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 "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?

Short Answer

Expert verified
There is a significant difference in the proportion of children who get the flu after being vaccinated with an injection and the proportion of children who get the flu after being vaccinated with the nasal spray. The 99% confidence interval for the difference in proportions is [0.0249, 0.0691]. As for the reason for giving each child both a nasal spray and an injection, this is a form of experimental control, aimed at accounting for any external factors that might influence the results, such as individual immune responses.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the problem and gather the data

The problem gives you the percentages of the children who got sick after receiving the real vaccine either by nasal spray or injection. Convert these percentages into proportions: \(3.9 \% \) = \(0.039 \) for the nasal spray and \(8.6 \% \) = \(0.086 \) for the injection. Since there were 4000 kids in each group, you can determine the number that got sick in each group by multiplying, giving \(4000*0.039 = 156 \) for spray and \(4000*0.086 = 344 \) for injection.
02

Calculate the difference in proportions

This can be done by subtracting the proportion of kids who got sick with the nasal spray from the proportion of kids who got sick with the injection. That is, \(0.086 - 0.039 = 0.047\).
03

Calculate the Standard Error

The standard error can be calculated using the formula for the standard error of the difference between two proportions: \(\sqrt{(p1*(1-p1)/n1) + (p2*(1-p2)/n2)}\), where p1 and p2 are the proportions in the two groups, and n1 and n2 are the sizes of the two groups. Substituting the given values yields SE ≈ 0.0093.
04

Calculate the Confidence Interval

The formula to calculate a 99% confidence interval is: \( p1 - p2 \pm Z(α/2) * SE\), where Z(α/2) is the critical value from the standard normal distribution corresponding to a two-tail test with α = 1 % (0.01). From the Z table, we find the critical value ≈ 2.33. So the confidence interval is \(0.047 \pm 2.33 * 0.0093 = [0.0249, 0.0691]\).
05

Conclusion

Since the confidence interval does not contain 0, there is a significant difference between the proportion of children who get the flu using the different vaccination methods.

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.

Proportion Difference
Understanding proportion differences is crucial in many scientific studies, notably when comparing effectiveness between two groups or treatments. In the exercise, researchers aimed to compare the flu contraction rates between children receiving a flu vaccine via nasal spray versus an injection. The proportions, 3.9% got sick from the spray group and 8.6% from the injection group, highlight a proportion difference of 4.7 percentage points (or 0.047 as a decimal).

This numerical difference provides valuable initial insight into the efficacy of one method over the other. However, calculating this difference is merely the first step—interpreting this difference within a broader statistical context requires evaluating its variability and significance, hence the need for further steps such as standard error calculation and confidence interval determination.
Standard Error Calculation
The standard error (SE) measures the variance in sample statistics—here, the difference between the two proportions—from one sample to another. It is an estimate of the true sampling distribution's standard deviation. Calculating the SE in the context of a difference in proportions lays the foundation for constructing confidence intervals and making inferences about the desired population.

The formula used in the solution, \(\sqrt{(p1*(1-p1)/n1) + (p2*(1-p2)/n2)}\), combines the variances of two independent samples to estimate the SE of the difference. This calculated SE, approximately 0.0093, tells us that if similar studies were repeated under the same conditions, the observed difference in proportions would typically vary by about 0.0093 due to sampling variability alone.
Statistical Significance
Statistical significance helps to determine if the observed results are due to chance or to a specific factor—in this case, the method of vaccination. By constructing a 99% confidence interval, researchers are indicating that if the experiment were repeated many times, 99 out of 100 times the true difference in proportions would lie within this interval.

The confidence interval in the solution, [0.0249, 0.0691], doesn't contain 0, indicating that the observed 4.7 percentage point difference is likely not due to random chance. This suggests a statistically significant difference in flu rates based on the method of vaccination. In practical terms, it presents strong evidence in favor of the nasal spray's effectiveness in preventing flu compared to injections—for the study's age group and conditions.

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

"Mountain Biking May Reduce Fertility in Men, Study Says" was the headline of an article appearing in the San Luis Obispo Tribune (December 3,2002 ). This conclusion was based on an Austrian study that compared sperm counts of avid mountain bikers (those who ride at least 12 hours per week) and nonbikers. Ninety percent of the avid mountain bikers studied had low sperm counts, as compared to \(26 \%\) of the nonbikers. Suppose that these percentages were based on independent samples of 100 avid mountain bikers and 100 non-bikers and that it is reasonable to view these samples as representative of Austrian avid mountain bikers and nonbikers. a. Do these data provide convincing evidence that the proportion of Austrian avid mountain bikers with low sperm count is higher than the proportion of Austrian nonbikers? b. Based on the outcome of the test in Part (a), is it reasonable to conclude that mountain biking 12 hours per week or more causes low sperm count? Explain.

The article referenced in the previous exercise also reported that \(24 \%\) of the males and \(16 \%\) of the females in the 2006 sample reported owning an \(\mathrm{MP} 3\) player. Suppose that there were the same number of males and females in the sample of \(1112 .\) Do these data provide convincing evidence that the proportion of females that owned an MP3 player in 2006 is smaller than the corresponding proportion of males? Carry out a test using a significance level of .01 .

Each person in a random sample of 228 male teenagers and a random sample of 306 female teenagers was asked how many hours he or she spent online in a typical week (Ipsos, January 25, 2006). The sample mean and standard deviation were 15.1 hours and 11.4 hours for males and 14.1 and 11.8 for females. a. The standard deviation for each of the samples is large, indicating a lot of variability in the responses to the question. Explain why it is not reasonable to think that the distribution of responses would be approximately normal for either the population of male teenagers or the population of female teenagers. Hint: The number of hours spent online in a typical week cannot be negative. b. Given your response to Part (a), would it be appropriate to use the two- sample \(t\) test to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the mean number of hours spent online in a typical week for male teenagers and female teenagers? Explain why or why not. c. If appropriate, carry out a test to determine if there is convincing evidence that the mean number of hours spent online in a typical week is greater for male teenagers than for female teenagers. Use a .05 significance level.

The authors of the paper "Adolescents and MP3 Players: Too Many Risks, Too Few Precautions" \((P \mathrm{e}-\) diatrics [2009]: e953-e958) concluded that more boys than girls listen to music at high volumes. This conclusion was based on data from independent random samples of 764 Dutch boys and 748 Dutch girls age 12 to \(19 .\) Of the boys, 397 reported that they almost always listen to music at a high volume setting. Of the girls, 331 reported listening to music at a high volume setting. Do the sample data support the authors' conclusion that the proportion of Dutch boys who listen to music at high volume is greater than this proportion for Dutch girls? Test the relevant hypotheses using a .01 significance level.

The article "Fish Oil Staves Off Schizophrenia" (USA Today, February 2, \(2 \mathrm{O} 1 \mathrm{O}\) ) describes a study in which 81 patients age 13 to 25 who were considered atrisk for mental illness were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Those in one group took four fish oil capsules daily. The other group took a placebo. After 1 year, \(5 \%\) of those in the fish oil group and \(28 \%\) of those in the placebo group had become psychotic. Is it appropriate to use the two-sample \(z\) test of this section to test hypotheses about the difference in the proportions of patients receiving the fish oil and the placebo treatments who became psychotic? Explain why or why not.

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