/*! 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 18 Losing sleep An article entitled... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Losing sleep An article entitled "TV Before Bed May Rob Teens of Sleep" reported on a study published online in Pediatrics in January of \(2013 .\) The study found that students who watch TV before bedtime tend to go to sleep later than those who engaged in nonscreen sedentary activities before bed. Researchers contacted a nationally representative cross-sectional sample of teens in New Zealand, interviewing participants in person and following up with phone interviews, to look for a relationship between before-bed activities and the length of time before kids go to sleep. a) Is this an experiment? Explain why or why not. b) Researchers cautioned that "causality could not be inferred from their cross-sectional study." Explain why this is the case. c) Comment on the title of the article in light of your answer to part b.

Short Answer

Expert verified
a) No, it's not an experiment because variables aren't manipulated. b) Causality can't be inferred because cross-sectional studies only show correlation. c) The title misleadingly suggests causality not supported by the study.

Step by step solution

01

Determine if it's an Experiment

In an experiment, researchers manipulate one or more variables to determine the effect on another variable. In this study, researchers observed pre-sleep activities and sleep times, but they did not manipulate or control these activities. They simply recorded existing behaviors and their correlates.
02

Conclusion about the Experimental Nature

Since the study did not involve any manipulation or control of variables by the researchers, it is not an experiment. It is instead an observational study where the researchers observed natural behaviors without interference.
03

Understand Cross-Sectional Study

A cross-sectional study observes a single moment in time, collecting data from a population at one specific point. This type of study can identify correlations but cannot establish a time sequence of events necessary to infer causality.
04

Reason Why Causality Cannot Be Inferred

Because a cross-sectional study does not follow participants over time to see changes or effects from variables, it lacks the temporal relationship required to determine what caused what. Thus, while a correlation (relationship) can be noted, causality (cause and effect) cannot be inferred.
05

Evaluating the Article Title

The title "TV Before Bed May Rob Teens of Sleep" implies a causal relationship between watching TV and reduced sleep. However, since causality cannot be determined from a cross-sectional study, this title suggests a conclusion that the study itself cannot support.
06

Implication of Inferred Correlation

The study might only indicate that there is some connection or correlation between these variables rather than a direct cause and effect. The title could be misleading without a thorough understanding that correlation does not imply causation.

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.

Cross-Sectional Study
A cross-sectional study is a type of observational research where data is collected from a population or a representative subset at a single point in time. It aims to find out the presence and frequency of certain characteristics within the group. In the case of the sleep and TV study, researchers gathered data from a group of teenagers in New Zealand at one particular time. This method allows for collecting a snapshot of what is happening in the study group regarding pre-sleep activities such as TV watching.
Cross-sectional studies are useful for several reasons:
  • They are relatively quick and inexpensive since they do not require long-term follow-up.
  • Data collection is typically straightforward, often relying on surveys or interviews.
  • These studies are good for assessing the prevalence of behaviors or conditions.
However, it is essential to remember that because cross-sectional studies capture a single moment in time, they cannot show how variables change over time. This limitation prevents researchers from understanding the true direction or causality between variables.
Causality in Research
Causality refers to the relationship between two events where one directly causes the other to occur. In research, establishing causation means that a change in one variable is responsible for the change in another. Researchers need to determine the temporal order of events and rule out other explanations.
For the TV and sleep study, causality could not be established because the researchers simply gathered data at one time without following the youth over a period. This made it hard to determine if watching TV caused less sleep or if other factors played a role. These could include:
  • The natural tendency of night owls to both watch more TV and sleep later.
  • Socioeconomic factors that influence both screen time and bedtime.
  • Personal habits or preferences that were not accounted for in the study.
Thus, causal relationships could not be concluded from the study without controlling and manipulating variables in ways that cross-sectional studies do not allow.
Correlation vs Causation
A frequent challenge in research is differentiating between correlation and causation. Correlation refers to a connection or relationship between two variables where they move together in some way, whereas causation means one variable causes the other to happen. Just because two things occur together does not mean one caused the other.
In the context of the sleep study, while a correlation was observed between pre-sleep television watching and later sleep times, causation was not proven. This means that even if these two variables go hand in hand, it does not necessarily mean TV watching causes less sleep. Other external factors could influence both, or the causation could even go in reverse. Important considerations include:
  • A third variable might be affecting both (e.g., stress leading to both more TV watching and later sleep).
  • The observed effect might be coincidental and not demonstrate any true relationship.
  • Structural limitations in the study design that do not allow establishing cause and effect.
Understanding the distinction between correlation and causation is essential in interpreting research findings accurately, warning against misleading conclusions as provided by titles like "TV Before Bed May Rob Teens of Sleep."

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

Migraines Some people claim they can get relief from migraine headache pain by drinking a large glass of ice water. Researchers plan to enlist several people who suffer from migraines in a test. Participants will be randomly assigned to a standard pain reliever or a placebo. When a participant experiences a migraine headache, he or she will take the pill. Half of each group will also drink ice water. Participants will then report the level of pain relief they experience. a) Identify the factors and levels in this experiment. b) Identify the treatments and the response variable. c) Is there any blinding described in the study? d) No blocking is described in the study. What might be an appropriate variable on which to block? Clearly explain why you think this variable would be appropriate.

Researchers who examined health records of thousands of males found that men who died of myocardial infarction (heart attack) tended to be shorter than men who did not. a) Is this an experiment? If not, what kind of study is it? b) Is it correct to conclude that shorter men are at higher risk for heart attack? Explain.

Read each brief report of statistical research, and identify a) whether it was an observational study or an experiment. If it was an observational study, identify (if possible) b) whether it was retrospective or prospective. c) the subjects studied and how they were selected. d) the parameter of interest. e) the nature and scope of the conclusion the study can reach. If it was an experiment, identify (if possible) b) the subjects studied. c) the factor(s) in the experiment and the number of levels for each. d) the number of treatments. e) the response variable measured. f) the design (completely randomized, blocked, or matched). g) whether it was blind (or double-blind). h) the nature and scope of the conclusion the experiment can reach. Vitamin C doping Some people who race greyhounds give the dogs large doses of vitamin \(\mathrm{C}\) in the belief that the dogs will run faster. Investigators at the University of Florida tried three different diets in random order on each of five racing greyhounds. They were surprised to find that when the dogs ate high amounts of vitamin C they ran more slowly. (Science News, July 20,2002 )

Diet and blood pressure An experiment that showed that subjects fed the DASH diet were able to lower their blood pressure by an average of 6.7 points compared to a group fed a "control diet." All meals were prepared by dieticians. a) Why were the subjects randomly assigned to the diets instead of letting people pick what they wanted to eat? b) Why were the meals prepared by dieticians? c) Why did the researchers need the control group? If the DASH diet group's blood pressure was lower at the end of the experiment than at the beginning, wouldn't that prove the effectiveness of that diet? d) What additional information would you want to know in order to decide whether an average reduction in blood pressure of 6.7 points was statistically significant?

Weekend deaths A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Aug. 2001) suggests that it's dangerous to enter a hospital on a weekend. During a 10-year period, researchers tracked over 4 million emergency admissions to hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Their findings revealed that patients admitted on weekends had a much higher risk of death than those who went on weekdays. a) The researchers said the difference in death rates was "statistically significant." Explain in this context what that means. b) What kind of study was this? Explain. c) If you think you're quite ill on a Saturday, should you wait until Monday to seek medical help? Explain. d) Suggest some possible explanations for this troubling finding.

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.