In The Following Observational Studies, Describe Chan 375978

In The Following Observational Studies Describe Changes That Could Be

In the provided observational studies, changes that could convert the studies into experimental designs include implementing controlled interventions and random assignment. Additionally, potential biases or lurking variables need to be identified and addressed to ensure validity and causal inference.

For the first study, a new data collection process might involve randomly assigning members of the health club to two groups: one that receives a structured fitness program and regular sessions with a trainer, and a control group that does not receive such intervention. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) would allow for causal inferences about the effect of the trainer sessions on BMI. Furthermore, collecting data at multiple points over time would help in assessing the longitudinal effect of the intervention.

In the second study involving bank tellers, an experimental approach could include randomly assigning tellers to either participate in the advanced training program or not. By controlling who receives training, the bank can evaluate the effect of the training on error rates, minimizing confounding factors. If random assignment isn’t feasible, a matched-pairs design could be used whereby tellers are paired based on experience or other relevant characteristics, with one in each pair receiving the training.

Biases and lurking variables in the original observational studies could distort the apparent relationships. In the first study, self-selection bias is a concern: members who choose to meet with a trainer may already be more motivated or health-conscious, which influences BMI independently of trainer contact. Also, confounding variables such as diet, age, or activity outside the gym need to be considered, as they can affect BMI independently of trainer meetings.

In the second study, selection bias might occur if more diligent or health-conscious tellers are more likely to opt into advanced training, which could inherently lead to lower error rates regardless of the training’s effectiveness. Additionally, pre-existing differences such as workload, experience, or aptitude could influence error rates but are not accounted for.

Overall, moving from observational to experimental studies requires randomization, control of confounding factors, and data collection plans that facilitate causal inference. Addressing potential biases involves identifying and controlling for confounders, randomization, or matching participants to reduce bias and improve the validity and applicability of the findings.

Paper For Above instruction

Transforming observational studies into experimental designs necessitates careful planning to establish causality. Observational studies, while informative, often suffer from confounding variables and biases that limit the ability to draw definitive causal conclusions. Therefore, the primary change involves designing interventions where variables are actively manipulated and participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, thereby mimicking experimental conditions within practical constraints.

In the first scenario involving the health club members, the current study observes associations between meeting with trainers and BMI without establishing causality. To convert this into an experimental study, researchers could implement a randomized controlled trial. This would involve randomly selecting a subset of members to participate in regular sessions with a fitness trainer. The control group would continue their usual activities without the added trainer meetings. By randomly assigning participants, the study would control for self-selection bias and other confounders such as baseline motivation, diet, or physical activity outside the club. Moreover, collecting baseline data and tracking BMI changes over time would help in establishing a causal relationship between trainer interaction and BMI improvement. This experimental approach enhances internal validity by isolating the effect of the intervention.

Similarly, in the case of the bank tellers, the observational study compares error rates based on whether tellers have completed an advanced training program. To make this into an experiment, the bank could randomly assign tellers to either undergo the training or serve as a control group that does not receive the training during the study period. Randomization ensures that differences in error rates are attributable to the training rather than pre-existing differences among tellers, such as varying levels of experience, work habits, or aptitude. It would also be essential to control for other variables like workload, shift timings, or job seniority. If random assignment is impractical due to operational constraints, matching tellers based on similar characteristics before assigning the training status could serve as an alternative, reducing confounding variables.

Biases and lurking variables pose significant threats to the validity of observational studies. In the first study, a major concern is self-selection bias; members who choose to meet with a trainer might already possess higher motivation or health consciousness, influencing BMI independently of the trainer sessions. This bias can lead to overestimating the trainer’s effect. Additionally, unmeasured factors like diet, genetics, or physical activity outside the gym can confound the observed association. Addressing this would require designing an experiment where these factors are controlled through randomization and data collection.

In the second study, selection bias may be present if more diligent, motivated, or health-aware tellers are more likely to participate in the advanced training. If these characteristics independently lead to lower error rates, the observed difference may not solely be due to the training itself. Furthermore, pre-existing differences such as years of experience or innate aptitude could confound results. Without controlling for these variables, the observational results could be misleading.

In conclusion, transforming observational studies into experiments involves carefully controlled interventions, random assignment, and comprehensive data collection. This process minimizes biases and allows for stronger causal inferences. Identifying potential lurking variables and biases enables researchers to design studies that are more valid, reliable, and applicable to real-world settings. These improvements are crucial for evidence-based decision-making in health, finance, and beyond.

References

• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
• Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688–701.
• Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd.
• Greenland, S. (2005). Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(2), 267-306.
• Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational Studies. Springer-Verlag.
• Lachin, J. M. (2000). Sample sizes for clinical trials with multiple objectives. Controlled Clinical Trials, 21(5), 459-470.
• Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (2012). Applied Longitudinal Analysis. Wiley.
• Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. SAGE Publications.
• Hernán, M. A., & Robins, J. M. (2020). Causal Inference: What If. Chapman & Hall/CRC.