Exercise 36 Answers
1. 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. Since 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 result was statistically significant with a probability score of p < 0.001. 4. Yes, because 0.001 < 0.01 and would still be significant. 5. 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. NOVA cannot be used to test proposed relationships or predicted correlations between variables in a single group. This is because ANOVA is tests relationships within various groups and among the groups.

7. The study had 149 subjects and 2 groups
8. The strength of the study where that they include a control group to test the dependent variable to examine the differences over time. The weakness of the study comes from the low number of subjects in the study. More subjects would have made the study more creditable. 9. The study results indicated a significant improvement in the pain scores of women with OA who received the treatment of guided imagery (F(1, 26) =4.406, p = 0.046). Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. But in my opinion I would have liked to have seen a larger number of subjects. Also, including the standard deviations for the treatment and control groups also are needed to calculate the effect size in the study. The effect size is needed to conduct a power analysis to predict the sample size needed for future studies.

10. Possible problems and limitation with the study is that the pain that leads to limited mobility and may lead to disability which can hinder them form taking the treatments. Also, with it being over such a...

...EXERCISE36 Questions to be graded
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.
* The F-value suggests that there is a significant difference between the results of the control and treatment groups. The P-value of 0.005 is < the alpha of 0.05. This suggest that the groups are significantly different and the null hypothesis should be rejected.
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.
* Treatment group mean = control group mean
* With the p-value being < the alpha, the null hypothesis would be rejected indicating the difference in the mean mobility scores.
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?
* The p-value of 0.005 suggests that the results are statistically significant.
4. If the researchers had set the level of significance or α = 0.01, would the results of p = 0.001 still be statistically...

...EXERCISE36
6. Can ANOVA be used to test proposed relationships or predicted correlations between variables in a single group? Provide rationale for your answer.
ANOVA cannot be used to test proposed relationships or predicted correlations between variables in a single group because it is designed to test for correlations and interactions amongst groups, i.e. in the test group of patients with OA you are testing the correlations between those who do not use GI and PMR and those that do. Although all participants suffered from OA they were separated into two groups for comparison.
7. If a study had a result of F(2, 147) = 4.56, p=0.003, how many groups were in the study, and what was the sample size?
Number of groups = K
Group degrees of freedom= K-1+=2 = K=2+1=3
K=3 which means the number of groups = 3
Sample size = N
Error degrees of freedom = N-K = 147=N-3 = N=147+3 = 150
N=150 which means the sample size is 150
8. The researchers state that the sample of their study was 28 women with a diagnosis of OA, and that 18 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 10 were randomly assigned to the control group. Discuss the studies strengths and/or weaknesses in this statement.
One of the biggest weaknesses in this study is the number of participants. There are only 18 women participating. With a larger group of participants you can obtain more credible and concrete results. One of the strengths is that there is...

...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....

...PEARSON’S PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
ANSWERS TO EXERCISE 23
Question 1
The r value for the relationship between Hamstring strength index 60o and the Shuttle run test is -0.149. This r value shows a weak correlation between the two variables, as it is less than the 0.3 threshold for significance. Therefore, the r value is not significant.
Question 2
Between r=1.00 and r=-1.00, there is no difference in terms of strength. Both values are on the extreme ends of the spectrum and signify the maximum significance within the r value scale. A value of 1.00, whether negative or positive, shows that the two variables have a perfect linear relationship, and as such, the independent variable can be used to accurately predict the value of the dependent variable. The only difference is that the negative value signifies that a rise in one variable causes the corresponding variable to drop while the positive value signifies that the rise in one variable causes the corresponding variable to increase in value as well. But strength wise, they are similar.
Question 3
The relationship between the hamstring strength index 60o and shuttle run test index is a negative one. This is signified by the negative nature of the r value (-0.498). A negative relationship occurs when a rise in one variable causes the corresponding variable to decrease in value.
Question 4
This research study had the primary objective of measuring the relationship between muscle...

...of 1000 flights and proportions of three routes in the sample. He divides them into different sub-groups such as satisfaction, refreshments and departure time and then selects proportionally to highlight specific subgroup within the population. The reasons why Mr Kwok used this sampling method are that the cost per observation in the survey may be reduced and it also enables to increase the accuracy at a given cost.
TABLE 1: Data Summaries of Three Routes
Route 1
Route 2
Route 3
Normal(88.532,5.07943)
Normal(97.1033,5.04488)
Normal(107.15,5.15367)
Summary Statistics
Mean
88.532
Std Dev
5.0794269
Std Err Mean
0.2271589
Upper 95% Mean
88.978306
Lower 95% Mean
88.085694
N
500
Sum
44266
Summary Statistics
Mean
97.103333
Std Dev
5.0448811
Std Err Mean
0.2912663
Upper 95% Mean
97.676525
Lower 95% Mean
96.530142
N
300
Sum
29131
Summary Statistics
Mean
107.15
Std Dev
5.1536687
Std Err Mean
0.3644194
Upper 95% Mean
107.86862
Lower 95% Mean
106.43138
N
200
Sum
21430
From the table above, the total number of passengers for route 1 is 44,266, route 2 is 29,131 and route 3 is 21,430 and the total numbers of passengers for 3 routes are 94,827.
Although route 1 has the highest number of passengers and flights but it has the lowest means of passengers among the 3 routes. From...

...EXERCISE36 Questions to be Graded
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: The F value suggests there is a significant difference between the results of the control and treatment groups. The P-value of 0.005 is < the alpha of 0.05.This suggest that the groups are significantly different and the null hypothesis should be rejected.
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: Treatment group mean=control group mean
With the p-value being < the alpha, the null hypothesis would be rejected indicating the difference in the mean mobility scores.
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 p-value of 0.005 suggests that the results are statistically significant.
4. If the researchers had set the level of significance or α =...

...Exercise36
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.
The F-value is high enough at the 5% level of significance to suggest a significant difference between the control and treatment groups. The p-value 0.005 < 0.05 hence this suggests a rejection of the null hypothesis, meaning that the control and treatment groups are found to be different.
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.
The null hypothesis is that the mean mobility scores for both groups are the same. As stated previously, since the p-value 0.005 < 0.05 this means I reject the null hypothesis. So the mean "difficulty with mobility score" for both groups 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?
Yes the result was statistically significant at probability p < 0.001, according...

...Module 4 Exercise36
IF You Want To Purchase A+ Work Then Click The Link Below , Instant Download
http://hwnerd.com/HLT-362-Module-4-Exercise-36-539555.htm?categoryId=-1
If You Face Any Problem E- Mail Us At Contact.Hwnerd@Gmail.Com
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Can ANOVA be used to test proposed relationships or...