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

Breast feeding sometimes results in a temporary loss of bone mass as calcium is depleted in the mother's body to provide for milk production. The paper "Bone Mass Is Recovered from Lactation to Postweaning in Adolescent Mothers with Low Calcium Intakes" (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition [2004]: 1322- 1326) gave the accompanying data on total body bone mineral content (g) for a sample of mothers both during breast feeding (B) and in the postweaning period (P). Do the data suggest that true average total body bone mineral content during postweaning is greater than that during breast feeding by more than 25 g? State and test the appropriate hypotheses using a significance level of .05 \(\begin{array}{lcccccc}\text { Subject } & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\\ \mathrm{~B} & 1928 & 2549 & 2825 & 1924 & 1628 & 2175 \\ \mathrm{P} & 2126 & 2885 & 2895 & 1942 & 1750 & 2184 \\ \text { Subject } & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & & \\\ \mathrm{~B} & 2114 & 2621 & 1843 & 2541 & & \\ \mathrm{P} & 2164 & 2626 & 2006 & 2627 & & \end{array}\)

Short Answer

Expert verified
Yes, the data suggest that the true average total body bone mineral content during postweaning is more than 25g higher than that during breast feeding. The computed t statistic 2.52 exceeds the critical value 1.833, leading to the rejection of null hypothesis at 0.05 significance level.

Step by step solution

01

Calculate the differences

Subtract the bone mineral content during breastfeeding (B) from the content during postweaning (P) for each subject. Here are the differences (P-B) for the 10 subjects: 198, 336, 70, 18, 122, 9, 50, 5, 163, 86.
02

Compute Sample Mean and Standard Deviation

Calculate the sample mean (\( \bar{d} \)) and standard deviation (s) of the differences. For this case, mean (\( \bar{d} \)) = 105.7 and standard deviation (s) = 100.9.
03

Setup null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis

Setup the null hypothesis \( H_0: \mu_d \leq 25 \) and the alternative hypothesis \( H_a: \mu_d > 25 \). Here \( \mu_d \) is the mean difference.
04

Compute the test statistic

The test statistic is a t-score (t). Here, t = \( \frac{\bar{d} - \mu_0}{s / \sqrt{n}} \), where \( \mu_0 \) is the value in the null hypothesis, n is the number of subjects and s is the standard deviation. For this data, the t score is 2.52.
05

Rejection Region

For a significance level of .05 and degrees of freedom \( df = n - 1 = 9 \), from t-distribution table, the critical value (t*) is approximately 1.833. The rejection region is t > t*.
06

Statistical conclusion

As our computed t score (2.52) falls in the rejection region (t > 1.833), we reject the null hypothesis.
07

Real-world conclusion

There's enough evidence to support the claim that the true average total body bone mineral content during postweaning is greater than that during breast feeding by more than 25 g.

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!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Statistical Significance
Statistical significance is a way to determine whether a result from a study or experiment is unlikely to have occurred purely by chance. It provides a measure of confidence in the results of a hypothesis test.

When researchers set a significance level (often represented by the Greek letter \(\alpha\)), they're deciding on the threshold for how extreme the data must be to reject the null hypothesis. Commonly, a significance level of 0.05 is used, which means there is a 5% risk of concluding that a difference exists when there is no actual difference.

In the exercise involving bone mass in breastfeeding and postweaning mothers, a significance level of 0.05 is chosen. By calculating a test statistic and comparing it with a critical value from a statistical distribution, we can infer whether the observed data is statistically significant. In this case, if the test statistic falls beyond the critical value (in the rejection region), the result is considered unlikely to be due to chance, hence statistically significant.
Null Hypothesis
The null hypothesis, denoted as \(H_0\), is a fundamental concept in hypothesis testing. It represents the default statement or position that there is no effect or no difference, and any observed effect is due to sampling variability or chance.

In the context of our exercise, the null hypothesis is that the mean difference in total body bone mineral content between postweaning and breastfeeding \(\mu_d\) is 25 grams or less. Symbolically, it's represented as \(H_0:\mu_d \leq 25\). The data is then analyzed to determine if it provides enough evidence to reject this null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
Alternative Hypothesis
Contrary to the null hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis \(H_a\) posits that there is an actual effect or a difference. It's what a researcher wants to prove or validate through the data. Generally speaking, the alternative hypothesis suggests that the observed data is not simply due to random chance.

For the bone mass study, the alternative hypothesis is that the true average total body bone mineral content during postweaning is greater by more than 25 grams compared to during breastfeeding. Mathematically, it's presented as \(H_a: \mu_d > 25\). The research goal is to gather enough evidence to support this alternative hypothesis.
t-test
The t-test is a statistical test that is used to determine if there is a significant difference between the means of two groups, or a group and a specific value, which are subject to random sampling noise. It is particularly useful when dealing with small sample sizes or when the population standard deviation is unknown.

In the presented exercise, researchers used a one-sample t-test to determine whether the mean difference in bone mass between the two states was significantly greater than 25 grams. To do this, the test statistic was computed by comparing the average difference to the hypothesized difference, and dividing by an estimate of the standard error. A rejection region was then established based on the desired significance level. If the computed t-value exceeds the critical t-value from the t-distribution, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a statistically significant difference. Using the data from the study, a t-value of 2.52 exceeded the critical value of 1.833, leading to the rejection of \(H_0\) in favor of \(H_a\), and supporting the claim of a significant increase in bone mass postweaning.

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

The following quote is from the article "Canadians Are Healthier Than We Are" (Associated Press, May 31,2006 ): "The Americans also reported more heart disease and major depression, but those differences were too small to be statistically significant." This statement was based on the responses of a sample of 5183 Americans and a sample of 3505 Canadians. The proportion of Canadians who reported major depression was given as .082 . a. Assuming that the researchers used a one-sided test with a significance level of \(.05,\) could the sample proportion of Americans reporting major depression have been as large as .09? Explain why or why not. b. Assuming that the researchers used a significance level of \(.05,\) could the sample proportion of Americans reporting major depression have been as large as .10? Explain why or why not.

The article "Spray Flu Vaccine May Work Better Than Injections for Tots" (San Luis Obispo Tribune, May 2,2006 ) described a study that compared flu vaccine administered by injection and flu vaccine administered as a nasal spray. Each of the 8000 children under the age of 5 who participated in the study received both a nasal spray and an injection, but only one was the real vaccine and the other was salt water. At the end of the flu season, it was determined that \(3.9 \%\) of the 4000 children receiving the real vaccine by nasal spray got sick with the flu and \(8.6 \%\) of the 4000 receiving the real vaccine by injection got sick with the flu. a. Why would the researchers give every child both a nasal spray and an injection? b. Use the given data to estimate the difference in the proportion of children who get sick with the flu after being vaccinated with an injection and the proportion of children who get sick with the flu after being vaccinated with the nasal spray using a \(99 \%\) confidence interval. Based on the confidence interval, would you conclude that the proportion of children who get the flu is different for the two vaccination methods?

Do certain behaviors result in a severe drain on energy resources because a great deal of energy is expended in comparison to energy intake? The article "The Energetic Cost of Courtship and Aggression in a Plethodontid Salamander" (Ecology [1983]: 979-983) reported on one of the few studies concerned with behavior and energy expenditure. The accompanying table gives oxygen consumption \((\mathrm{mL} / \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{hr})\) for male-female salamander pairs. (The determination of consumption values is rather complicated. It is partly for this reason that so few studies of this type have been carried out.) $$ \begin{array}{lccc} \text { Behavior } & \begin{array}{c} \text { Sample } \\ \text { Size } \end{array} & \begin{array}{c} \text { Sample } \\ \text { Mean } \end{array} & \begin{array}{c} \text { Sample } \\ \text { sd } \end{array} \\ \hline \text { Noncourting } & 11 & .072 & .0066 \\ \text { Courting } & 15 & .099 & .0071 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ a. The pooled \(t\) test is a test procedure for testing \(H_{0}: \mu_{1}-\mu_{2}=\) hypothesized value when it is reasonable to assume that the two population distributions are normal with equal standard deviations \(\left(\sigma_{1}=\right.\) \(\sigma_{2}\) ). The test statistic for the pooled \(t\) test is obtained by replacing both \(s_{1}\) and \(s_{2}\) in the two-sample \(t\) test statistic with \(s_{p}\) where \(s_{p}=\sqrt{\frac{\left(n_{1}-1\right) s_{1}^{2}+\left(n_{2}-1\right) s_{2}^{2}}{n_{1}+n_{2}-2}}\) When the population distributions are normal with equal standard deviations and \(H_{0}\) is true, the resulting pooled \(t\) statistic has a \(t\) distribution with \(\mathrm{df}=n_{1}+\) \(n_{2}-2 .\) For the reported data, the two sample standard deviations are similar. Use the pooled \(t\) test with \(\alpha=.05\) to determine whether the mean oxygen consumption for courting pairs is higher than the mean oxygen consumption for noncourting pairs. b. Would the conclusion in Part (a) have been different if the two-sample \(t\) test had been used rather than the pooled \(t\) test?

The paper "Ready or Not? Criteria for Marriage Readiness among Emerging Adults" (Journal of \(\underline{\text { Ado- }}\) lescent Research [2009]: 349-375) surveyed emerging adults (defined as age 18 to 25 ) from five different colleges in the United States. Several questions on the survey were used to construct a scale designed to measure endorsement of cohabitation. The paper states that "on average, emerging adult men \((\mathrm{M}=3.75, \mathrm{SD}=1.21)\) reported higher levels of cohabitation endorsement than emerging adult women \((\mathrm{M}=3.39, \mathrm{SD}=1.17) . "\) The sample sizes were 481 for women and 307 for men. a. Carry out a hypothesis test to determine if the reported difference in sample means provides convincing evidence that the mean cohabitation endorsement for emerging adult women is significantly less than the mean for emerging adult men for students at these five colleges. b. What additional information would you want in order to determine whether it is reasonable to generalize the conclusion of the hypothesis test from Part (a) to all college students?

Can moving their hands help children learn math? This question was investigated in the paper "Gesturing Gives Children New Ideas about Math" (Psychological Science [2009]: 267-272). Eighty-five children in the third and fourth grades who did not answer any questions correctly on a test with six problems of the form \(3+2+8=-8\) were participants in an experiment. The children were randomly assigned to either a no-gesture group or a gesture group. All the children were given a lesson on how to solve problems of this form using the strategy of trying to make both sides of the equation equal. Children in the gesture group were also taught to point to the first two numbers on the left side of the equation with the index and middle finger of one hand and then to point at the blank on the right side of the equation. This gesture was supposed to emphasize that grouping is involved in solving the problem. The children then practiced additional problems of this type. All children were then given a test with six problems to solve, and the number of correct answers was recorded for each child. Summary statistics read from a graph in the paper are given below. $$ \begin{array}{l|ccc} & n & \bar{x} & s \\ \hline \text { No gesture } & 42 & 1.3 & 0.3 \\ \text { Gesture } & 43 & 2.2 & 0.4 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ Is there evidence to support the theory that learning the gesturing approach to solving problems of this type results in a higher mean number of correct responses? Test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha=.01\).

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