In This Discussion You Will Evaluate A Research Question

In This Discussion You Will Evaluate A Research Question And Determin

In this discussion, you will evaluate a research question and determine how that question might best be analyzed. To do this, you will need to identify the appropriate application of course-specified statistical tests, examine assumptions and limitations of these tests, and communicate critiques of statistical methods. Specifically, a researcher wishes to study the effect of a new drug on blood pressure. Consider and discuss whether a z-test, t-test, or ANOVA would be most appropriate for analysis, explaining your reasoning.

Your choice of test depends on several factors including the number of groups, the data distribution, and the research design. For analyzing the effect of a new drug on blood pressure, the statistical test should match the study design—for example, whether comparing two groups (drug vs. placebo) or multiple groups (different dosages). If the comparison involves two independent groups, a t-test could be suitable; if comparing more than two groups, ANOVA is preferable. In cases where the population variance is known and the sample size is large, a z-test might be appropriate, but usually, the variance is unknown, making the t-test more practical.

In the case of analyzing blood pressure changes after administering the drug, the typical design would involve an experimental or quasi-experimental setup with comparison groups such as a treatment group and a control group. The hypothesis could be directional (predicting that the drug reduces blood pressure) or non-directional (simply testing for any difference). A typical hypothesis might be: "The new drug reduces blood pressure compared to placebo"—which suggests a one-tailed test if the interest is only in reductions, or a two-tailed test if any difference, positive or negative, is of interest.

The null hypothesis (H₀) could state that there is no difference in blood pressure between the drug and control groups (e.g., H₀: μ₁ = μ₂), while the alternative hypothesis (H₁) would state that there is a difference in blood pressure (H₁: μ₁ ≠ μ₂) for a two-tailed test, or that the drug reduces blood pressure (H₁: μ₁ > μ₂) for a one-tailed test.

Paper For Above instruction

The evaluation of an appropriate statistical test for analyzing the effect of a new drug on blood pressure hinges on understanding the study design, data characteristics, and research hypotheses. In this context, selecting between a z-test, t-test, or ANOVA involves considering factors such as the number of groups involved, the scale of measurement, the variance known or unknown, and the specific research questions posed by the study.

The z-test is typically used when the population variance is known, and the sample size is large (usually above 30). This scenario is less common in clinical research where population variance is rarely known in advance. The t-test is more widely applied when sample sizes are smaller, and the population variance must be estimated from the sample data. ANOVA, on the other hand, is suitable when comparing more than two groups or conditions simultaneously. It also allows for analysis of interactions among multiple factors if the research design involves factorial experiments.

Given the scenario where the researcher is studying the effect of a new drug, which typically involves comparing blood pressure levels between a treatment group and a control group, the appropriate statistical test would likely be an independent samples t-test, provided only two groups are compared. If multiple dosage groups or conditions are involved, ANOVA is advisable to analyze differences across all groups simultaneously, reducing the risk of Type I error from multiple pairwise comparisons.

The choice of test significantly influences the hypotheses formulation, particularly in whether the analysis is one-tailed or two-tailed. If the researcher hypothesizes that the drug will lower blood pressure, a one-tailed test could be justified. Conversely, if the interest is in any difference—whether an increase or decrease—a two-tailed test is more appropriate. The null hypothesis generally states that there is no effect or difference (e.g., the mean blood pressure is the same across groups), whereas the alternative hypothesis suggests a difference or effect.

Assumptions underlying these tests include normality, independence, and homogeneity of variances. For the t-test and ANOVA, these assumptions must be checked to ensure valid results. Violations may require alternative approaches, such as non-parametric tests. Limitations include sensitivity to outliers and sample size considerations, which affect test power and robustness.

Understanding these factors ensures that the chosen statistical test accurately reflects the research design and data characteristics. Properly applied, statistical analyses can provide robust evidence regarding the efficacy of the new drug on blood pressure, supporting informed clinical decisions and advancing scientific knowledge.

References

• Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
• Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2016). Statistics for behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning.
• Laerd Statistics. (2012). One-way ANOVA using SPSS Statistics. Laerd.com. https://statistics.laerd.com
• McDonald, J. H. (2014). Handbook of biological statistics. Sparky House Publishing.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
• VassarStats. (n.d.). Website for statistical computation. https://vassarstats.net
• Posey, D. J., et al. (2008). Cognitive effects of risperidone in children with autism and irritable behavior. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 18(3). doi:10.1089/cap.2007.0014
• Statgraphics Centurion. (2006). Analysis of variance. https://www.statgraphics.com
• Web Center for Social Research Methods. (n.d.). Statistical tools and tutorials. https://socialresearchmethods.net
• Sheskin, D. J. (2011). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC press.