2021
DOI: 10.5539/gjhs.v13n3p23
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Data Cleaning Needs and Issues: A Case Study of the National Reproductive Health Assessment (RHA) Data from Solomon Islands

Abstract: Data cleaning is an essential part of any research work without which the validity and reliability of the data could come under the spotlight. Aim: to document common errors found during the cleaning of datasets and suggests ways of minimizing errors during data entry process, reducing human errors throughout data cleaning. Design and Setting: a case study based on the national Reproductive Health Assessment (RHA) data conducted in Solomon Islands in 2013. Objective: The main object… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 2 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Data was entered on Microsoft excel spread sheet and then imported to Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24 to perform a descriptive statistical analysis to generate the graphs and tables. This method was seen as plausible in a case study whereby the same procedure was applied to a large quantity of data (Nair et al 2021). Each recorded registry was assigned a code to de-identify patient information which was kept in sealed envelopes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data was entered on Microsoft excel spread sheet and then imported to Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24 to perform a descriptive statistical analysis to generate the graphs and tables. This method was seen as plausible in a case study whereby the same procedure was applied to a large quantity of data (Nair et al 2021). Each recorded registry was assigned a code to de-identify patient information which was kept in sealed envelopes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%