the chance of a student choosing elearning was 1.29 times greater when the student was of Low Distance Average Affinity or LDAA, and (b) in comparison with students in High Distance Low Affinity or HDLA cluster, the chance of a student choosing elearning was 1.26 times larger when the student was of High Distance High Affinity or HDHA.
Table 3 Results for the pairwise comparisons using the Holm's Sequential Bonferroni Method Comparison Pearson chi-square p value (Alpha) Cramer's V HDLA vs LDAA 38.59 * <.001(.017) .23 HDHA vs HDLA 35 * <.001(.025) .19 HDHA vs LDAA 1.04 .308 (.050) .03 * p value = alpha Figure 1.
None of the facility-level quality of care indicators appear to meaningfully associate with the likelihood of an HDHA, with the exception of physical restraint use.
Only one facility-level factor appeared to significantly affect the odds of experiencing an HDHA. Estimated log-odds indicated that residents residing in nursing homes with higher, overall average MMQ case-mix scores increased risk of HDHA.
Residents with Alzheimer's disease, for instance, while no more or less likely to be hospitalized in general, when admitted, are more likely to experience an HDHA, perhaps due to communication difficulties that may hinder staffs' ability to evaluate the needs of the resident.
The pattern of results here seems to also indicate that the measure for HDHA may not sufficiently discriminate truly high discretionary conditions from other, less discretionary conditions.