PSY 223 Scenarios and Data Sets Scenario 1 (Child and Adolescent Development)* The question was investigated of whether (a) age at which infants start to crawl is related to (b) seasonal temperature six months after birth. “Six months after birth” was targeted as the period in which babies typically first try crawling. For a large sample of babies, (a) time at which crawling actually began and (b) average monthly temperature six months after the birth month were collected. The data are shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 1 Excel file). Month Average Age Starting to Crawl (weeks) January February March April May June July August September October November December 29.84 30.52 29.70 31.84 28.58 31.44 33.64 32.82 33.83 33.35 33.38 32.32 Average Temperature 6 Months After Birth Month (in units Fahrenheit) 66 73 72 63 52 39 33 30 33 37 48 57 * Adapted from this study: Benson, J. B. (1993). Season of birth and onset of locomotion: Theoretical and methodological implications. Infant Behavior and Development, 16, 69–81. Scenario 2 (Forensic Psychology) Levels of groups’ certainties about their eyewitness testimony to a simulated crime were compared. The first group was set up to be “right” in its eyewitness accounts and the second group was set up to be “wrong”; the desire was to see if confidence differed across groups. Thirty-four participants were recruited from a college campus and randomly divided into two groups, both of which were shown a video of a crime scenario (length: 58 seconds) in which the perpetrator’s facial characteristics (with respect to the camera) were clearly visible at two separate points and sporadically visible at others. Half the participants then were shown a five-individual lineup that contained the perpetrator in the video (“Group A”), and half the participants were shown a five-individual lineup that did not contain the perpetrator (“Group B”). Participants were asked to (a) identify if and where the perpetrator was in the lineup and (b) provide a rating of confidence on a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being highly confident) that the selection was the same as the person seen in the video committing the crime. All participants signed consent forms, were told they could leave the study at any time, and were told they would be debriefed. Data on the confidence ratings are shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 2 Excel file). Group A Confidence Group B Confidence 07 10 10 05 09 05 10 10 08 07 05 06 10 10 10 09 01 03 10 06 05 04 06 10 07 10 06 10 04 03 05 07 10 08 Scenario 3 (Mental Health) The efficacy of two kinds of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in relation to a clinical population were compared. The therapies differed on the dimension of how wedded they were to the rational-emotive behavioral therapy (REBT), a subtype of CBT that emphasizes a directive, confrontational approach to encourage a patient to recognize the irrationality of specific thought patterns. Forty adolescents at an inpatient clinic for treatment of self-destructive behaviors were randomly divided into two groups of equal size, one of which received the less challenging type of CBT (Treatment A) and one of which received the more challenging kind of CBT (Treatment B). All patients were treated by trained therapists in one-on-one sessions for 1.5 hours per day (broken down into 45-minute sessions) for six weeks. All participants were apprised that they were part of a study, all participants signed consent forms, and all were told they would be informed of the results at its conclusion; participants exhibiting any behaviors that required critical intervention were promptly treated outside the plan of the study. Outcome data on the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (RBPC)-PAR Edition* collected at the conclusion of six weeks as shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 3 Excel file). Treatment A Treatment B 74 80 50 82 70 49 60 44 30 60 37 65 34 77 40 45 39 51 70 70 19 53 43 16 25 38 15 44 20 29 55 51 48 54 42 46 60 18 27 61 * Instrument has been validated for use with the population under consideration. Scenario 4 (Addictions) The efficacy of a new addiction medication was evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled, doubleblind study. The medication in question, Antaquil, is intended to moderate the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal and craving with minimum side effects. Over the course of three weeks, a sample of 36 individuals who were recovering from alcohol addiction were randomly assigned to two groups: one administered the medication and one administered a placebo. At the end of the designated period, participants were administered the Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS), an instrument that provides a global measure of thoughts about alcohol during nondrinking periods. Scores can range from 0 to 40 with higher scores signaling higher levels of rumination about alcohol. Prior to participation participants were all informed of the nature of Antaquil and were told they could leave the study at any time. Outcome data on the OCDS are shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 4 Excel file). Treatment Gp Placebo Gp 40 37 35 35 27 34 18 24 30 29 28 14 11 23 23 25 30 32 13 37 16 30 17 30 26 29 22 22 19 23 17 31 29 28 10 20 Scenario 5 (Social Psychology) The question of whether Friday the 13th is an unusually unlucky day or whether this idea is just superstition was evaluated. Researchers in the United Kingdom examined the relation between (a) numbers of traffic accidents on past Friday the 13ths versus (b) numbers of accidents occurring on Friday the 6ths (all between July 1990 and November 1992).* The data shown below were collected (also found in the Data Set Scenario 5 Excel file). Friday the 6th Friday the 13th 139,246 138,548 134,012 132,908 137,055 136,018 133,732 131,843 123,552 121,641 121,139 118,723 128,293 125,532 124,631 120,249 124,609 122,770 117,584 117,263 * Adapted from this study: Scanlon, T. J., Luben, R. N., Scanlon, F. L., & Singleton, N. (1993). Is Friday the 13th bad for your health? BritishMedical Journal, 307, 1584–1586. Scenario 6 (Applied Psychology)* The question was investigated of whether pleasant aromas help a student learn better. All 21 participants learned both under a condition of smelling nothing and under a condition of smelling a floral scent. Counterbalancing was followed so that some participants learned without the scent first and some learned with the scent first. All participants were apprised that the scents were “safe” and that if they wished they could leave the study at any time. Data in terms of “time (in seconds) to complete a pencil and paper maze” are shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 6 Excel file). Unscented-Trial Scented-Trial 38.4 53.1 46.2 54.7 72.5 74.2 38.0 49.6 82.8 53.6 33.9 51.3 50.4 44.1 35.0 34.0 32.8 34.5 60.1 59.1 75.1 67.3 57.6 75.5 55.5 41.1 49.5 52.2 40.9 28.3 44.3 74.9 93.8 77.5 47.9 50.9 75.2 70.1 46.2 60.3 56.3 59.9 * Adapted from a study by Hirsch & Johnston at the Smell & Taste Treatment and Research Foundation: The Data and Story Library. (1996). Retrieved from http: //lib. stat.cmu.edu/DASL/ PSY 223 Scenarios and Data Sets Scenario 1 (Child and Adolescent Development)* The question was investigated of whether (a) age at which infants start to crawl is related to (b) seasonal temperature six months after birth. “Six months after birth” was targeted as the period in which babies typically first try crawling. For a large sample of babies, (a) time at which crawling actually began and (b) average monthly temperature six months after the birth month were collected. The data are shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 1 Excel file). Month Average Age Starting to Crawl (weeks) January February March April May June July August September October November December 29.84 30.52 29.70 31.84 28.58 31.44 33.64 32.82 33.83 33.35 33.38 32.32 Average Temperature 6 Months After Birth Month (in units Fahrenheit) 66 73 72 63 52 39 33 30 33 37 48 57 * Adapted from this study: Benson, J. B. (1993). Season of birth and onset of locomotion: Theoretical and methodological implications. Infant Behavior and Development, 16, 69–81. Scenario 2 (Forensic Psychology) Levels of groups’ certainties about their eyewitness testimony to a simulated crime were compared. The first group was set up to be “right” in its eyewitness accounts and the second group was set up to be “wrong”; the desire was to see if confidence differed across groups. Thirty-four participants were recruited from a college campus and randomly divided into two groups, both of which were shown a video of a crime scenario (length: 58 seconds) in which the perpetrator’s facial characteristics (with respect to the camera) were clearly visible at two separate points and sporadically visible at others. Half the participants then were shown a five-individual lineup that contained the perpetrator in the video (“Group A”), and half the participants were shown a five-individual lineup that did not contain the perpetrator (“Group B”). Participants were asked to (a) identify if and where the perpetrator was in the lineup and (b) provide a rating of confidence on a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being highly confident) that the selection was the same as the person seen in the video committing the crime. All participants signed consent forms, were told they could leave the study at any time, and were told they would be debriefed. Data on the confidence ratings are shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 2 Excel file). Group A Confidence Group B Confidence 07 10 10 05 09 05 10 10 08 07 05 06 10 10 10 09 01 03 10 06 05 04 06 10 07 10 06 10 04 03 05 07 10 08 Scenario 3 (Mental Health) The efficacy of two kinds of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in relation to a clinical population were compared. The therapies differed on the dimension of how wedded they were to the rational-emotive behavioral therapy (REBT), a subtype of CBT that emphasizes a directive, confrontational approach to encourage a patient to recognize the irrationality of specific thought patterns. Forty adolescents at an inpatient clinic for treatment of self-destructive behaviors were randomly divided into two groups of equal size, one of which received the less challenging type of CBT (Treatment A) and one of which received the more challenging kind of CBT (Treatment B). All patients were treated by trained therapists in one-on-one sessions for 1.5 hours per day (broken down into 45-minute sessions) for six weeks. All participants were apprised that they were part of a study, all participants signed consent forms, and all were told they would be informed of the results at its conclusion; participants exhibiting any behaviors that required critical intervention were promptly treated outside the plan of the study. Outcome data on the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (RBPC)-PAR Edition* collected at the conclusion of six weeks as shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 3 Excel file). Treatment A Treatment B 74 80 50 82 70 49 60 44 30 60 37 65 34 77 40 45 39 51 70 70 19 53 43 16 25 38 15 44 20 29 55 51 48 54 42 46 60 18 27 61 * Instrument has been validated for use with the population under consideration. Scenario 4 (Addictions) The efficacy of a new addiction medication was evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled, doubleblind study. The medication in question, Antaquil, is intended to moderate the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal and craving with minimum side effects. Over the course of three weeks, a sample of 36 individuals who were recovering from alcohol addiction were randomly assigned to two groups: one administered the medication and one administered a placebo. At the end of the designated period, participants were administered the Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS), an instrument that provides a global measure of thoughts about alcohol during nondrinking periods. Scores can range from 0 to 40 with higher scores signaling higher levels of rumination about alcohol. Prior to participation participants were all informed of the nature of Antaquil and were told they could leave the study at any time. Outcome data on the OCDS are shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 4 Excel file). Treatment Gp Placebo Gp 40 37 35 35 27 34 18 24 30 29 28 14 11 23 23 25 30 32 13 37 16 30 17 30 26 29 22 22 19 23 17 31 29 28 10 20 Scenario 5 (Social Psychology) The question of whether Friday the 13th is an unusually unlucky day or whether this idea is just superstition was evaluated. Researchers in the United Kingdom examined the relation between (a) numbers of traffic accidents on past Friday the 13ths versus (b) numbers of accidents occurring on Friday the 6ths (all between July 1990 and November 1992).* The data shown below were collected (also found in the Data Set Scenario 5 Excel file). Friday the 6th Friday the 13th 139,246 138,548 134,012 132,908 137,055 136,018 133,732 131,843 123,552 121,641 121,139 118,723 128,293 125,532 124,631 120,249 124,609 122,770 117,584 117,263 * Adapted from this study: Scanlon, T. J., Luben, R. N., Scanlon, F. L., & Singleton, N. (1993). Is Friday the 13th bad for your health? BritishMedical Journal, 307, 1584–1586. Scenario 6 (Applied Psychology)* The question was investigated of whether pleasant aromas help a student learn better. All 21 participants learned both under a condition of smelling nothing and under a condition of smelling a floral scent. Counterbalancing was followed so that some participants learned without the scent first and some learned with the scent first. All participants were apprised that the scents were “safe” and that if they wished they could leave the study at any time. Data in terms of “time (in seconds) to complete a pencil and paper maze” are shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 6 Excel file). Unscented-Trial Scented-Trial 38.4 53.1 46.2 54.7 72.5 74.2 38.0 49.6 82.8 53.6 33.9 51.3 50.4 44.1 35.0 34.0 32.8 34.5 60.1 59.1 75.1 67.3 57.6 75.5 55.5 41.1 49.5 52.2 40.9 28.3 44.3 74.9 93.8 77.5 47.9 50.9 75.2 70.1 46.2 60.3 56.3 59.9 * Adapted from a study by Hirsch & Johnston at the Smell & Taste Treatment and Research Foundation: The Data and Story Library. (1996). Retrieved from http: //lib. stat.cmu.edu/DASL/ PSY 223 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview The final project for this course is the creation of a statistical analysis report. The two research courses (PSY 223 and PSY 224) will demystify statistics and research methods in order to show that they are based on simple principles that apply to situations in the social sciences. In psychology, we need to distinguish what is “real” from what is “not real but looks real.” Is this patient really depressed? Does this form of group treatment of adolescents work better than a different form of treatment? In this summative assessment, you will choose a scenario from a given set to be the basis for your statistical analysis report. Within the scenario, you will be given a data set based on two groups. You will apply the statistical analysis skills you have learned in this course to interpret the data and write up a report of the results. You will be evaluated not only on your computations but also on your explanation of the interpretation of the data. The project is divided into three milestones and a final product. The milestones will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and to ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Two, Four, and Five. The final project will be submitted in Module Seven. In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:      Analyze descriptive and inferential statistics for preparing statistically accurate psychological research Utilize appropriate statistical techniques for computing descriptive statistics and generating graphs regarding statistical analyses of psychological research Select appropriate statistical procedures for use in statistical analyses regarding psychological research Interpret the results of statistical analyses of psychological research data for drawing informed conclusions regarding the implications of psychological research Assess scenarios involving statistical procedures for ensuring alignment with the expectations of the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists Prompt Select a scenario from the Scenarios and Data Sets document to be the basis of your statistical analysis report. When deciding on which scenario to choose, determine which one is the most beneficial for your area of concentration in psychology. This statistical analysis report will inform stakeholders about the analysis and interpretation of the data presented in the scenario. Microsoft Excel is the recommended statistical software for this course, and the data sets are already placed into Excel files. You will first summarize your chosen scenario and discuss ethical issues. You will then begin your data analysis, determining the appropriate procedures in testing your hypothesis. Finally, you will summarize and interpret your results, making appropriate conclusions based on those results. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed: I. Introduction A. Summarize the scenario you have chosen, including participants, the data set presented, and the question that can be answered by the data. B. Discuss why the scenario exemplifies a study that agrees with APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists. C. Discuss ethical issues that may potentially arise when analyzing and reporting statistical data. D. Explain what you will do in your data analysis and reporting to ensure alignment with the expectations of APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists. II. Data Analysis A. Identify the sample size and explain how it will inform your analysis. In other words, what is the sample size? How will the size of the sample inform your analysis? B. Select what statistical procedures should be implemented in your analysis, and justify why you feel these are appropriate. C. Explain how statistical procedures can help you determine whether the data is attributable to chance factors. D. Compute the mean and the standard deviation for each set of data using appropriate abbreviations and terminology. E. Prepare an appropriately labeled histogram for each set of data. F. Evaluate the shape of each distribution using your created histograms. In other words, what does the shape of each distribution tell us about the data? III. Hypothesis A. Determine whether one mean is higher, showing how you made the determination. B. Identify the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis using appropriate statistical symbols and language based on what you are comparing. IV. Results A. Based on your results, determine whether the data provide evidence for a valid effect. B. Explain whether or not the results are statistically significant. Support your response with results from the data analysis. C. Present properly labeled graphs representing the data analysis results detailed clearly for ease of stakeholder interpretation. V. Conclusion A. Explain your interpretation of the data. In other words, based on your results, what do you think the data mean? What are the potential implications of this data for the stakeholders? What do these results mean for future research into the topic area? B. Justify the data analysis procedures you used to reach your interpretation. C. Discuss whether it would be appropriate to conduct more statistical procedures to further interpret the data. Milestones Milestone One: Are Things Okay Ethically? In Module Two, you will submit the Milestone One Worksheet. In this milestone, you will address the following: (1) Indicate what data set you have chosen and why. If you chose a particular data set to align with your concentration in psychology, describe in a sentence or two why you have chosen this concentration. (2) Describe the involved parties in the data set presented and the question that you can answer by the data. (3) Discuss why the data set exemplifies a study that agrees with the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists. (4) Discuss ethical issues that may arise when analyzing and reporting statistical data. (5) Describe one way in which you will ensure your reporting of results will align with the APA’s Ethical Principles. This milestone is graded with the Milestone One Rubric. Milestone Two: What Method Will You Use? In Module Four, you will submit the Milestone Two Worksheet. In this milestone, you will address the following: (1) Indicate sample size (n = ?) and describe what consequence(s) this sample size will have in terms of analyses and reporting. (2) Using the Choose Your Test document, select a statistical procedure appropriate to your scenario/data. Explain why you selected that test, linking features of the scenario/data to information from the Choose Your Test document. This milestone addresses critical elements Section II, parts A and B only. You will do the calculations for Section II parts C, D, E, and F as you complete your final project. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Two Rubric. Milestone Three: Hypothesizing In Module Five, you will submit the Milestone Three Worksheet. In this milestone, you will indicate the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis and state your understanding of what the hypotheses mean. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Three Rubric. Final Submission: In Module Seven, you will submit the statistical analysis report. You will complete the remaining critical elements, Section II C–F (Data Analysis), Section IV (Results), and Section V (Conclusion). Combine these elements with your revised milestones to develop a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final project. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded using the Final Project Rubric. Deliverables Milestone Deliverable Module Due Grading One Are Things All Right Ethically? Two Graded separately; Milestone One Rubric Two What Method Will You Use? Four Graded separately; Milestone Two Rubric Hypothesizing Five Graded separately; Milestone Three Rubric Seven Graded separately; Final Project Rubric Three Final Submission: Statistical Analysis Report Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your report should be approximately 4 to 5 pages (not including cover page, references, graphs, and/or visuals) and must be written in APA format. Use double spacing, one-inch margins, and 12-point Times New Roman font. Include a cover page for your report. Include at least three references, cited in APA format. Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Introduction: Scenario Meets “Proficient” criteria and summary is exceptionally clear and contextualized around the problem or question being addressed Introduction: Scenario Meets “Proficient” criteria and Agrees uses industry-specific language to establish expertise Introduction: Ethical Issues Meets “Proficient” criteria and draws insightful connections between ethical issues and data analysis and reporting Proficient (85%) Provides a summary of the scenario chosen Needs Improvement (55%) Provides a summary of the scenario chosen, but summary is cursory or illogical Not Evident (0%) Does not summarize the scenario chosen Value 3 Discusses why the scenario exemplifies a study that agrees with the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists Discusses why the scenario exemplifies a study that agrees with the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists, but discussion is cursory or illogical Discusses ethical issues that may potentially arise when analyzing and reporting statistical data, but discussion is cursory or illogical Does not discuss why the scenario exemplifies a study that agrees with the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists 3 Does not discuss ethical issues that may potentially arise when analyzing and reporting statistical data 6.26 Discusses ethical issues that may potentially arise when analyzing and reporting statistical data Introduction: Ensure Alignment Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates a nuanced understanding of ethical data analysis and reporting Explains what will be done in personal data analysis and reporting to ensure alignment with the expectations of the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists Explains what will be done in personal data analysis and reporting to ensure alignment with the expectations of the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists, but explanation is illogical or irrelevant Data Analysis: Sample Meets “Proficient” criteria and Identifies the sample size and Identifies the sample size and Size explanation demonstrates a explains how the sample size will explains how the sample size will sophisticated awareness of how inform the statistical analysis inform the statistical analysis but the sample size can inform explanation is cursory or contains statistical analysis inaccuracies Data Analysis: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Selects what procedures should Selects what procedures should Statistical Procedures demonstrates a nuanced be implemented in the analysis be implemented in the analysis understanding of appropriate and justifies why these statistical and justifies why these statistical application of statistical procedures are appropriate procedures are appropriate, but procedures some procedures selected are not appropriate or the justification is not logical Data Analysis: Chance Meets “Proficient” criteria and Explains how statistical Explains how statistical Factors explanation is exceptionally clear procedures can help determine procedures can help determine and contextualized whether the data is attributable whether the data is attributable to chance factors to chance factors, but explanation is illogical Data Analysis: Mean Computes the mean and Computes the mean and and Standard standard deviation accurately for standard deviation for each set of Deviation each set of scores using scores, but computations are not appropriate abbreviations and accurate or do not use terminology appropriate abbreviations and terminology Data Analysis: Prepares an accurate, Prepares a histogram graph for Histogram appropriately labeled histogram each set of scores or score graph for each set of scores or distribution, but the graphs are score distribution not accurate or are not appropriately labeled Data Analysis: Shape Meets “Proficient” criteria and Evaluates the shape of each Evaluates the shape of each evaluation demonstrates keen distribution using created distribution using created insight into what the shape of a histograms histograms, but evaluation is distribution says about the data cursory or contains inaccuracies Does not explain what will be done in personal data analysis and reporting to ensure alignment with the expectations of the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists 6.26 Does not identify the sample size or explain how the sample size will inform the statistical analysis 6.26 Does not select what procedures should be implemented in the analysis and justify why these statistical procedures are appropriate 6.26 Does not explain how statistical procedures can help determine whether the data is attributable to chance factors 6.26 Does not compute the mean and standard deviation for each set of scores 6.26 Does not prepare a histogram graph for each set of scores or score distribution 6.26 Does not evaluate the shape of each distribution using created histograms 6.26 Hypothesis: Whether One Mean is Higher Accurately determines whether Determines whether one mean is one mean is higher, showing how higher, but result is inaccurate or the determination was made does not show how the determination was made Hypothesis: Null Accurately identifies the null Identifies the null hypothesis and Hypothesis and hypothesis and alternative alternative hypothesis in Alternative Hypothesis hypothesis in language based on language based on what is being what is being compared and compared, but identification is using appropriate statistical not accurate or does not use symbols appropriate statistical symbols Results: Valid Accurately determines if the data Determines if the data provides provides evidence for a valid evidence for a valid effect, but effect the determination is illogical or inaccurate Results: Statistically Meets “Proficient” criteria and Explains whether or not the Explains whether or not the Significant explanation is exceptionally clear results are statistically significant results are statistically significant, and contextualized but explanation is cursory or illogical Results: Graphs Meets “Proficient” criteria and Presents accurate, properly Presents graphs representing the graphs are exceptionally well labeled graphs representing the data analysis results, but the developed and readable data analysis results detailed graphs are inaccurate, clearly for ease of stakeholder improperly labeled, or are lacking interpretation in detail Conclusion: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Explains the interpretation of the Explains the interpretation of the Interpretation uses discipline-specific data data, but explanation is cursory terminology to establish or illogical expertise without overwhelming stakeholders Conclusion: Data Meets “Proficient” criteria and Justifies the data analysis Justifies the data analysis Analysis Procedures demonstrates a deep procedures used to reach the procedures used to reach the understanding of ethical data interpretation interpretation, but justification is analysis procedures illogical Conclusion: More Meets “Proficient” criteria and Discusses whether it would be Discusses whether it would be Statistical Procedures discussion is exceptionally clear appropriate to conduct more appropriate to conduct more and contextualized statistical procedures to further statistical procedures to further interpret the data interpret the data, but discussion is cursory or contains issues of clarity Does not determine whether one mean is higher 6.26 Does not identify the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis 6.26 Does not determine if the data provides evidence for a valid effect 3.76 Does not explain whether or not the results are statistically significant 3.76 Does not present graphs representing the data analysis results 6.26 Does not explain the interpretation of the data 3.76 Does not justify the data analysis procedures used to reach the interpretation 3.76 Does not discuss whether it would be appropriate to conduct more statistical procedures to further interpret the data 3.76 Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization spelling, syntax, or organization and is presented in a professional and easy to read format Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas Total 6.34 100% Running head: (insert title of your paper here) Insert Title of Paper Insert Name Southern New Hampshire University 1 (insert title of your paper here) 2 Insert Title of Paper Introduction: Scenario (From Milestone 1) Introduction: Scenario Agrees (From Milestone 1) Introduction: Ethical Issues (From Milestone 1) Introduction: Ensure Alignment (From Milestone 1) Data Analysis: Sample (From Milestone 2) Data Analysis: Statistical Procedures (From Milestone 2) Data Analysis: Chance Factors Data Analysis: Mean and Standard Deviation (insert title of your paper here) 3 Data Analysis: Histogram (may need to attach separate excel file with histograms and other graphs). Data Analysis: Shape Hypothesis: Whether One Mean is Higher Hypothesis: Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis (From milestone 3) Results: Valid Results: Statistically Significant Results: Graphs (may need to attach separate excel file with histograms and other graphs). Conclusion: Interpretation (insert title of your paper here) Conclusion: Data Analysis Procedures Conclusion: More Statistical Procedures 4 (insert title of your paper here) 5 References
Purchase answer to see full attachment