/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 49 The alumni office wishes to dete... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

The alumni office wishes to determine whether students who attend a reception with alumni just before graduation are more likely to donate money within the next two years. a. Describe a study based on a sample of students that would allow the alumni office to conclude that attending the reception causes future donations but that it is not possible to generalize this result to all students. b. Describe a study based on a sample of students that does not allow fundraisers to conclude that attending receptions causes future donations but does allow them to generalize to all students. c. Describe a study based on a sample of students that allows fundraisers to conclude that attending the reception causes future donations and also allows them to generalize to all students.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Study A is an experimental study with random selection, proving cause but not allowing generalization. Study B is an observational study, considering all students, not proving cause but allowing generalization. Study C is an experimental study with a representative sample, allowing both cause and generalization.

Step by step solution

01

Study A

A study which shows causation but doesn't allow for generalization to all students could be an experimental study. This study would include a random selection of students who are invited to the reception. Their donation habits are tracked after graduation. This proves cause because it is probable that the cause of the donations is attending the reception. However, it's not possible to generalize the results to all students because the sample is not representative of the whole student population.
02

Study B

A study that doesn't show causation but allows for generalization could be an observational study. All students are included in the study. By taking into account those who attended the reception and those who didn't, and then tracking their donation habits, you can avoid inferring causation. This is because there could be other factors influencing students' decision to donate. However, generalization is likely because the data will be representative of all students.
03

Study C

A study that shows both cause and allows generalization would need to be an experimental study with a representative sample of all students. Invite a random, representative sample of students to the reception. Ensure that the sample mirrors the make-up or characteristics of the wider student body. Track donation habits of those students after graduation. If those who attended the reception are more likely to donate, it can be inferred that the reception caused the future donations. This can also be generalized to all students because the sample was representative.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Causation
Causation refers to a relationship between two events where one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event. This implies a cause and effect connection. In research contexts, showing causation can be challenging because you need to ensure that the observed effect is directly attributable to the cause and not influenced by other factors.
For a study to demonstrate causation, researchers often conduct experiments. An experiment designed to show causation would include manipulating one variable to see if it directly affects another.
  • For example, inviting a group of students to attend a reception and then tracking their donation habits could imply causation if attendance at the reception leads to increased donations.
  • This suggests that the reception was the cause of higher donation rates.
However, the challenge lies in controlling for all other potential influencing factors to make a solid causal claim.
Generalization
Generalization is the process of applying findings from a study to a larger population. To generalize findings, researchers must ensure that the sample accurately represents the broader population.
In the context of educational studies, researchers can make generalizations when their sample size is varied enough to reflect the diversity of the entire student body.
  • If a study includes a representative sample of students, researchers might generalize findings to all students.
  • Generalizing means that the results found in the study are expected to hold true for the much larger group.
However, this process can be tricky. It's important to avoid biased samples, which can mislead generalizations. Researchers need to consider various demographic factors, such as age, gender, and socio-economic status, to ensure accurate generalization.
Observational Study
An observational study involves assessing variables without manipulating them. This type of study differs from experimental research, which involves intervention and altering variables.
Observational studies are particularly useful when researchers need to understand relationships without seeking to establish causation. These studies are less controlled than experiments, so they can't definitively prove causation, but they can show associations or correlations.
  • An observational study that looks at students attending a reception and later donating money can suggest whether a relationship exists without implying causation.
  • For example, a researcher might note that students who attended were more likely to donate, but other factors could also account for this.
The strength of observational studies lies in their ability to reflect real-world situations and include larger populations, making the findings more generalizable.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

A study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine was conducted to compare outcomes for radial arterial grafts and saphenous-vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgeries (Gaudino et al. 2018 ). Read this excerpt from the study abstract and answer the questions that follow. Methods: We performed a patient-level combined analysis of randomized, controlled trials to compare radial-artery grafts and saphenousvein grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Six trials were identified. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization. Results: A total of 1036 patients were included in the analysis (534 patients with radial-artery grafts and 502 patients with saphenousvein grafts). After a mean ( \(\pm\) SD) follow-up time of \(60 \pm 30\) months, the incidence of adverse cardiac events was significantly lower in association with radial-artery grafts than with saphenous-vein grafts (95\% confidence interval \([\mathrm{CI}], 0.49\) to \(0.90 ; \mathrm{P}=0.01\) ). As compared with the use of saphenous-vein grafts, the use of radial-artery grafts was associated with a nominally lower incidence of myocardial infarction ( \(95 \%\) CI, \(0.53\) to \(0.99 ; \mathrm{P}=0.04\) ) and a lower incidence of repeat revascularization (95\% CI, \(0.40\) to \(0.63 ; \mathrm{P}<0.001\) ) but not a lower incidence of death from any cause (95\% CI, \(0.59\) to \(1.41 ; \mathrm{P}=0.68\) ). a. Which graft method had more positive outcomes? Explain. b. There was an outcome for which one method did not have significantly better outcomes than the other. What outcome was this and how does the p-value support this conclusion?

Harvard Women's Health Watch reported on a 2016 study on the association between various forms of exercise and health. In this study, researchers used data from large British and Scottish health studies to see if some forms of activity had greater health benefits than others. They examined the association between six different types of exercise with the overall risk of death and death from cardiovascular disease in particular. Researchers found that racket sports were associated with the greatest reduction in risk of death from any cause, including cardiovascular disease, followed by swimming, aerobics, and cycling. Whatever activity participants chose, risk of death dropped the more often they exercised. Was this more likely to have been a controlled experiment or an observational study? How do you know? (Source: https://www health.harvard.edu/exercise-and- fitness/large-study-indicates-racketsports-offer-best-protection-against- cardiac-death)

The 3-year recidivism rate in the United States is about \(68 \%\), which means that \(68 \%\) of released U.S. prisoners return to prison within 3 years of release. There have been many attempts to reduce the recidivism rate. Suppose you want to determine whether electronic monitoring bracelets that track the location of the released prisoner reduce recidivism. Suppose that offenders released from prison are observed for 3 years to see whether they go back to prison and that the ones who wear electronic monitoring bracelets wear them for the first year only. a. Describe a study based on a sample of released offenders that would allow the legal system to conclude that monitoring causes a reduction in recidivism but would not allow it to generalize this result to all released prisoners. b. Describe a study based on a sample of released offenders that does not allow the legal system to conclude that monitoring causes a reduction in recidivism but does allow it to generalize to all released offenders. c. Describe a study based on a sample of released prisoners that allows the legal system to conclude that monitoring causes a reduction in recidivism and also allows it to generalize to all released offenders.

Critically ill patients are often given intravenous fluids in hospital, either in the form of balanced crystalloids or saline solutions. In a 2018 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers investigated which of these approaches resulted in better clinical outcomes. Read this excerpt from the abstract that accompanies this study and answer the following questions (Semmler et al. 2018). Methods: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial conducted in five intensive care units at an academic center, we assigned 15,802 adults to receive saline or balanced crystalloids. The primary outcome was a major adverse kidney event within 30 days \(-a\) composite of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction. Results: Among the 7942 patients in the balanced-crystalloids group, 1139 (14.3\%) had a major adverse kidney event, as compared with 1211 of 7860 patients \((15.4 \%)\) in the saline group \((P=0.04)\). a. Identify the treatment variable. b. The response variable in this study is major adverse kidney event within 30 days. Was there a significant difference in occurrence of major adverse kidney events between the two groups? Explain. Assume a significance level of \(0.05\). c. Based on this study, do you think one type of intravenous fluid may be preferable over the other? Explain.

Evaluate the study based on the extracts from the study abstracts by answering the following questions: a. What is the research question that the investigators are trying the answer? b. What is their answer to the research question? c. What were the methods they used to collect data? d. Is the conclusion appropriate for the methods used to collect data? e. To what population do the conclusions apply? f. Have the results been replicated (reproduced) in other articles? Some researchers believe that dogs may be beneficial in reducing cardiovascular risk in their owners by providing social support and motivation for physical activity (Mubanga et al. 2017). The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of dog ownership with incident of cardiovascular disease in the population of Sweden. Read the following excerpts from the study abstract and evaluate the study using the given questions. Methods: All Swedish residents aged 40 to 80 years on January 1, 2001 \((n=3,987,937)\) were eligible for this study. The age range was chosen to exclude younger individuals at low risk of \(\mathrm{CVD}\) and the elderly at low odds of owning a dog. All Swedish residents are covered by the public health care system, and all hospital visits are registered in the National Patient Register. We obtained death data from the Cause of Death Register and incident disease data from the National Patient Register. The main diagnosis in inpatient and outpatient care and underlying cause of death were used to define four incident disease outcomes: (1) acute myocardial infarction, (2) heart failure, (3) ischemic stroke, and (4) hemorrhagic stroke. Any occurrence of these diagnoses was additionally considered as a composite cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcome ... Dog ownership was defined as periods registered or having a partner registered as a dog owner in either of the two dog registers (required for all dogs in Sweden.) Results: Dog ownership was inversely associated with risk of acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure, and composite CVD. Dog ownership was inversely associated with cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Dog ownership was associated with a lower risk of incident cardiovascular disease in single-person households and with lower cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in the general population. Our observational study cannot provide evidence for a causal effect of dog ownership on cardiovascular disease or mortality. Although careful attention was paid to adjusting for potential confounders in a set of sensitivity analyses, it is still possible that personal characteristics that we did not have information about affect the choice of not only acquiring a dog, but also the breed and the risk of CVD.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.