Exercise 36
1. The researchers found a significant difference between the two groups (control and treatment) for change in mobility of the women with osteoarthritis (OA) over 12 weeks with the results of F(1, 22) 9.619, p 0.005. Discuss each aspect of these results.
Answer: Since the F value is significant, based on the p-value of 0.005 which is less than 0.05 which is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. This suggests that there is a difference in the control and treatment groups.
2. State the null hypothesis for the Baird and Sands (2004) study that focuses on the effect of the GI with PMR treatment on patients’ mobility level. Should the null hypothesis be rejected for the difference between the two groups in change in mobility scores over 12 weeks? Provide a rationale for your answer.
Answer: Again the p- value is less than 0.05 and therefor the null hypothesis can be rejected. This presents that the mean, difficulty and mobility scores, must be different
3. The researchers stated that the participants in the intervention group reported a reduction in mobility difficulty at week 12. Was this result statistically significant, and if so at what probability?
Answer: The result was statistically significant with a probability score of p < 0.001,
4. If the researchers had set the level of significance or = 0.01, would the results of p 0.001 still be statistically significant? Provide a rationale for your answer.
Answer: Yes, because 0.001 < 0.01 is significant.
5. If F (3, 60) 4.13, p 0.04, and = 0.01, is the result statistically significant? Provide a rationale for your answer. Would the null hypothesis be accepted or rejected?
Answer: The 0.04 > 0.01 would indicate that there is no statistical significance and except the null and conclude that there is no difference between the groups.
6. Can ANOVA be used to test proposed relationships or predicted correlations between variables in a single group? Provide a rationale for your answer.
Answer: OVA
Answer: Since the F value is significant, based on the p-value of 0.005 which is less than 0.05 which is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. This suggests that there is a difference in the control and treatment groups.
2. State the null hypothesis for the Baird and Sands (2004) study that focuses on the effect of the GI with PMR treatment on patients’ mobility level. Should the null hypothesis be rejected for the difference between the two groups in change in mobility scores over 12 weeks? Provide a rationale for your answer.
Answer: Again the p- value is less than 0.05 and therefor the null hypothesis can be rejected. This presents that the mean, difficulty and mobility scores, must be different
3. The researchers stated that the participants in the intervention group reported a reduction in mobility difficulty at week 12. Was this result statistically significant, and if so at what probability?
Answer: The result was statistically significant with a probability score of p < 0.001,
4. If the researchers had set the level of significance or = 0.01, would the results of p 0.001 still be statistically significant? Provide a rationale for your answer.
Answer: Yes, because 0.001 < 0.01 is significant.
5. If F (3, 60) 4.13, p 0.04, and = 0.01, is the result statistically significant? Provide a rationale for your answer. Would the null hypothesis be accepted or rejected?
Answer: The 0.04 > 0.01 would indicate that there is no statistical significance and except the null and conclude that there is no difference between the groups.
6. Can ANOVA be used to test proposed relationships or predicted correlations between variables in a single group? Provide a rationale for your answer.
Answer: OVA