Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

the article ‘’evaluation of a ventilation strategy to prevent barotrauma in patients at high risk for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome” (New Engl. J. of Med., \(1998:355 - 358)\) reported on an experiment in which \(120\) patients with similar clinical features were randomly divided into a control group and a treatment group, each consisting of \(60\) patients. The sample mean ICU stay (days) and sample standard deviation for the treatment group were \(19.9\) and\(39.1\), respectively, whereas these values for the control group were \(13.7\) and \(15.8\).

a) Calculate a point estimate for the difference between true average ICU stay for the treatment and control groups. Does this estimate suggest that there is a significant difference between true average stays under the two conditions?

b) Answer the question posed in part (a) by carrying out a formal test of hypotheses. Is the result different from what you conjectured in part (a)?

c)Does it appear that ICU stay for patients given the ventilation treatment is normally distributed? Explain your reasoning9. The article “Evaluation of a Ventilation Strategy to Prevent Barotrauma in Patients at High Risk for

d)Estimate true average length of stay for patients given the ventilation treatment in a way that conveys information about precision and reliability

Short Answer

Expert verified

the solution is

a)\(6.2\)

b) do not reject null hypothesis (at any reasonable confidence level)

c)no

d) \((10,21.9).\)

Step by step solution

01

calculate the point estimate for the difference between true average

given

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{\bar x = 19.9;}&{m = 60;}&{{s_1} = 39.1}\\{\bar y = 13.7;}&{n = 60;}&{{s_2} = 15.8.}\end{array}\)

(a)

The difference in true average between the groups has a point estimate of

\(\bar x - \bar y = 19.9 - 13.7 = 6.2\)

This point estimate suggests that the true averages of the two groups may differ.

02

find statistically significant difference

the normal test would be testing hypotheses \({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 0\) versus \({H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} \ne 0\)

when the null hypothesis is

\({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = {\Delta _0}\)

The test statistic value

\(z = \frac{{(\bar x - \bar y) - {\Delta _0}}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} }}\)

The \(P\) value is derived for the acceptable alternative hypothesis by calculating the adequate area under the standard normal curve. When both \(m > 40,n > 40\), this test can be employed.

This approach can be used because both \(m,n > 40\). The value of \(z\) is.

\(z = \frac{{19.9 - 13.7}}{{\sqrt {39.{1^2}/60 + 15.{8^2}.60} }} = \frac{{6.2}}{{5.44}} = 1.14\)

The \(P\) value can be calculated as two times the area under the standard normal curve to the right of \(\left| z \right|\) because the alternative hypothesis is two-sided. The \(P\) value can be calculated using the table in the appendix or software.

\(P = 2 \times P(Z > 1.14) = 2 \times 0.1271 = 0.2542.\)

Since

\(P = 0.2542 > \alpha \)

For any reasonable \(\alpha \)

Do not reject null hypothesis

There is no statistically significant difference.

03

explain reason

c)

The length of time that patients spend in the ICU does not appear to be distributed evenly. The two standard deviations from the mean make the normal distribution symmetric.

\(19.9 + 2 \times 39.1 = 98.1\)

and the data is all greater than \(0\) (days), with the majority of the data falling between \(0\) and \(98.1\), indicating a positively skewed distribution (not symmetric).

04

confidence interval

d)

The normalized random variable for big \(n\).

\(Z = \frac{{\bar X - \mu }}{{S/\sqrt n }}\)

has a normal distribution with a standard deviation of \(1\) and an expectation of \(0\). As a result, a

large-sample confidence interval for \(\mu \)

\(\bar x \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \frac{s}{{\sqrt n }}\)

with a degree of confidence of around \(100(1 - \alpha )\% \) Regardless of population distribution, this is true.

Because \(n = 60\) is a sufficiently big number, this confidence interval might be used to estimate the genuine average length of stay. For genuine average, the large-sample confidence interval is

\(\begin{array}{l}\left( {\bar x - {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \frac{s}{{\sqrt n }},\bar x + {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \frac{s}{{\sqrt n }}} \right) = \left( {19.9 - 1.96 \times \frac{{39.1}}{{\sqrt {60} }},19.9 + 1.96 \times \frac{{39.1}}{{\sqrt {60} }}} \right)\\ = (10,21.9).\end{array}\)

The confidence level chosen here is

\(\alpha = 0.05\) and \({z_{\alpha /2}} = {z_{0.025}} = 1.96.\)

05

conclusion

a)\(6.2\)

b) do not reject null hypothesis (at any reasonable confidence level)

c)no

d) \((10,21.9).\)

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

An experiment was performed to compare the fracture toughness of high-purity \(18Ni\) maraging steel with commercial-purity steel of the same type (Corrosion Science, 1971: 723–736). For \(m = 32\)specimens, the sample average toughness was \(\overline x = 65.6\) for the high purity steel, whereas for \(n = 38\)specimens of commercial steel \(\overline y = 59.8\). Because the high-purity steel is more expensive, its use for a certain application can be justified only if its fracture toughness exceeds that of commercial purity steel by more than 5. Suppose that both toughness distributions are normal.

a. Assuming that \({\sigma _1} = 1.2\) and \({\sigma _2} = 1.1\), test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha = .001\).

b. Compute \(\beta \) for the test conducted in part (a) when \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 6.\)

The accompanying data on response time appeared in the article "'The Extinguishment of Fires Using Low-Flow Water Hose Streams-Part II" (Fire Technology, 1991: 291-320).

Good visibility

.43 1.17 .37 .47 .68 .58 .50 2.75

Poor visibility

1.47 .80 1.58 1.53 4.33 4.23 3.25 3.22

The authors analyzed the data with the pooled t test. Does the use of this test appear justified? (Hint: Check for normality.

The z percentiles for n=8 are -1.53, -.89, -.49, -.15 , .15, .49, .89, and 1.53.)

Wait staff at restaurants have employed various strategies to increase tips. An article in the Sept. 5, 2005, New Yorker reported that “In one study a waitress received 50% more in tips when she introduced herself by name than when she didn’t.” Consider the following (fictitious) data on tip amount as a percentage of the bill:

Introduction: \({\bf{m = 50,}}\overline {\bf{x}} {\bf{ = 22}}{\bf{.63,}}{{\bf{s}}_{\bf{1}}}{\bf{ = 7}}{\bf{.82}}\)

No introduction: \({\bf{n = 50,}}\overline {\bf{y}} {\bf{ = 14}}{\bf{.15,}}{{\bf{s}}_{\bf{2}}}{\bf{ = 6}}{\bf{.10}}\)

Does this data suggest that an introduction increases tips on average by more than 50%? State and test the relevant hypotheses. (Hint: Consider the parameter \({\bf{\theta = }}{{\bf{\mu }}_{\bf{1}}}{\bf{ - 1}}{\bf{.5}}{{\bf{\mu }}_{\bf{2}}}\)

A study was carried out to compare two different methods, injection and nasal spray, for administering flu vaccine to children under the age of 5. All 8000 children in the study were given both an injection and a spray. However, the vaccine given to 4000 of the children actually contained just saltwater, and the spray given to the other 4000 children also contained just saltwater. At the end of the flu season, it was determined that 3.9% of the children who received the real vaccine via nasal spray contracted the flu, whereas 8.6% of the 4000 children receiving the real vaccine via injection contracted the flu.

(a). Why do you think each child received both an injection and a spray?

(b). Does one method for delivering the vaccine appear to be superior to the other? Test the appropriate hypotheses. [Note: The study was described in the article “Spray Flu Vaccine May Work Better Than Injections for Tots,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, May 2, 2006..

a. Show for the upper-tailed test with \({\sigma _1}\) and \({\sigma _2}\)known that as either\(m\) or\(n\) increases, \(\beta \)decreases when \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2} > {\Delta _0}\).

b. For the case of equal sample sizes \(\left( {m = n} \right)\)and fixed \(\alpha \),what happens to the necessary sample size \(n\) as \(\beta \) is decreased, where \(\beta \) is the desired type II error probability at a fixed alternative?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free