Nasal Flu Case Study

960 Words2 Pages

Essay 1. In this essay I will the experiment that a group of researchers conducted to determine which vaccine is more effective for preventing getting the flu. There were two types tested: a shot and a nasal spray. The numbers are as follows: 1000 participants were selected at random with 500 people getting the shot and 500 the nasal spray. Of the 500 people were treated with the shot, 80 developed the flu and 420 did not. People who were treated with the nasal spray, 120 people developed the flu and 380 did not. Level of significance was set at .05. Proportion of people who were treated with the shot who developed the flu = .16, and the proportion of the people who were treated with the nasal spray was .24. The calculated p value = .0008. …show more content…

Since r = 0.75 it can be simplified as r2 which results in an amount of 0.56. IQ scores/percentage made of 56% of the testing factors. The other 44% could have been various other issues/variables/factors that students are affected by. Issues like social settings, study time, personal home status, parenting ect. The correlation here is simple. We can surmise that as an individual’s IQ rises so to should the GPA of that specific individual. Correlation only displays the relationship between the data. However even when we use correlation to calculate values or difference scores, the result is the same, and doesn’t measure the outcome. If want to determine causation/connection it would be by an amount both IQ and GPA increased. This would make the case that correlation is not applicable to predict …show more content…

7.3 7.6 8.1 8.2 8.5 9.2 9.3 9.5 9.5 15.2 Range: 7.9 Sum: 92.4 Mean: 9.24 Median: 8.85 Mode: 9.5 Standard Deviation: 2.237 Skewness: 1.955 Kurtosis: 5.706 There exists difference within the groupings because every variable including but not limited to Kurtosis, skewness, count, minimum, and maximum have different values. Only the second group possesses an outlier as the response time is escalated for the group. New Data Doubled: Group 1: 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.1 4.3 4.7 4.8 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.1 4.3 4.7 4.8 Range: 2.6 Sum: 69.6 Mean: 3.48 Median: 3.3 Mode: 2.2, 4.8 Standard Deviation: 0.9163 Skewness: 0.1563 Kurtosis: 1.488 Group 2: Range: 7.9 Sum: 184.8 Mean: 9.24 Median: 8.85 Mode: 9.5 Standard Deviation: 2.177 Skewness: 2.009 Kurtosis: 6.023 Once I doubled my sample data my entire amount of values change. In group one I still did not have an accurate mode, where I did in group 2. When my sample was increased the data gained traction because I reduced my minimum variance and standard

More about Nasal Flu Case Study

Open Document