writters choice

Order Description
TOPIC: The Value of Attending Review Sessions.
PROBLEM: The purpose of this experiment is to determine if attending the review session for the distance education course, Statistics For The Behavioral Sciences: Psyc 2317, will affect scores.
HYPOTHESIS: A. WORDING OF THE HYPOTHESES Null Hypothesis : Students who attended a review session will not score
significantly differently than those who do not.
Alternative Hypothesis : Students who attended a review session will score significantly differently than those who do not.
(Notice the two forms of the hypotheses are stated as a logical contrast between two conditions)
B. THE STUDYS VARIABLES Independent variable-Whether or not a student attended. Dependent variable-test scores. (Notice both variables are identified in a measurable way)
C. THE STATISTICAL NOTATION Ho: u attendees scores = u abstainers scores. Ha: u attendees scores =/= u abstainers scores. (Notice that the particular statistic being compared across the two conditions is
identified, in this case u is the mean. Also, great care is taken to make sure the number of tails or directions is consistent between the statistical notation and the wording of the hypotheses.)
(Do not call your subjects attendees or abstainers to avoid plagiarism or ten points will be taken off the grade for your paper.)

SUBJECTS: Students in Dr. Greco’s Psyc 2317 course were the population being considered. The class was a cross-section of Houston’s diverse population. Two samples of N=30 subjects were selected by a process of randomization from Dr. Greco’s student population. One sample was randomly selected from the population of ‘attenders’, those who attended a review session; and the other sample was randomly selected from the ‘abstainers’, those who did not attend any review session. Both random samples were cross-sectional in make-up, reflecting the diverse make-up of the student population.
Notice this section provides the number of subject, the number the groups, the risk of bias (addressed by randomizing) and the degree of diversity (addressed by using a cross-section of people).

APPARATUS: The exam, a writing instrument, a calculator with its instruction card and some scrap paper were the supplies. These are the supplies and devices needed to run the study.

PROCEDURE: Students were informed at an orientation for the course. Psyc 2317, that there were two review sessions (one Friday night and another Saturday morning) that they were recommended to attend. While grading the test, the evaluator noted which students were recognized from either review session. Those became the ‘attenders’ population from which a random sample of 30 was drawn. The average score for the ‘attenders’ was compared to the ‘abstainers. Again, the ‘abstainers’ were that population of students who did not show up at either review session, becoming the source of the second random sample.
Keep in mind that the procedure should match the hypothesis and the test statistic chosen.

STATISTIC’: An independent ‘t test’ was used to compare the average score for the ‘attenders’ to that of the ‘abstainers’. This was because there were two means to compare, both measured with continuous level data. Alpha was set at .05, and the hypothesis was non-directional.
(Do not use the independent t test in your paper to avoid plagiarism or 20 points will be deducted from your paper grade. Use another test statistic appropriate for the hypotheses you have chosen. Keep in mind, it will not be appropriate to use Pearson’s r as the assignment is to propose a ‘cause and effect’ relation between variables and not a correlation.)

RESULTS: The ‘attenders’ averaged a score of 94, while the ‘abstainers’ averaged 73; significantly different (P<.05).
The outcome is hypothetical. No data is collected. No subjects a run. Just planning a study.

CONCLUSION: Attending the review session significantly change scores, therefore, I shall reject the Null Hypothesis of no effect up scores by attendance. In fact, no student who attended either review session received Et score as low as 73. A subsequent analysis did not find a significant difference between ‘Friday night reviewers’ and ‘Saturday morning reviewers.
Astatistical decision is made here. The outcome of this study is related to the initial question.

Many of the terms in this example will not be familiar to you until you have read Chapter 8.There are no calculations as no data is required for this assignment. The paper is a theoretical proposal for an experiment, and the results are strictly hypothetical. It is not necessary to run any subjects and this instructor would not recommend research conducted without supervision
Papers are to be submitted in a timely fashion to the Messaging System within this course by cutting a pasting the contents of your paper file into a note addressed to me, your instructor. Computer problems are not an excuse for tardiness, as the student knows this is an online course and should plan accordingly. It is recommended that students try a practice run of submitting their paper before it is due to be sure they know how to submit it in a timely manner.
.