Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
10.07 Segment 2 Honors Project
Transcript of 10.07 Segment 2 Honors Project
The first task of the Segment Two Honors Project is to select the Power Pill study participants’ groups and research board officers.
Task 1 - Part One
There are 40 volunteers for the research study on the Power Pill. Each subgroup of the study will contain 10 participants. Determine how many ways these participants can be selected and explain your method.
Task 1: Part Two
There are 15 research doctors participating in the study and the research board needs to be established with the offices of director, assistant director, quality control analyst, and correspondent. (Doctors can only hold one office on the research board.) Determine how many ways this research board can be chosen and explain your process.
The Comparison method would be appropiate since the order of which the participants selected does not matter.
According the formula, where you have
things and you are choosing
of them at a time, there are 847,660,528 ways that the participants can be selected.
The same people are being chosen for different offices, the order does matter. Therefore, the permutation method is required.
According to the formula there are 32,760 ways the research board can be selected from the 15 research doctors.
The study participants were divided into four groups—two groups received the Power Pill (Group A and Group B) and two groups received a placebo (Group C and Group D). The effects of the Power Pill were measured. One group that received the Power Pill (Group A) and one group that received the placebo (Group C) were told of the anticipated effects of the Power Pill—accelerated hair growth—while the other two groups (Group B and Group D) were not provided with this information. All four groups were told to monitor and report any physical changes during the study.
Results were reported and participants were grouped as to either “Saw Results,” meaning that participants reported increased hair growth as part of physical changes during the study, or “No Results,” meaning that increased hair growth was not mentioned as part of physical changes during study.
Results are as follows:
•6 in Group A saw results.
•7 in Group B saw results.
•5 in Group C saw results.
•4 in Group D saw results.
Task 2 - Part One and Two and Three
Create a two-way table for the data and find the probabilities for each group. Describe results in terms of the study.
60% of Group A saw results
70% of Group B saw results
50% of Group C saw results
40% of Group D saw results
According to the Results...
Out of the people who received power pill, 65% saw results and 35% didn't.
Out of the people who received the placebo,
45% saw results and 55% didn't.
In other words, 55% of the participants saw results and 45% of of them didn't;
65% of the people who saw results were given the power pill and 45% of them were give the placebo.
The probability that a person received the placebo, given that they did not see results is approximately 61.1%; The probability that a person received the Power Pill, given that they did not see results is approximately 38.9%.
Use your knowledge of fair decision making and probability concepts to analyze the product testing of the Power Pill
Task 3 - Parts One
Based on your knowledge of fair decision making and probability concepts, should the Power Pill be produced and distributed? Explain your reasoning.
No, I disagree with the public distribution of the power pill. I do know the all processes of selection were completely randomized and fair decision making was practiced. Although, I believe there is a need for further study, repetition of the experiment, re-randomization of data and peer review before assuring the effectiveness of the power pill.
Task 3 - Parts Two
What effect (if any) did telling two groups about expected outcomes have on results? Use statistics to provide proof for your reasoning and explain.
I do not know if knowing the effects of the pill affect the actual outcome of the treatment or not, because i have considerable reasons for both arguments.
Group A and C were told about the effect of the pill; Group A received the pill and 6 out of 10 saw results, Group C were given the placebo and 5 out of ten saw results. Group B and D were not given the information; Group B received the pill and 7 out of 10 saw results, Group D received the placebo and only 4 out of 10 saw results. The results show that weather or not they were told about the effects of the pill, the ones who received it saw results and the ones who were given the placebo.
Although, giving information to a person about the effects of a medication can affect their mentality about the product and possibly the way they interpret physical changes. If a person was told the effects of a product and then used it, the "results" they see could be psychological or interfered by the knowledge they have of the products effectiveness itself.
Task 3 - Part 3
Are there any flaws in the testing process? Should any of the steps or protocol be changed/avoided during round two of testing? Explain your reasoning.
Yes, there is two aspects about the experiment that make it unreliable:
1. There are two testable variables, the effect of medication and the effect of knowledge. Technically, there are two treatment groups - Group A and B who received the medication and Group A and C who received information - and two "control" groups - Group C and D who received the placebo and Group B and D who did not receive information. There can only be one independent variable being tested and the control group can not be changed or have any special treatment in order to correctly compare the results of treatment group to the control group and make a conclusion.
2. Results are recorded based on the criteria of the participants rather than scientifically measured and analyzed changes. Therefore, the results could be biased.