Question

1. What demographic variables were measured at the nominal level of measurement in the Oh et al. (2014) study? Provide a rationale for your answer. 2. What statistics were calculated to describe body mass index (BMI) in this study? Were these appropriate? Provide a rationale for your answer. 3. Were the distributions of scores for BMI similar for the intervention and control groups? Provide a rationale for your answer. 4. Was there a signifi cant difference in BMI between the intervention and control groups? Provide a rationale for your answer.

Answer 1

ANSWER:-

(1) :-

Ostensible information is information that is as a name, rundown, or bit of information that is certainly not a number. This can be a yes/no inquiry for instance, or sexual orientation. The ostensible statistic factors estimated were: History of crack; Regular exercise; Non-consumer; and Non-smoker. Also, bone mineral thickness was estimated and ostensibly arranged as should be expected, osteopenia, or osteoporosis.

(2) :-

BMI is determined from tallness and weight. The equation is weight in kilograms, isolated by tallness in meters squared. The estimation information of stature and weight in this examination is in centimeters and kilograms.

Centimeters can without much of a stretch be changed over to meters and the equation connected to discover BMI. It was fittingly utilized in this examination, and there were no noteworthy contrasts in BMI among mediation and control.

(3) :-

The circulation of scores for BMI are comparative for intercession and control. The intercession aggregate had a mean BMI of 24.17 (SD = 2.5), and the control amass had a mean BMI of 23.38 (SD = 3.32) The standard deviation demonstrates noteworthy cover between the two means, and the t score of chi squared score demonstrate no huge distinction not as much as p < 0.05. If you somehow managed to compute the p esteem it would be 0.485.

(4) :-

There was no noteworthy distinction among mediation and control groups.The last sentence of the investigation states, "there were no distinctions in the gauge attributes of the gatherings". Also on the off chance that you take the t-score from table two and calculate with 40 degrees of opportunity (in light of the fact that DF = N-1), the p esteem is 0.485.