The Case Of The Dieters: A Young College Professor Was Drivi

The Case Of The Dietersa Young College Professor Was Driving Down the

The assignment involves analyzing a scenario where a young college professor plans an experiment to test the efficacy of a diet fuel product marketed as a weight-loss supplement. The core task is to identify the hypothesis being tested, the variables involved—including independent and dependent variables—the appropriate statistical test for the hypothesis, and to interpret the provided statistical outputs to determine conclusions about the product’s effectiveness.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario presents a college professor who aims to evaluate a diet product claiming to facilitate weight loss during sleep. Her hypothesis centers on whether the product genuinely results in weight reduction or at least prevents weight gain. The experiment design involves a sample of 10 overweight participants who will consume their regular diet while drinking the diet fuel nightly over two weeks, followed by reweighing to assess changes.

Hypothesis Investigation

The professor’s primary hypothesis is that the diet fuel has no effect on weight; in other words, the null hypothesis (H₀) states that "The diet fuel does not cause weight loss," or more statistically, "There is no significant difference between participants' weight before and after using the product." The alternative hypothesis (H₁) suggests that the diet fuel does have an effect—either significant weight loss or gain. Given the context, the research is likely testing whether the product causes weight loss, which aligns with a one-sided hypothesis—i.e., whether there is a significant decrease in weight after using the product (H₁: weight after

Variables in the Study

The independent variable in this experiment is the "use of the diet fuel," which is manipulated by providing the product to participants nightly during the study period. The levels of the independent variable are essentially two: "Before the intervention" (initial weight) and "After the intervention" (final weight after two weeks of using the product). These different levels represent the time periods relative to the intervention.

The dependent variable is the "participants' weight," measured in units of mass (most likely pounds or kilograms). This variable depends on the independent variable and reflects the outcome of interest—whether the product affects weight.

Statistical Test Selection

Given that the study involves measuring the same participants’ weight before and after the intervention, the appropriate statistical test is the paired t-test (also known as the dependent t-test). This test compares the means of the two related groups (pre- and post-treatment measurements) to determine if the observed difference is statistically significant. It accounts for the fact that measurements are taken from the same individuals and thus are paired.

Analysis of Statistical Outputs and Conclusions

The outputs provided for three different data sets (Cases A, B, C) each consist of mean weights before and after, paired differences, t-values, degrees of freedom, and p-values for both one-tailed and two-tailed tests. The analysis proceeds as follows:

Case A:

- Mean weight before: 223.3 units

- Mean weight after: 224.6 units

- Paired difference: 1.30 (indicating a slight weight increase)

- t-value: 2.053

- Degrees of freedom: 9

- p-value (two-tailed): 0.070

- p-value (one-tailed): 0.035

Since the two-tailed p-value exceeds the common significance threshold of 0.05, the increase in weight is not statistically significant at the 5% level. The one-tailed p-value (0.035) suggests that if testing specifically for weight loss, the change is not significant; it actually indicates a non-significant trend toward weight gain, which does not support the product’s purported effectiveness in weight loss.

Decision: Fail to reject the null hypothesis; evidence does not support that the diet fuel causes weight loss.

Case B:

- Mean weight before: 223.3 units

- Mean weight after: 221.1 units

- Paired difference: -2.20 (indicating weight loss)

- t-value: -2.051

- Degrees of freedom: 9

- p-value (two-tailed): 0.0710

- p-value (one-tailed): 0.0355

The negative difference suggests weight loss. The two-tailed p-value (0.071) is slightly above 0.05, not statistically significant at the 5% level; but the one-tailed p-value (0.0355) indicates significance if testing specifically for weight decrease.

Decision: Since the one-tailed p-value is below 0.05, and the directional hypothesis is weight loss, the data provides marginal but statistically significant evidence that the product may cause weight reduction. However, the marginal p-value indicates that the conclusion should be cautious.

Case C:

- Mean weight before: 223.3 units

- Mean weight after: 221.9 units

- Paired difference: -1.40

- t-value: -1.326

- Degrees of freedom: 9

- p-value (two-tailed): 0.218

- p-value (one-tailed): 0.109

Here, neither the two-tailed nor the one-tailed p-values are below 0.05, indicating no statistically significant change in weight attributable to the diet fuel.

Decision: Fail to reject the null hypothesis; no evidence supports the effectiveness of the diet fuel under this data.

Conclusion

Overall, the statistical analysis suggests that the diet fuel, based on the provided data, does not convincingly support claims of weight loss. Cases A and C show no significant reduction in weight, with Case B showing marginal significance when tested in a one-sided manner. The inconsistency across data sets and the marginal p-values suggest the product's efficacy is questionable. Rigorous testing with larger sample sizes, control groups, and randomized designs could provide more definitive evidence, but current findings do not substantiate the advertised claims of effortless weight loss through the diet fuel.

References

• Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage Publications.
• Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2017). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Cengage Learning.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
• Lehmann, E. L., & Romano, J. P. (2005). Testing Statistical Hypotheses. Springer.
• McNeil, J. A., & Frey, R. (2000). Statistical methods in research and data analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Rosenberg, A. (2019). How to Interpret P-values and Confidence Intervals. Journal of Statistical Education, 27(2).
• O’Hara, R. B. (2010). Statistics for Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press.
• Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (2006). Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. W.H. Freeman.
• Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals: Guidelines and Explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.