Researchers conducted a study to determine whether magnets are effective in treating back pain. Pain was measured using the visual analog scale, and the results shown below are among the results obtained in the study. Higher scores correspond to greater pain levels. Assume that the two samples are independent sit random samples selected from normally distributed populations, and do not assume that the population standard deviations are equal. Complete parts (a) to (c) below. Reduction in Pain Level After Magnet Treatment (,): n 29, x=0.59, s= 0.99 Reduction in Pain Level After Sham Treatment (2). n= 29. x= 0.54, s = 1.46 a. Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that those treated with magnets have a greater mean reduction in pain than those given a sham treatment (similar to a placebo). What are the null and alternative hypotheses? OA. Hg H "H2 OB. Hg PP2 OD. Ha P 2 H: 22 The test statistic, t is 0.15. (Round to two decimal places as needed.) The P-value is 0.440 (Round to three decimal places as needed.) State the conclusion for the test. Fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that those treated with magnets have a greater mean reduction in pain than those given a sham treatment. b. Construct a confidence interval appropriate for the hypothesis test in part (a)

Glencoe Algebra 1, Student Edition, 9780079039897, 0079039898, 2018
18th Edition
ISBN:9780079039897
Author:Carter
Publisher:Carter
Chapter10: Statistics
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 11MCQ
Question

I need help with question b

**Study Overview on Magnet Use for Pain Reduction**

Researchers conducted a study to determine the efficacy of magnets in tracking back pain reduction. Pain levels were assessed using the visual analog scale, with higher scores indicating more severe pain. The results presented are based on normally distributed random samples, assuming equal population standard deviations. Below are the sample reductions observed:

- **Reduction in Pain Level After Magnet Treatment:**
  - \(n_1 = 29\), \(\bar{x}_1 = 2.90\), \(s_1 = 0.99\)
- **Reduction in Pain Level After Sham Treatment (placebo):**
  - \(n_2 = 29\), \(\bar{x}_2 = 2.54\), \(s_2 = 1.46\)

### Hypothesis Testing

**Objective:** Use a 0.05 significance level to evaluate if those treated with magnets show a greater mean reduction in pain compared to those given a sham treatment.

**Hypotheses:**
- **Null Hypothesis (\(H_0\)):** \(\mu_1 \le \mu_2\)
- **Alternative Hypothesis (\(H_1\)):** \(\mu_1 > \mu_2\)

**Analysis:**
- **Test Statistic (\(t\)) Calculation:** 
  - \(t = 0.15\) (rounded to two decimal places)
- **P-value:**
  - \(0.440\) (rounded to three decimal places)

**Conclusion:** 
- Fail to reject the null hypothesis. The evidence does not support that treatment with magnets results in a greater mean reduction in pain than a sham treatment.

### Confidence Interval

**Constructing a Confidence Interval:**
- \(-0.34 < \mu_1 - \mu_2 < 1.10\) (rounded to two decimal places)

This analysis provides a statistical framework for evaluating treatment efficacy, with results suggesting no significant advantage of magnet treatment over placebo in this study context.
Transcribed Image Text:**Study Overview on Magnet Use for Pain Reduction** Researchers conducted a study to determine the efficacy of magnets in tracking back pain reduction. Pain levels were assessed using the visual analog scale, with higher scores indicating more severe pain. The results presented are based on normally distributed random samples, assuming equal population standard deviations. Below are the sample reductions observed: - **Reduction in Pain Level After Magnet Treatment:** - \(n_1 = 29\), \(\bar{x}_1 = 2.90\), \(s_1 = 0.99\) - **Reduction in Pain Level After Sham Treatment (placebo):** - \(n_2 = 29\), \(\bar{x}_2 = 2.54\), \(s_2 = 1.46\) ### Hypothesis Testing **Objective:** Use a 0.05 significance level to evaluate if those treated with magnets show a greater mean reduction in pain compared to those given a sham treatment. **Hypotheses:** - **Null Hypothesis (\(H_0\)):** \(\mu_1 \le \mu_2\) - **Alternative Hypothesis (\(H_1\)):** \(\mu_1 > \mu_2\) **Analysis:** - **Test Statistic (\(t\)) Calculation:** - \(t = 0.15\) (rounded to two decimal places) - **P-value:** - \(0.440\) (rounded to three decimal places) **Conclusion:** - Fail to reject the null hypothesis. The evidence does not support that treatment with magnets results in a greater mean reduction in pain than a sham treatment. ### Confidence Interval **Constructing a Confidence Interval:** - \(-0.34 < \mu_1 - \mu_2 < 1.10\) (rounded to two decimal places) This analysis provides a statistical framework for evaluating treatment efficacy, with results suggesting no significant advantage of magnet treatment over placebo in this study context.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps with 2 images

Blurred answer
Similar questions
  • SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
Glencoe Algebra 1, Student Edition, 9780079039897…
Glencoe Algebra 1, Student Edition, 9780079039897…
Algebra
ISBN:
9780079039897
Author:
Carter
Publisher:
McGraw Hill