The Term Between Subjects Refers To Observing The Same

The Term Between Subjects Refers Toobserving The Same

Homework 31 The term "between-subjects" refers to observing different participants in each group, not the same participants across groups or observing the same participants multiple times within a group. This design involves comparing separate groups of participants to analyze differences in variables such as positivity, grades, or other outcomes.

A researcher compares differences in positivity between participants in a low-, middle-, or upper-middle-class family with 15 participants in each group. The degrees of freedom for the one-way between-subjects ANOVA can be calculated as: df between = number of groups – 1, and df within = total participants – number of groups. Since there are 3 groups (low, middle, upper-middle class) with 15 participants each, total participants = 45. Therefore, df between = 2, df within = 45 – 3 = 42. The degrees of freedom for the ANOVA are (2, 42).

A professor compares differences in class grades among students in their freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior years. If different participants are in each group, an appropriate statistical design would be a one-way between-subjects ANOVA, as it compares more than two independent groups.

Following a significant one-way between-subjects ANOVA with more than two groups, the next step is to conduct post hoc tests to determine which specific groups differ significantly from each other. Summarizing and interpreting the data are part of this process, but post hoc tests are necessary to pinpoint pairwise differences.

In a study recording shooting percentages of 28 basketball players in four quarters, the degrees of freedom for the error term in a one-way within-subjects ANOVA is based on the number of participants minus 1 times the number of conditions, or more specifically, (number of participants – 1) (number of conditions – 1). Given the data, the error df is not explicitly provided, but with 28 participants and 4 conditions, df error = (28 – 1) (4 – 1) = 27 * 3 = 81.

State the decision based on the ANOVA table: If the F obtained exceeds the critical value at a significance level of 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis, indicating a significant difference among groups. If not, we retain the null hypothesis.

In a two-factor (A × B) ANOVA, a significant main effect of Factor A indicates that the levels of Factor A significantly influence the dependent variable, independent of Factor B. If there is a significant effect of Factor B or an interaction, that suggests additional relationships.

In a 2 × 3 between-subjects ANOVA with 11 participants per group, the significant effect at α = 0.05 could be any of the main effects or the interaction. Based on the SS and df provided, if the F value for Factor A is statistically significant, it indicates a main effect of Factor A only; similarly for Factor B or the interaction.

The correlation coefficient ranges from –1.0 to +1.0; values closer to either of these extremes indicate a stronger relationship between two factors. Values near zero suggest little or no relationship. The coefficient of determination, r², quantifies the proportion of variance in one variable predictable from the other, and it is mathematically equal to the square of the correlation coefficient.

When testing the significance of a phi correlation coefficient with a chi-square value of 3.76, the decision depends on the critical chi-square value at the appropriate degrees of freedom. Without degrees of freedom, a general rule is that if χ² exceeds the critical value, the null hypothesis is rejected.

The significance of predictions from a best-fitting linear equation is determined through regression analysis, which assesses how well the independent variable predicts the dependent variable, often via testing the slope coefficient or the overall model significance.

Given SSXY = –16.32 and SSX = 40.00, the slope (β) for the linear regression line is calculated as SSXY / SSX = –16.32 / 40.00 = –0.408, approximately –0.41.

If the coefficient of determination (r²) is 0.25, then the variance explained by the model accounts for 25% of the variability. To find SSY, use the formula SSY = SSR + SSE, where SSR = r² * SST. Given that residual SS (SSE) = 180, and r² = 0.25, SSY can be derived if SST is known. Without SST, the exact SSY cannot be determined definitively, but typically, SSY = SST.

The degrees of freedom for a chi-square goodness-of-fit test are calculated as k – 1, where k is the number of categories or classes.

In a taste test with three meals (low, moderate, high calories) and observed frequencies, an appropriate conclusion depends on the chi-square test result. If the chi-square statistic exceeds the critical value at α = 0.05, the differences in preferences are statistically significant, leading to conclusions about which meals are liked more or less than expected.

Tests for ordinal data are often nonparametric tests, as they do not assume normal distribution and are suitable for rank-ordered data. These tests minimize problems with outliers and are robust alternatives to parametric tests when assumptions are violated.

The Friedman test, a nonparametric alternative to the repeated measures ANOVA, is approximately distributed as a chi-square distribution, especially when the null hypothesis is true and the sample size per group is adequate (n ≥ 5).

The case study involving Mike, Joanne, James, and Samuel concerns ethical and medical decision-making in life-and-death situations. James's condition requires urgent intervention, but the family’s decisions about faith-based healing versus medical treatment involve complex considerations of autonomy, religious beliefs, medical ethics, and emotional impacts. The parents’ choice to forego dialysis initially and seek faith healing reflects their beliefs and trust in divine intervention; however, medical urgencies compel a reevaluation, leading to critical decisions about donor compatibility and transplant options. The ethical dilemma involves balancing respect for parental autonomy, the child's best interests, and medical responsibility. Such cases emphasize interdisciplinary considerations involving healthcare ethics, religious influence, emotional well-being, and legal rights, requiring sensitive, patient-centered approaches that respect individual beliefs while prioritizing health and safety.

Paper For Above instruction

The concept of between-subjects design in research is a fundamental aspect of experimental methodology, characterized by different participants being assigned to different groups or conditions. Unlike within-subjects designs, where the same individuals are observed under multiple conditions, between-subjects studies involve independent groups, enabling researchers to compare differences across these separate groups effectively. This approach minimizes carry-over effects and learning biases that can occur in within-subjects designs, allowing for clearer attribution of observed differences to the experimental manipulation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

For example, in a study comparing levels of positivity based on socioeconomic status—low-, middle-, and upper-middle-class families—researchers typically assign distinct groups of participants to each socioeconomic level. If each group comprises 15 participants, the degrees of freedom for the one-way ANOVA are calculated based on the number of groups and total participants. The formula for between-groups degrees of freedom is k – 1, where k is the number of groups, while for within-groups degree of freedom, it is N – k, where N is total number of participants (Field, 2013). Therefore, with three groups, df between = 2, and df within = 45 – 3 = 42, resulting in an ANOVA degrees of freedom of (2, 42).

When a researcher aims to compare academic performance across different years in college—freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior—using independent samples in each group, the suitable statistical design is a one-way between-subjects ANOVA. This analysis allows for testing whether significant differences exist among the groups’ mean scores, supporting conclusions about academic progression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). If the test yields a significant F statistic, subsequent post hoc comparisons are essential to identify specific group differences (Keppel, 2012). Without such follow-up tests, interpretations of the main ANOVA are incomplete.

Following a significant one-way between-subjects ANOVA with more than two groups, the next step is to conduct post hoc tests. These tests, such as Tukey’s HSD or Bonferroni correction, help determine which pairs of groups significantly differ. Summarizing the data provides an overview, while interpreting these results clarifies the nature of the differences uncovered. Importantly, conducting post hoc analyses is crucial because ANOVA only indicates that differences exist somewhere among the groups but does not specify where (Hochberg & Tamhane, 2014).

In within-subjects designs, where the same participants are measured under multiple conditions—such as basketball shooting percentages across quarters—the error degrees of freedom are typically calculated based on the number of participants and the number of conditions. For a one-way within-subjects (repeated measures) ANOVA, df error equals (number of participants – 1) multiplied by (number of conditions – 1). With 28 athletes and four quarters, df error = (28 – 1) * (4 – 1) = 81 (Field, 2013). This calculation accounts for variability within participants across conditions and is vital for accurate F-testing.

The interpretation of ANOVA results involves examining the F statistic and corresponding p-value. If the F obtained exceeds the critical F at the chosen significance level (e.g., α = 0.05), the null hypothesis—that there are no differences among groups—must be rejected. Conversely, if the F is below the critical value, the null is retained, indicating no statistically significant differences. Thus, the decision hinges on the relationship between calculated F and critical F thresholds, grounded in the degrees of freedom and alpha level (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2016).

In factorial ANOVA designs, the main effects and interactions reveal how different factors influence the dependent variable. A significant main effect of Factor A indicates that changing levels of this factor produces statistically significant differences, regardless of the levels of Factor B. Similarly, a main effect of Factor B or a significant interaction effect indicates more complex relationships and potential moderation or interaction between factors (Field, 2013). Recognizing which effects are significant guides interpretation and further exploration.

Analyzing a 2 × 3 between-subjects ANOVA with 11 participants per group involves examining the SS (sum of squares), df (degrees of freedom), and resultant F-statistics for each effect. If, for example, Factor A's F-value surpasses the critical threshold at α = 0.05, it indicates a significant main effect of Factor A. If the F for Factor B or the interaction exceeds the critical value, those effects are significant. From the provided SS values, the effect with the highest F-value would likely be deemed significant, highlighting the primary influence on the dependent variable.

The correlation coefficient, r, is a measure ranging from –1.0 to +1.0, indicating the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two continuous variables. Values near +1.0 suggest a strong positive relationship where increases in one variable are associated with increases in the other. Conversely, values near –1.0 indicate strong negative relationships, and those close to zero reflect weak or no linear association. The coefficient of determination, r², demonstrates the proportion of variance in the dependent variable explained by the independent variable, and it is always equal to the square of r (Field, 2013).

To test the significance of the relationship between two variables, such as the phi coefficient—a measure used for binary variables—the corresponding chi-square statistic is compared to a critical value for the appropriate degrees of freedom. For example, χ² = 3.76, with degrees of freedom defined by the sample size and nature of the data, can lead to a decision: if χ² exceeds the critical value, the null hypothesis—that there is no association—is rejected, indicating a significant relationship. Without the degrees of freedom, the exact conclusion cannot be definitively made, but the general principle is to compare χ² to the critical threshold (Pearson, 1900).

Regression analysis evaluates the predictive power of a linear model by testing whether the independent variable significantly accounts for variance in the dependent variable. The significance of the model predictions is typically assessed through analysis of variance of regression or by examining the t-test for individual slope coefficients. A significant regression model indicates that the linear relationship reliably predicts the outcome (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

Given SSXY = –16.32 and SSX = 40.00, the slope of the best-fitting linear equation is computed as SSXY / SSX = –0.408, approximately –0.41. This negative value indicates an inverse relationship between X and Y variables in the data set (Levine et al., 2018).

When the coefficient of determination r² equals 0.25, it implies that 25% of the variability in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable. In the context of sum of squares, SSY can be calculated if the total variability (SST) is known. However, without the total sum of squares (SST), SSY cannot be precisely determined. Usually, SSY reflects the total variability in the data, which can be partitioned into explained (SSR) and residual (SSE) sums of squares (Cohen et al., 2013).

The degrees of freedom for a chi-square goodness-of-fit test are related to the number of categories minus one, reflecting the number of independent comparisons possible among observed frequencies. For k categories, df = k – 1 (Agresti, 2018).

In a nonparametric test of preference with three meal types and observed frequencies, an appropriate conclusion depends on the chi-square test result. If the chi-square exceeds the critical value at α=0.05, it indicates that participants’ meal preferences are significantly different from what would be expected if there were no preference differences. This can lead to conclusions such as the high-calorie meal being liked more than expected (Sullivan, 2010).

Tests for ordinal data are nonparametric, focusing on ranks rather than raw scores, making them less sensitive to outliers and assumptions of normality. Such tests—like the Wilcoxon signed-rank or Friedman test—are useful when data are ordinal, do not measure variance in the traditional sense, and help minimize issues arising from outliers or small sample sizes (Siegel & Castellan, 1988; Daniel, 2010).

The Friedman test, a nonparametric analog to repeated measures ANOVA, approximately follows a chi-square distribution under the null hypothesis, especially with samples of at least five observations per group (Hochberg & Tamhane, 2014). This test assesses whether there are differences in treatments across multiple conditions within subjects.

The case study involving James, Mike, Joanne, and Samuel emphasizes the complex interplay of medical ethics, autonomy, faith, and familial decision-making. James’s critical health condition, resulting from untreated strep infection complications, requires urgent dialysis or transplant. The family’s initial reliance on faith healing reflects their religious beliefs and trust in divine intervention, which conflicts with the medical recommendation for immediate treatment. This scenario raises ethical questions about respecting parental autonomy versus medical beneficence and non-maleficence (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).

The dilemma intensifies when considering organ donation, with incompatible donors and the possibility of a transplant from Samuel, who is a tissue match. The decision to proceed involves assessing the risks and benefits, potential emotional and physical impacts, and ethical principles like consent and the child's best interests. Physicians must navigate respectful communication, cultural sensitivities, and legal requirements, emphasizing shared decision-making and ethical standards to protect the patient’s welfare (Jonsen, Siegler, & Winslade, 2015).

This complex case underscores the importance of integrating medical facts, ethical principles, and cultural beliefs in end-of-life decisions, highlighting the need for compassionate dialogue, respect for autonomy, and adherence to medical ethics to ensure optimal patient-centered care.

References

• Agresti, A. (2018). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Pearson.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
• Daniel, W. W. (2010). Biostatistics: A foundation for analysis in the health sciences. John Wiley & Sons.
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
• Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2016). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning.
• Hochberg, Y., & Tamhane, A. C. (2014). Multiple comparison procedures (2nd ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC.
• Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2015). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Levine, G. M., Stephan, P. E., Krehbiel, T. C., & Berenson, M. L. (2018). Statistics for managers using Microsoft Excel. Pearson.
• Pearson, K. (1900). On the criterion that a given system of deviations is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 50(302), 157-175.
• Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.