91Ó°ÊÓ

The article "Rethinking Calcium Supplements" (U.S. Airways Magazine, October 2010) describes a study investigating whether taking calcium supplements increases the risk of heart attack. Consider the following four study descriptions. For each study, answer the following five questions: Question 1: Is the study described an observational study or an experiment? Question 2: Did the study use random selection from some population? Question 3: Did the study use random assignment to experimental groups? Question 4: Based on the study description, would it be reasonable to conclude that taking calcium supplements is the cause of the increased risk of heart attack? Question 5: Would it be reasonable to generalize conclusions from this study to some larger population? If so, what population? Study 1: Every heart attack patient and every patient admitted for an illness other than heart attack during the month of December, 2010 , at a large urban hospital was asked if he or she took calcium supplements. The proportion of heart attack patients who took calcium supplements was significantly higher than the proportion of patients admitted for other illnesses who took calcium supplements. Study 2: Two hundred people were randomly selected from a list of all people living in Minneapolis who receive Social Security. Each person in the sample was asked whether or not they took calcium supplements. These people were followed for 5 years, and whether or not they had had a heart attack during the 5-year period was noted. The proportion of heart attack victims in the group taking calcium supplements was significantly higher than the proportion of heart attack victims in the group not taking calcium supplements. Study 3: Two hundred people were randomly selected from a list of all people living in Minneapolis who receive Social Security. Each person was asked to participate in a statistical study, and all agreed to participate. Those who had no previous history of heart problems were instructed not to take calcium supplements. Those with a previous history of heart problems were instructed to take calcium supplements. The participants were followed for 5 years, and whether or not they had had a heart attack during the 5 -year period was noted. The proportion of heart attack victims in the calcium supplement group was significantly higher than the proportion of heart attack victims in the no calcium supplement group. Study 4: Four hundred people volunteered to participate in a 10-year study. Each volunteer was assigned at random to either group 1 or group \(2 .\) Those in group 1 took a daily calcium supplement. Those in group 2 did not take a calcium supplement. The proportion who suffered a heart attack during the 10 -year study period was noted for each group. The proportion of heart attack victims in group 1 was significantly higher than the proportion of heart attack victims in group 2

Step by step solution

01

Question 1: Type of study

The study described is an observational study since the researchers did not impose any treatments or interventions on the participants.

02

Question 2: Random selection

The study did not use random selection from some population, as the sample consists of patients admitted to a single large urban hospital during a specific month.

03

Question 3: Random assignment

This study does not use random assignment to experimental groups, as no intervention or treatment was assigned by the researchers.

04

Question 4: Causal conclusion

Based on the study description, it would not be reasonable to conclude that taking calcium supplements is the cause of the increased risk of heart attack, as no random assignment or controlled experiments were performed.

05

Question 5: Generalization

It would not be reasonable to generalize conclusions from this study to a larger population since the sample was not randomly selected and might not be representative of a larger population. #Study 2#

06

Question 1: Type of study

The study described is an observational study, as the researchers did not impose any treatments or interventions, and merely observed participants without altering their behaviors.

07

Question 2: Random selection

The study used random selection from a population (a list of all people living in Minneapolis who receive Social Security).

08

Question 3: Random assignment

This study does not use random assignment to experimental groups, as no intervention or treatment was assigned by the researchers.

09

Question 4: Causal conclusion

Based on the study description, it would not be reasonable to conclude that taking calcium supplements is the cause of the increased risk of heart attack, as no random assignment or controlled experiments were performed.

10

Question 5: Generalization

It would be reasonable to generalize the conclusions from this study to the population of people on Social Security in Minneapolis since the sample was randomly selected from this population. #Study 3#

11

Question 1: Type of study

The study described is an observational study, as the researchers collected data on the participants based on their initial characteristics (their history of heart problems) without random assignment or control.

12

Question 2: Random selection

The study used random selection from a population (a list of all people living in Minneapolis who receive Social Security).

13

Question 3: Random assignment

This study does not use random assignment to experimental groups, as the participants were assigned to groups based on their previous history of heart problems.

14

Question 4: Causal conclusion

Based on the study description, it would not be reasonable to conclude that taking calcium supplements is the cause of the increased risk of heart attack, as no random assignment or controlled experiments were performed.

15

Question 5: Generalization

It would be reasonable to generalize the conclusions from this study to the population of people on Social Security in Minneapolis since the sample was randomly selected from this population. #Study 4#

16

Question 1: Type of study

The study described is an experiment, as the researchers assigned participants randomly to treatment or control groups and imposed specific interventions (taking or not taking a daily calcium supplement).

17

Question 2: Random selection

The study did not use random selection from a population, as the study participants were recruited based on their willingness to volunteer.

18

Question 3: Random assignment

This study uses random assignment to experimental groups, as each volunteer was assigned randomly to either group 1 or group 2.

19

Question 4: Causal conclusion

Based on the study description and the use of random assignment to experimental groups, it would be reasonable to conclude that taking calcium supplements is the cause of the increased risk of heart attack.

20

Question 5: Generalization

It might not be entirely reasonable to generalize conclusions from this study to a larger population since the sample was not randomly selected, and participants were volunteers who might not be representative of a larger population. However, the results would still be informative for the specific population that the sample was drawn from.

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.

Observational Study

In an observational study, researchers gather data and observe outcomes without intervening or altering the participants' environment or behavior. Unlike controlled experiments, researchers do not assign treatments or manipulate variables; they simply record what naturally occurs.

For instance, in the 'Rethinking Calcium Supplements' studies, the first three are examples of observational studies. Researchers observed the heart attack patients' calcium supplement intake without assigning a particular behavior to them. The researchers' role was to systematically collect data and analyze outcomes to uncover patterns or associations.

However, it is critical to remember that correlations identified in observational studies do not imply causation. Due to the lack of random assignment, other factors or variables—not accounted for—may influence the results. Therefore, while observational studies can highlight links between variables, they cannot definitively establish that one causes the other.

Random Selection

The concept of random selection refers to the method by which participants are chosen from a larger population to take part in a study. It ensures that each member of a population has an equal chance of being included in the sample. This method is essential for the generalizability of the study's findings to the broader population.

In Studies 2 and 3 described in 'Rethinking Calcium Supplements', random selection was utilized. A list of people living in Minneapolis receiving Social Security was the base for randomly selecting participants. This approach aims to create a sample that accurately reflects the diversity of the larger population, thereby improving the likelihood that the study's conclusions can be generalized beyond the sample used.

Random Assignment

Different from random selection, random assignment is a process used in experimental study designs where participants are randomly allocated to different groups—such as treatment or control groups. This technique is fundamental for establishing causality, as it helps ensure that any differences in outcomes between groups are the result of the treatment rather than pre-existing differences among participants.

Regarding the studies under review, only Study 4 implemented random assignment, where volunteers were randomly assigned to either take a daily calcium supplement or not. Random assignment in this context is crucial because it allows researchers to make more confident assertions about the cause-and-effect relationship between calcium supplements and the risk of heart attacks.

Causal Inference

The term causal inference refers to the process of drawing conclusions about a causal relationship from data. It involves determining whether a change in one variable can be said to produce a change in another.

Study 4 is the only one among those presented that provides a strong basis for causal inference, as it controls for confounding variables through random assignment and allows for comparison between a treatment group and a control group. In comparison, the observational studies (Studies 1-3) cannot confidently make causal claims because other unmeasured factors may have influenced the results. Without random assignment, it's uncertain whether the observed outcomes are due to calcium supplement intake or some other unaccounted variable.

Generalization in Research

The ability to apply findings from a study to a broader context is known as generalization. It hinges on how representative the study sample is of an external population.

For a study's results to be generalizable, it must employ random selection techniques, as seen in Studies 2 and 3, where participants were randomly chosen from the population of individuals in Minneapolis on Social Security. This random selection makes it more reasonable to extend the study's conclusions to that entire population. But in Study 1, the sample came from a specific hospital and month, which may not adequately represent a larger population. Similarly, Study 4's volunteers may not mirror the general population, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings.