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

Suppose an experiment will randomly divide 40 cases between two possible treatments, \(A\) and \(B,\) and will then record two possible outcomes, Successful or Not successful. The outline of a two-way table is shown in Table 2.14. In each case below, fill in the table with possible values to show: (a) A clear association between treatment and outcome. (b) No association at all between treatment and outcome. Table 2.14 Fill in the blanks to show (a) Association or (b) No association $$\begin{array}{|l|c|c|c|}\hline & \text { Successful } & \text { Not successful } & \text { Total } \\\\\hline \text { Treatment A } & & & 20 \\\\\hline \text { Treatment B } & & & 20 \\\\\hline \text { Total } & & & 40 \\\\\hline\end{array}$$

Short Answer

Expert verified
For a clear association between treatment and outcome, Treatment A resulted in 17 successful and 3 not successful outcomes while Treatment B resulted in 3 successful and 17 not successful outcomes. For no association between treatment and outcome, both Treatment A and B each resulted in 10 successful and 10 not successful outcomes.

Step by step solution

01

Association between Treatment and Outcome

In case (a), we have to show a clear connection between the treatment type and outcome. We can do this by assigning majority of successful outcomes to one treatment and most of the not successful outcomes to the other. Let's say for instance, Treatment A results in 17 successful outcomes and 3 not successful outcomes. Conversely, Treatment B results in 3 successful outcomes and 17 not successful ones. This clearly shows an association as we see that Treatment A generally leads to successful outcomes and Treatment B to unsuccessful ones.
02

Two-way Table with Association between Treatment and Outcome

\(\begin{array}{|l|c|c|c|}\hline & \text{Successful} & \text{Not Successful} & \text{Total} \\\hline \text{Treatment A } &17&3 &20 \\\hline \text{Treatment B } &3&17& 20 \\\hline \text{Total } &20&20& 40 \\\hline\end{array}\)
03

No Association between Treatment and Outcome

In case (b), we're required to show no association at all between the treatment type and the outcome. This means the success and failure rates should be the same for both treatments. Let's evenly distribute the outcomes, for example, with each treatment having 10 successful outcomes and 10 not successful outcomes.
04

Two-way Table with No Association between Treatment and Outcome

\(\begin{array}{|l|c|c|c|}\hline & \text{Successful} & \text{Not Successful} & \text{Total} \\\hline \text{Treatment A } &10&10 &20 \\\hline \text{Treatment B } &10&10& 20 \\\hline \text{Total } &20&20& 40 \\\hline\end{array}\)

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

Levels of carbon dioxide \(\left(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\right)\) in the atmosphere are rising rapidly, far above any levels ever before recorded. Levels were around 278 parts per million in 1800 , before the Industrial Age, and had never, in the hundreds of thousands of years before that, gone above 300 ppm. Levels are now over 400 ppm. Table 2.31 shows the rapid rise of \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) concentrations over the 50 years from \(1960-2010\), also available in CarbonDioxide. \(^{73}\) We can use this information to predict \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) levels in different years. (a) What is the explanatory variable? What is the response variable? (b) Draw a scatterplot of the data. Does there appear to be a linear relationship in the data? (c) Use technology to find the correlation between year and \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) levels. Does the value of the correlation support your answer to part (b)? (d) Use technology to calculate the regression line to predict \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) from year. (e) Interpret the slope of the regression line, in terms of carbon dioxide concentrations. (f) What is the intercept of the line? Does it make sense in context? Why or why not? (g) Use the regression line to predict the \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) level in \(2003 .\) In \(2020 .\) (h) Find the residual for 2010 . Table 2.31 Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere $$\begin{array}{lc}\hline \text { Year } & \mathrm{CO}_{2} \\ \hline 1960 & 316.91 \\ 1965 & 320.04 \\\1970 & 325.68 \\ 1975 & 331.08 \\\1980 & 338.68 \\\1985 & 345.87 \\\1990 & 354.16 \\ 1995 & 360.62 \\\2000 & 369.40 \\ 2005 & 379.76 \\\2010 & 389.78 \\ \hline\end{array}$$

Exercise 2.143 on page 102 introduces a study that examines several variables on collegiate football players, including the variable Years, which is number of years playing football, and the variable Cognition, which gives percentile on a cognitive reaction test. Exercise 2.182 shows a scatterplot for these two variables and gives the correlation as -0.366 . The regression line for predicting Cognition from Years is: $$\text { Cognition }=102-3.34 \cdot \text { Years }$$ (a) Predict the cognitive percentile for someone who has played football for 8 years and for someone who has played football for 14 years. (b) Interpret the slope in terms of football and \(\operatorname{cog}-\) nitive percentile. (c) All the participants had played between 7 and 18 years of football. Is it reasonable to interpret the intercept in context? Why or why not?

Two variables are defined, a regression equation is given, and one data point is given. (a) Find the predicted value for the data point and compute the residual. (b) Interpret the slope in context. (c) Interpret the intercept in context, and if the intercept makes no sense in this context, explain why. \(\mathrm{Hgt}=\) height in inches, Age \(=\) age in years of a child. \(\widehat{H g t}=24.3+2.74(\) Age \() ;\) data point is a child 12 years old who is 60 inches tall.

Each describe a sample. The information given includes the five number summary, the sample size, and the largest and smallest data values in the tails of the distribution. In each case: (a) Clearly identify any outliers, using the IQR method. (b) Draw a boxplot. Five number summary: (15,42,52,56,71)\(;\) \(n=120 .\) Tails: \(15,20,28,30,31, \ldots, 64,65,65,66,71\)

Runs and Wins in Baseball In Exercise 2.150 on page \(104,\) we looked at the relationship between total hits by team in the 2014 season and division (NL or AL) in baseball. Two other variables in the BaseballHits dataset are the number of wins and the number of runs scored during the season. The dataset consists of values for each variable from all 30 MLB teams. From these data we calculate the regression line: \(\widehat{\text { Wins }}=34.85+0.070(\) Runs \()\) (a) Which is the explanatory and which is the response variable in this regression line? (b) Interpret the intercept and slope in context. (c) The San Francisco Giants won 88 games while scoring 665 runs in 2014. Predict the number of games won by San Francisco using the regression line. Calculate the residual. Were the Giants efficient at winning games with 665 runs?

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