# 2 Study design

Before digging into the details of working with data, we stop to think about how and why data come to be. If the data are to be useful in drawing a conclusion, then it is important to understand who or what the data represent. How do the observed variables relate to our research question(s)? How were units selected from some larger entity? Knowing the answers to these kinds of questions will allow us to generalize back to the population from which the data were selected. Additionally, by understanding the structure of the study, causal relationships can be separated from those relationships which are only associations.

## 2.1 Operationalization

The first step in conducting research is to specify a research question. Doing this in a clear and thoughtful way is necessary to identify what subjects or cases should be studied and what variables should be observed.

Consider the following research question:

Do typical adults remember items at the end of a list better than those from earlier in a list?

How do we decide what variables to observe in order to address this research question? Notice that this research question is about the relationship between two concepts: memory quality and time within a list.

How might we measure “time within a list?” What kind of variable would this be?25

Unlike time within a list, “memory quality” is not something that can be directly observed. Memory quality is a theoretical construct. A theoretical construct is something that probably exists but that cannot be directly observed. Many psychological concepts are theoretical constructs, including things like “happiness,” “friendship,” “quality of life,” or “expertise.”

Because a theoretical construct cannot be directly observed, we have to find a way to observe it indirectly. Translating a theoretical construct into something we can observe is called operationalization. We “operationalize” a theoretical construct in terms of something we can observe. The resulting variable then becomes part of our data.

How can we operationalize the theoretical construct of memory quality?

Psychologists have many ways to operationalize memory quality, each of which yields a variable for our data.

We could ask participants to recall the items from the list and count the number of correct recalls of material from different time points in the list; this would yield a discrete numerical variable.

We could also show participants items from different parts of the list and measure how long it takes them to recognize that they saw each item; this would yield a continuous numerical variable.

It is also possible to observe multiple variables, each of which would be a different way of operationalizing memory quality.

Because there are often multiple ways to operationalize a theoretical construct, we must be concerned with construct validity. Construct validity refers to how well any given operationalization reflects the theoretical construct we are actually interested in. Different ways of operationalizing a construct may be more valid than others. Unfortunately, because theoretical constructs cannot be directly observed (by definition), there is no way to know for sure how much construct validity an operationalization has.

However, we can gain confidence in an operationalization’s construct validity by looking at how the resulting variable changes across different studies and populations. If that variable consistently changes in a way that makes sense given the definition of the theoretical construct, then our operationalization probably has good construct validity. For example, if over many different studies and individuals, the time to recognize an item consistently decreases if we repeat the item or present it for a longer time, this gives us reason to believe the variable “time to recognize” is a valid operationalization of the theoretical construct of memory quality.

Construct validity is a concern in experimental design because an experiment requires a researcher to specify how they will operationalize the theoretical constructs in their research question. It is perhaps even more important in observational studies, where researchers often are unable to control exactly what gets observed. As a result, any conclusions we can draw based on a survey are limited by the construct validity of the variables that were observed.

A researcher has access to a large representative survey of American adults. Their research question is whether there is an association between education and wealth. Education and wealth are theoretical constructs and must be operationalized using variables that were observed in the survey.

The survey recorded each respondent’s highest academic degree achieved, average high school GPA (for those who attended high school), number of years in school, and SAT scores (for those who took the SAT).

The survey also recorded their annual salary, total household income, their self-reported net worth, and their self-reported credit scores.

Which of these variables might be used to operationalize the theoretical construct of education? Which of these variables might be used to operationalize the theoretical construct of wealth? Would all of them be expected to have equal construct validity? Can you think of any other variables that might have more construct validity than those mentioned above?26

## 2.2 Sampling principles and strategies

Just as it is important to consider how well the variables in a dataset represent the theoretical constructs in our research question, it is important to consider how those data are collected.

### 2.2.1 Populations and samples

Consider the following three research questions:

1. What is the average mercury content in swordfish in the Atlantic Ocean?
2. Over the last five years, what is the average time to complete a degree for Duke undergrads?
3. Does a new drug reduce the number of deaths in patients with severe heart disease?

Each research question refers to a target population. In the first question, the target population is all swordfish in the Atlantic ocean, and each fish represents a case. Oftentimes, it is not feasible to collect data for every case in a population. Collecting data for an entire population is called a census. A census is difficult because it is too expensive to collect data for the entire population, but it might also be because it is difficult or impossible to identify the entire population of interest! Instead, a sample is taken. A sample is the data you have. Ideally, a sample is a small fraction of the population. For instance, 60 swordfish (or some other number) in the population might be selected, and this sample data may be used to provide an estimate of the population average and to answer the research question.

For the second and third questions above, identify the target population and what represents an individual case.27

### 2.2.2 Types of populations

In the examples above, the term “population” referred to a group of individual people or non-human animals. This is how the term “population” is typically used. But in statistics, the term “population” can be used more broadly.

A “population” need not refer to a set of living things. For example, we may be interested in studying the the frequency with which different types of words are used in social media. In that case, an individual case would be a social media post (e.g., a tweet or Facebook post) and the target population would be all social media posts (or perhaps all social media posts on a particular service within a particular span of time).

A “population” might refer not to different things, but to the same thing observed at multiple times or in multiple conditions. For example, a clinical psychologist might evaluate a patient’s working memory capacity several times during a diagnostic session. The resulting values represent a sample from the population of measurements that could have been taken from that patient if it were possible to do so continually. Collecting multiple measurements is important because they will probably vary over time due to chance.

Finally, a “population” need not even consist entirely of things that actually exist, but may instead represent a collection of things that might exist. For example, although a particular election occurs only once, we can study whether it might have turned out differently. We can think of an election outcome as a case from a population of possible elections, only one of which happened to occur.

### 2.2.3 Parameters and statistics

In the majority of statistical analysis procedures, the research question at hand boils down to understanding a numerical summary. A numerical summary can be calculated on either the sample of observation or the entire population. However, measuring every unit in the population is usually prohibitive. So, a “typical” numerical summary is calculated from a sample. Yet, we can still conceptualize calculating a numerical summary of the entire population.

We use specific terms in order to differentiate when a number is being calculated on a sample of data (statistic) and when it is being calculated or considered for calculation on the entire population (parameter). The terms statistic and parameter are useful for communicating claims and models and will be used extensively in later chapters which delve into making inference on populations.

### 2.2.4 Anecdotal evidence

Consider the following possible responses to the three research questions:

1. A man on the news got mercury poisoning from eating swordfish, so the average mercury concentration in swordfish must be dangerously high.
2. I met two students who took more than 7 years to graduate from Duke, so it must take longer to graduate at Duke than at many other colleges.
3. My friend’s dad had a heart attack and died after they gave him a new heart disease drug, so the drug must not work.

Each conclusion is based on data. However, there are two problems. First, the data only represent one or two cases. Second, and more importantly, it is unclear whether these cases are actually representative of the population. Data collected in this haphazard fashion are called anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence.

Be careful of data collected in a haphazard fashion. Such evidence may be true and verifiable, but it may only represent extraordinary cases and therefore not be a good representation of the population.

Anecdotal evidence typically is composed of unusual cases that we recall based on their striking characteristics. For instance, we are more likely to remember the two people we met who took 7 years to graduate than the six others who graduated in four years. Instead of looking at the most unusual cases, we should examine a sample of many cases that better represent the population.

### 2.2.5 Sampling from a population

We might try to estimate the time to graduation for Duke undergraduates in the last five years by collecting a sample of graduates. All graduates in the last five years represent the population, and graduates who are selected for review are collectively called the sample. In general, we always seek to randomly select a sample from a population. The most basic type of random selection is equivalent to how raffles are conducted. For example, in selecting graduates, we could write each graduate’s name on a raffle ticket and draw 10 tickets. The selected names would represent a random sample of 10 graduates.

Suppose we ask a student who happens to be majoring in nutrition to select several graduates for the study. What kind of students do you think they might collect? Do you think their sample would be representative of all graduates?

Perhaps they would pick a disproportionate number of graduates from health-related fields. Or perhaps their selection would be a good representation of the population. When selecting samples by hand, we run the risk of picking a biased sample, even if our bias is unintended.

If someone was permitted to pick and choose exactly which graduates were included in the sample, it is entirely possible that the sample would overrepresent that person’s interests, which may be entirely unintentional. This introduces bias into a sample. Sampling randomly helps address this problem. The most basic random sample is called a simple random sample, and is equivalent to drawing names out of a hat to select cases. This means that each case in the population has an equal chance of being included and the cases in the sample are not related to each other.

The act of taking a simple random sample helps minimize bias. However, bias can crop up in other ways. Even when people are picked at random, e.g., for surveys, caution must be exercised if the non-response rate is high. For instance, if only 30% of the people randomly sampled for a survey actually respond, then it is unclear whether the results are representative of the entire population. This non-response bias can skew results.

Another common downfall is a convenience sample, where individuals who are easily accessible are more likely to be included in the sample. For instance, if a political survey is done by stopping people walking in the Bronx, this will not represent all of New York City. It is often difficult to discern what sub-population a convenience sample represents.

We can easily access ratings for products, sellers, and companies through websites. These ratings are based only on those people who go out of their way to provide a rating. If 50% of online reviews for a product are negative, do you think this means that 50% of buyers are dissatisfied with the product? Why or why not?28

### 2.2.6 Simple random sampling

Almost all statistical methods are based on the notion of implied randomness. If data are not collected in a random framework from a population, these statistical methods – the estimates and errors associated with the estimates – are not reliable.

Simple random sampling is probably the most intuitive form of random sampling and the only type that we will focus on in this book as it is the basis for the statistical methods we will cover. Consider the salaries of Major League Baseball (MLB) players, where each player is a member of one of the league’s 30 teams. To take a simple random sample of 120 baseball players and their salaries, we could write the names of that season’s several hundreds of players onto slips of paper, drop the slips into a bucket, shake the bucket around until we are sure the names are all mixed up, then draw out slips until we have the sample of 120 players. In general, a sample is referred to as “simple random” if each case in the population has an equal chance of being included in the final sample and knowing that a case is included in a sample does not provide useful information about which other cases are included.

Randomness, chance, variability, and uncertainty.

In normal conversation, to say something is “random” or due to “chance” implies that it is unpredictable or arbitrary. In statistics, we use the terms “random” or “chance” to describe variability in data that we cannot explain or that is irrelevant to our research question.

It is entirely possible for something that seems random to be the result of a systematic and understandable process that we simply cannot explain using the data available. As a result, the terms “random” and “chance” in statistics reflect the limitations of our knowledge and data, not necessarily something about the world at large.

Much of statistics is based around identifying variability we can explain and separating it from variability that we cannot. This allows us to describe the residual uncertainty we may have regarding any conclusions drawn from data.

## 2.3 Experiments

Studies where the researchers assign treatments to cases are called experiments. When this assignment includes randomization, e.g., using a coin flip to decide which treatment a patient receives, it is called a randomized experiment. Randomized experiments are fundamentally important when trying to show a causal connection between two variables.

### 2.3.1 Principles of experimental design

1. Controlling. Researchers assign treatments to cases, and they do their best to control any other differences in the groups29. For example, when patients take a drug in pill form, some patients take the pill with only a sip of water while others may have it with an entire glass of water. To control for the effect of water consumption, a doctor may instruct every patient to drink a 12 ounce glass of water with the pill.
1. Randomization. Researchers randomize patients into treatment groups to account for variables that cannot be controlled. For example, some patients may be more susceptible to a disease than others due to their dietary habits. In this example dietary habit is a confounding variable30, which is defined as a variable that is associated with both the explanatory and response variables. Randomizing patients into the treatment or control group helps even out such differences.

2. Replication. The more cases researchers observe, the more accurately they can estimate the effect of the explanatory variable on the response. In a single study, we replicate by collecting a sufficiently large sample. What is considered sufficiently large varies from experiment to experiment, but at a minimum we want to have multiple subjects (experimental units) per treatment group. Another way of achieving replication is replicating an entire study to verify an earlier finding. The term replication crisis refers to the ongoing methodological crisis in which past findings from scientific studies in several disciplines have failed to be replicated. Pseudoreplication occurs when individual observations under different treatments are heavily dependent on each other. For example, suppose you have 50 subjects in an experiment where you’re taking blood pressure measurements at 10 time points throughout the course of the study. By the end, you will have 50 $$\times$$ 10 = 500 measurements. Reporting that you have 500 observations would be considered pseudoreplication, as the blood pressure measurements of a given individual are not independent of each other. Pseudoreplication often happens when the wrong entity is replicated, and the reported sample sizes are exaggerated.

1. Blocking. Researchers sometimes know or suspect that variables, other than the treatment, influence the response. Under these circumstances, they may first group individuals based on this variable into blocks and then randomize cases within each block to the treatment groups. This strategy is often referred to as blocking. For instance, if we are looking at the effect of a drug on heart attacks, we might first split patients in the study into low-risk and high-risk blocks, then randomly assign half the patients from each block to the control group and the other half to the treatment group, as shown in Figure 2.5. This strategy ensures that each treatment group has the same number of low-risk patients and also the same number of high-risk patients.

It is important to incorporate the first three experimental design principles into any study, and this book describes applicable methods for analyzing data from such experiments. Blocking is a slightly more advanced technique, and statistical methods in this book may be extended to analyze data collected using blocking.

### 2.3.2 Reducing bias in human experiments

Randomized experiments have long been considered to be the gold standard for data collection, but they do not ensure an unbiased perspective into the cause and effect relationship in all cases. Human studies are perfect examples where bias can unintentionally arise. Here we reconsider a study where a new drug was used to treat heart attack patients. In particular, researchers wanted to know if the drug reduced deaths in patients.

These researchers designed a randomized experiment because they wanted to draw causal conclusions about the drug’s effect. Study volunteers31 were randomly placed into two study groups. One group, the treatment group, received the drug. The other group, called the control group, did not receive any drug treatment.

Put yourself in the place of a person in the study. If you are in the treatment group, you are given a fancy new drug that you anticipate will help you. On the other hand, a person in the other group doesn’t receive the drug and sits idly, hoping her participation doesn’t increase her risk of death. These perspectives suggest there are actually two effects in this study: the one of interest is the effectiveness of the drug, and the second is an emotional effect of (not) taking the drug, which is difficult to quantify.

Researchers aren’t usually interested in the emotional effect, which might bias the study. To circumvent this problem, researchers do not want patients to know which group they are in. When researchers keep the patients uninformed about their treatment, the study is said to be blind. But there is one problem: if a patient doesn’t receive a treatment, they will know they’re in the control group. A solution to this problem is to give a fake treatment to patients in the control group. This is called a placebo, and an effective placebo is the key to making a study truly blind. A classic example of a placebo is a sugar pill that is made to look like the actual treatment pill. However offering such a fake treatment may not be ethical in certain experiments. For example, in medical experiments, typically the control group must get the current standard of care. Oftentimes, a placebo results in a slight but real improvement in patients. This effect has been dubbed the placebo effect.

The patients are not the only ones who should be blinded: doctors and researchers can unintentionally bias a study. When a doctor knows a patient has been given the real treatment, they might inadvertently give that patient more attention or care than a patient that they know is on the placebo. To guard against this bias, which again has been found to have a measurable effect in some instances, most modern studies employ a double-blind setup where doctors or researchers who interact with patients are, just like the patients, unaware of who is or is not receiving the treatment.32

Look back to the study in Section 1.1 where researchers were testing whether stents were effective at reducing strokes in at-risk patients. Is this an experiment? Was the study blinded? Was it double-blinded?33

For the study in Section 1.1, could the researchers have employed a placebo? If so, what would that placebo have looked like?34

You may have many questions about the ethics of sham surgeries to create a placebo. These questions may have even arisen in your mind when in the general experiment context, where a possibly helpful treatment was withheld from individuals in the control group; the main difference is that a sham surgery tends to create additional risk, while withholding a treatment only maintains a person’s risk.

There are always multiple viewpoints of experiments and placebos, and rarely is it obvious which is ethically “correct.” For instance, is it ethical to use a sham surgery when it creates a risk to the patient? However, if we don’t use sham surgeries, we may promote the use of a costly treatment that has no real effect; if this happens, money and other resources will be diverted away from other treatments that are known to be helpful. Ultimately, this is a difficult situation where we cannot perfectly protect both the patients who have volunteered for the study and the patients who may benefit (or not) from the treatment in the future.

## 2.4 Observational studies

Data where no treatment has been explicitly applied (or explicitly withheld) is called observational data. For instance, the loan data and county data described in Section 1.2 are both examples of observational data.

Making causal conclusions based on experiments is often reasonable, since we can randomly assign the explanatory variable(s), i.e., the treatments. However, making the same causal conclusions based on observational data can be treacherous and is not recommended. Thus, observational studies are generally only sufficient to show associations or form hypotheses that can be later checked with experiments.

Suppose an observational study tracked sunscreen use and skin cancer, and it was found that the more sunscreen someone used, the more likely the person was to have skin cancer. Does this mean sunscreen causes skin cancer?35

Some previous research tells us that using sunscreen actually reduces skin cancer risk, so maybe there is another variable that can explain this hypothetical association between sunscreen usage and skin cancer. One important piece of information that is absent is sun exposure. If someone is out in the sun all day, they are more likely to use sunscreen and more likely to get skin cancer. Exposure to the sun is unaccounted for in the simple observational investigation.

In this example, sun exposure is a confounding variable. The presence of confounding variables is what inhibits the ability for observational studies to make causal claims. While one method to justify making causal conclusions from observational studies is to exhaust the search for confounding variables, there is no guarantee that all confounding variables can be examined or measured.

Figure 1.2 shows a negative association between the homeownership rate and the percentage of housing units that are in multi-unit structures in a county. However, it is unreasonable to conclude that there is a causal relationship between the two variables. Suggest a variable that might explain the negative relationship.36

Observational studies come in two forms: prospective and retrospective studies. A prospective study identifies individuals and collects information as events unfold. For instance, medical researchers may identify and follow a group of patients over many years to assess the possible influences of behavior on cancer risk. One example of such a study is The Nurses’ Health Study. Started in 1976 and expanded in 1989, the Nurses’ Health Study has collected data on over 275,000 nurses and is still enrolling participants. This prospective study recruits registered nurses and then collects data from them using questionnaires. Retrospective studies collect data after events have taken place, e.g., researchers may review past events in medical records. Some datasets may contain both prospectively- and retrospectively-collected variables, such as medical studies which gather information on participants’ lives before they enter the study and subsequently collect data on participants throughout the study.

## 2.5 Chapter review

### 2.5.1 Summary

A strong analyst will have a good sense of the types of data they are working with and how to visualize the data in order to gain a complete understanding of the variables. Equally important however, is an understanding of the data source. In this chapter, we have discussed randomized experiments and taking good, random, representative samples from a population. When we discuss inferential methods (starting in Chapter 6), the conclusions that can be drawn will be dependent on how the data were collected. Figure 2.6 summarizes the differences between random assignment of treatments and random samples.37 Regularly revisiting Figure 2.6 will be important when making conclusions from a given data analysis.

### 2.5.2 Terms

We introduced the following terms in the chapter. If you’re not sure what some of these terms mean, we recommend you go back in the text and review their definitions. We are purposefully presenting them in alphabetical order, instead of in order of appearance, so they will be a little more challenging to locate. However you should be able to easily spot them as bolded text.

 anecdotal evidence non-response bias replication crisis bias non-response rate representative blind observational data retrospective study blocking parameter sample census placebo sample bias confounding variable placebo effect simple random sample control population simple random sampling control group prospective study statistic convenience sample pseudoreplication treatment group double-blind randomized experiment experiment replication

## 2.6 Exercises

Answers to odd numbered exercises can be found in Appendix A.2.

1. Parameters and statistics. Identify which value represents the sample mean and which value represents the claimed population mean.

1. American households spent an average of about $52 in 2007 on Halloween merchandise such as costumes, decorations and candy. To see if this number had changed, researchers conducted a new survey in 2008 before industry numbers were reported. The survey included 1,500 households and found that average Halloween spending was$58 per household.

2. The average GPA of students in 2001 at a private university was 3.37. A survey on a sample of 203 students from this university yielded an average GPA of 3.59 a decade later.

2. Sleeping in college. A recent article in a college newspaper stated that college students get an average of 5.5 hrs of sleep each night. A student who was skeptical about this value decided to conduct a survey by randomly sampling 25 students. On average, the sampled students slept 6.25 hours per night. Identify which value represents the sample mean and which value represents the claimed population mean.

3. Air pollution and birth outcomes, scope of inference. Researchers collected data to examine the relationship between air pollutants and preterm births in Southern California. During the study air pollution levels were measured by air quality monitoring stations. Length of gestation data were collected on 143,196 births between the years 1989 and 1993, and air pollution exposure during gestation was calculated for each birth.

1. Identify the population of interest and the sample in this study.

2. Comment on whether or not the results of the study can be generalized to the population, and if the findings of the study can be used to establish causal relationships.

4. Cheaters, scope of inference. Researchers studying the relationship between honesty, age and self-control conducted an experiment on 160 children between the ages of 5 and 15. The researchers asked each child to toss a fair coin in private and to record the outcome (white or black) on a paper sheet, and said they would only reward children who report white. Half the students were explicitly told not to cheat and the others were not given any explicit instructions. Differences were observed in the cheating rates in the instruction and no instruction groups, as well as some differences across children’s characteristics within each group.

1. Identify the population of interest and the sample in this study.

2. Comment on whether or not the results of the study can be generalized to the population, and if the findings of the study can be used to establish causal relationships.

1. Identify the population of interest and the sample in this study.

2. Comment on whether or not the results of the study can be generalized to the population, and if the findings of the study can be used to establish causal relationships.

6. Stealers, scope of inference. In a study of the relationship between socio-economic class and unethical behavior, 129 University of California undergraduates at Berkeley were asked to identify themselves as having low or high social-class by comparing themselves to others with the most (least) money, most (least) education, and most (least) respected jobs. They were also presented with a jar of individually wrapped candies and informed that the candies were for children in a nearby laboratory, but that they could take some if they wanted. After completing some unrelated tasks, participants reported the number of candies they had taken. It was found that those who were identified as upper-class took more candy than others.

1. Identify the population of interest and the sample in this study.

2. Comment on whether or not the results of the study can be generalized to the population, and if the findings of the study can be used to establish causal relationships.

7. Relaxing after work. The General Social Survey asked the question, “After an average work day, about how many hours do you have to relax or pursue activities that you enjoy?” to a random sample of 1,155 Americans. The average relaxing time was found to be 1.65 hours. Determine which of the following is an observation, a variable, a sample statistic (value calculated based on the observed sample), or a population parameter.38

1. An American in the sample.

2. Number of hours spent relaxing after an average work day.

3. 1.65.

4. Average number of hours all Americans spend relaxing after an average work day.

8. Cats on YouTube. Suppose you want to estimate the percentage of videos on YouTube that are cat videos. It is impossible for you to watch all videos on YouTube so you use a random video picker to select 1000 videos for you. You find that 2% of these videos are cat videos. Determine which of the following is an observation, a variable, a sample statistic (value calculated based on the observed sample), or a population parameter.

1. Percentage of all videos on YouTube that are cat videos.

2. 2%.

3. A video in your sample.

4. Whether or not a video is a cat video.

9. Course satisfaction across sections. A large college class has 160 students. All 160 students attend the lectures together, but the students are divided into 4 groups, each of 40 students, for lab sections administered by different teaching assistants. The professor wants to conduct a survey about how satisfied the students are with the course, and he believes that the lab section a student is in might affect the student’s overall satisfaction with the course.

1. What type of study is this?

2. Suggest a sampling strategy for carrying out this study.

10. Housing proposal across dorms. On a large college campus first-year students and sophomores live in dorms located on the eastern part of the campus and juniors and seniors live in dorms located on the western part of the campus. Suppose you want to collect student opinions on a new housing structure the college administration is proposing and you want to make sure your survey equally represents opinions from students from all years.

1. What type of study is this?

2. Suggest a sampling strategy for carrying out this study.

11. Internet use and life expectancy. The following scatterplot was created as part of a study evaluating the relationship between estimated life expectancy at birth (as of 2014) and percentage of internet users (as of 2009) in 208 countries for which such data were available.39

1. Describe the relationship between life expectancy and percentage of internet users.

2. What type of study is this?

3. State a possible confounding variable that might explain this relationship and describe its potential effect.

12. Stressed out. A study that surveyed a random sample of otherwise healthy high school students found that they are more likely to get muscle cramps when they are stressed. The study also noted that students drink more coffee and sleep less when they are stressed.

1. What type of study is this?

2. Can this study be used to conclude a causal relationship between increased stress and muscle cramps?

3. State possible confounding variables that might explain the observed relationship between increased stress and muscle cramps.

13. Evaluate sampling methods. A university wants to determine what fraction of its undergraduate student body support a new \$25 annual fee to improve the student union. For each proposed method below, indicate whether the method is reasonable or not.

1. Survey a simple random sample of 500 students.

2. Stratify students by their field of study, then sample 10% of students from each stratum.

3. Cluster students by their ages (e.g., 18 years old in one cluster, 19 years old in one cluster, etc.), then randomly sample three clusters and survey all students in those clusters.

14. Random digit dialing. The Gallup Poll uses a procedure called random digit dialing, which creates phone numbers based on a list of all area codes in America in conjunction with the associated number of residential households in each area code. Give a possible reason the Gallup Poll chooses to use random digit dialing instead of picking phone numbers from the phone book.

15. Haters are gonna hate, study confirms. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology asked a group of 200 randomly sampled participants recruited online using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to evaluate how they felt about various subjects, such as camping, health care, architecture, taxidermy, crossword puzzles, and Japan in order to measure their attitude towards mostly independent stimuli. Then, they presented the participants with information about a new product: a microwave oven. This microwave oven does not exist, but the participants didn’t know this, and were given three positive and three negative fake reviews. People who reacted positively to the subjects on the dispositional attitude measurement also tended to react positively to the microwave oven, and those who reacted negatively tended to react negatively to it. Researchers concluded that “some people tend to like things, whereas others tend to dislike things, and a more thorough understanding of this tendency will lead to a more thorough understanding of the psychology of attitudes.”

1. What are the cases?

2. What is (are) the response variable(s) in this study?

3. What is (are) the explanatory variable(s) in this study?

4. Does the study employ random sampling? Explain. How could they have obtained participants?

5. Is this an observational study or an experiment? Explain your reasoning.

6. Can we establish a causal link between the explanatory and response variables?

7. Can the results of the study be generalized to the population at large?

16. Family size. Suppose we want to estimate household size, where a “household” is defined as people living together in the same dwelling, and sharing living accommodations. If we select students at random at an elementary school and ask them what their family size is, will this be a good measure of household size? Or will our average be biased? If so, will it overestimate or underestimate the true value?

17. Sampling strategies. A statistics student who is curious about the relationship between the amount of time students spend on social networking sites and their performance at school decides to conduct a survey. Various research strategies for collecting data are described below. In each, name the sampling method proposed and any bias you might expect.

1. They randomly sample 40 students from the study’s population, give them the survey, ask them to fill it out and bring it back the next day.

2. They give out the survey only to their friends, making sure each one of them fills out the survey.

3. They post a link to an online survey on Facebook and ask their friends to fill out the survey.

4. They randomly sample 5 classes and asks a random sample of students from those classes to fill out the survey.

18. Reading the paper. Below are excerpts from two articles published in the NY Times:

1. An excerpt from an article titled Risks: Smokers Found More Prone to Dementia is below. Based on this study, can we conclude that smoking causes dementia later in life? Explain your reasoning.

“Researchers analyzed data from 23,123 health plan members who participated in a voluntary exam and health behavior survey from 1978 to 1985, when they were 50-60 years old. 23 years later, about 25% of the group had dementia, including 1,136 with Alzheimer’s disease and 416 with vascular dementia. After adjusting for other factors, the researchers concluded that pack-a-day smokers were 37% more likely than nonsmokers to develop dementia, and the risks went up with increased smoking; 44% for one to two packs a day; and twice the risk for more than two packs.”

1. An excerpt from an article titled The School Bully Is Sleepy is below. A friend of yours who read the article says, “The study shows that sleep disorders lead to bullying in school children.” Is this statement justified? If not, how best can you describe the conclusion that can be drawn from this study?

“The University of Michigan study, collected survey data from parents on each child’s sleep habits and asked both parents and teachers to assess behavioral concerns. About a third of the students studied were identified by parents or teachers as having problems with disruptive behavior or bullying. The researchers found that children who had behavioral issues and those who were identified as bullies were twice as likely to have shown symptoms of sleep disorders.”

19. Light and exam performance. A study is designed to test the effect of light level on exam performance of students. The researcher believes that light levels might have different effects on people who wear glasses and people who don’t, so they want to make sure both groups of people are equally represented in each treatment. The treatments are fluorescent overhead lighting, yellow overhead lighting, no overhead lighting (only desk lamps).

1. What is the response variable?

2. What is the explanatory variable? What are its levels?

3. What is the blocking variable? What are its levels?

20. Vitamin supplements. To assess the effectiveness of taking large doses of vitamin C in reducing the duration of the common cold, researchers recruited 400 healthy volunteers from staff and students at a university. A quarter of the patients were assigned a placebo, and the rest were evenly divided between 1g Vitamin C, 3g Vitamin C, or 3g Vitamin C plus additives to be taken at onset of a cold for the following two days. All tablets had identical appearance and packaging. The nurses who handed the prescribed pills to the patients knew which patient received which treatment, but the researchers assessing the patients when they were sick did not. No significant differences were observed in any measure of cold duration or severity between the four groups, and the placebo group had the shortest duration of symptoms.

2. What are the explanatory and response variables in this study?

3. Were the patients blinded to their treatment?

5. Participants are ultimately able to choose whether or not to use the pills prescribed to them. We might expect that not all of them will adhere and take their pills. Does this introduce a confounding variable to the study? Explain your reasoning.

21. Light, noise, and exam performance. A study is designed to test the effect of light level and noise level on exam performance of students. The researcher believes that light and noise levels might have different effects on people who wear glasses and people who don’t, so they want to make sure both groups of people are equally represented in each treatment. The light treatments considered are fluorescent overhead lighting, yellow overhead lighting, no overhead lighting (only desk lamps). The noise treatments considered are no noise, construction noise, and human chatter noise.

1. What type of study is this?

2. How many factors are considered in this study? Identify them, and describe their levels.

3. What is the role of the wearing glasses variable in this study?

22. Music and learning. You would like to conduct an experiment in class to see if students learn better if they study without any music, with music that has no lyrics (instrumental), or with music that has lyrics. Briefly outline a design for this study.

23. Soda preference. You would like to conduct an experiment in class to see if your classmates prefer the taste of regular Coke or Diet Coke. Briefly outline a design for this study.

24. Exercise and mental health. A researcher is interested in the effects of exercise on mental health and they propose the following study: use stratified random sampling to ensure representative proportions of 18-30, 31-40 and 41- 55 year olds from the population. Next, randomly assign half the subjects from each age group to exercise twice a week, and instruct the rest not to exercise. Conduct a mental health exam at the beginning and at the end of the study, and compare the results.

1. What type of study is this?

2. What are the treatment and control groups in this study?

3. Does this study make use of blocking? If so, what is the blocking variable?

4. Does this study make use of blinding?

5. Comment on whether or not the results of the study can be used to establish a causal relationship between exercise and mental health, and indicate whether or not the conclusions can be generalized to the population at large.

6. Suppose you are given the task of determining if this proposed study should get funding. Would you have any reservations about the study proposal?

25. Chia seeds and weight loss. Chia Pets – those terra-cotta figurines that sprout fuzzy green hair – made the chia plant a household name. But chia has gained an entirely new reputation as a diet supplement. In one 2009 study, a team of researchers recruited 38 men and divided them randomly into two groups: treatment or control. They also recruited 38 women, and they randomly placed half of these participants into the treatment group and the other half into the control group. One group was given 25 grams of chia seeds twice a day, and the other was given a placebo. The subjects volunteered to be a part of the study. After 12 weeks, the scientists found no significant difference between the groups in appetite or weight loss.

1. What type of study is this?

2. What are the experimental and control treatments in this study?

3. Has blocking been used in this study? If so, what is the blocking variable?

4. Has blinding been used in this study?

5. Comment on whether or not we can make a causal statement, and indicate whether or not we can generalize the conclusion to the population at large.

26. City council survey. A city council has requested a household survey be conducted in a suburban area of their city. The area is broken into many distinct and unique neighborhoods, some including large homes, some with only apartments, and others a diverse mixture of housing structures. For each part below, identify the sampling methods described, and describe the statistical pros and cons of the method in the city’s context.

1. Randomly sample 200 households from the city.

2. Divide the city into 20 neighborhoods, and sample 10 households from each neighborhood.

3. Divide the city into 20 neighborhoods, randomly sample 3 neighborhoods, and then sample all households from those 3 neighborhoods.

4. Divide the city into 20 neighborhoods, randomly sample 8 neighborhoods, and then randomly sample 50 households from those neighborhoods.

5. Sample the 200 households closest to the city council offices.

27. Flawed reasoning. Identify the flaw(s) in reasoning in the following scenarios. Explain what the individuals in the study should have done differently if they wanted to make such strong conclusions.

1. Students at an elementary school are given a questionnaire that they are asked to return after their parents have completed it. One of the questions asked is, “Do you find that your work schedule makes it difficult for you to spend time with your kids after school?” Of the parents who replied, 85% said “no”. Based on these results, the school officials conclude that a great majority of the parents have no difficulty spending time with their kids after school.

2. A survey is conducted on a simple random sample of 1,000 women who recently gave birth, asking them about whether or not they smoked during pregnancy. A follow-up survey asking if the children have respiratory problems is conducted 3 years later. However, only 567 of these women are reached at the same address. The researcher reports that these 567 women are representative of all mothers.

3. An orthopedist administers a questionnaire to 30 of his patients who do not have any joint problems and finds that 20 of them regularly go running. He concludes that running decreases the risk of joint problems.

28. Income and education in US counties. The scatterplot below shows the relationship between per capita income (in thousands of dollars) and percent of population with a bachelor’s degree in 3,142 counties in the US in 2019.40

1. What are the explanatory and response variables?

2. Describe the relationship between the two variables. Make sure to discuss unusual observations, if any.

3. Can we conclude that having a bachelor’s degree increases one’s income?

29. Eat well, feel better. In a public health study on the effects of consumption of fruits and vegetables on psychological well-being in young adults, participants were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) diet-as-usual, (2) an ecological momentary intervention involving text message reminders to increase their fruits and vegetable consumption plus a voucher to purchase them, or (3) a fruit and vegetable intervention in which participants were given two additional daily servings of fresh fruits and vegetables to consume on top of their normal diet. Participants were asked to take a nightly survey on their smartphones. Participants were student volunteers at the University of Otago, New Zealand. At the end of the 14-day study, only participants in the third group showed improvements to their psychological well-being across the 14-days relative to the other groups.

1. What type of study is this?

2. Identify the explanatory and response variables.

3. Comment on whether the results of the study can be generalized to the population.

4. Comment on whether the results of the study can be used to establish causal relationships.

5. A newspaper article reporting on the study states, “The results of this study provide proof that giving young adults fresh fruits and vegetables to eat can have psychological benefits, even over a brief period of time.” How would you suggest revising this statement so that it can be supported by the study?

30. Screens, teens, and psychological well-being. In a study of three nationally representative large-scale datasets from Ireland, the United States, and the United Kingdom (n = 17,247), teenagers between the ages of 12 to 15 were asked to keep a diary of their screen time and answer questions about how they felt or acted. The answers to these questions were then used to compute a psychological well-being score. Additional data were collected and included in the analysis, such as each child’s sex and age, and on the mother’s education, ethnicity, psychological distress, and employment. The study concluded that there is little clear-cut evidence that screen time decreases adolescent well-being.

1. What type of study is this?

2. Identify the explanatory variables.

3. Identify the response variable.

4. Comment on whether the results of the study can be generalized to the population, and why.

5. Comment on whether the results of the study can be used to establish causal relationships.