Descriptive - Statistics Project Example

Descriptive statistics Consider this scenario: You are on the Board of Directors of the National Parkinsons Association. Two different research labs are working on medications to decrease the debilitating effects of the disease. Your responsibility is to review and evaluate both of the results from the research studies and make recommendations for future funding. You can only fund one of the two. Patients and their families are anxiously waiting for the Board of Directors to make a decision on which of the two can be funded.

Part I: Your first task it to do the following calculations for both of the results that have been submitted to you. Mean, Median, Mode, Range, Standard Deviation (are there outliners you should consider?)Number of months that patients went without experiencing a debilitating symptom:Group I results = 4, 5, 3, 5, 6, 1, 2, 22, 3, 2, 5, 3Group II results = 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 5, 18, 1, 7, 4, 5, 6Part II: After you have done this comparison, write a letter to the rest of the members of the board stating which group you are recommending to receive additional funding to support their research.

This should be done in Memo Format and you need to discuss your findings and compare them. You can include a table to show the comparison if you want to. Do not be concerned with the small number used in each group in the study. You need to present and compare the finding and explain WHY you have chosen the one you have. There is not really a right or wrong answer. I know which one I would recommend and why - but that does not mean you would interpret the findings as I did. Your statistics should be the same - math is math, but your decision might be different than mine or your peers.

So, explain why based upon the statistics you have calculated. There are many good on-line Central Tendency calculators and some of you may be a proficient with a spreadsheet.Descriptive statisticsTwo different research labs have tested medications for decreasing the debilitating effects of a disease and presented its results that the board of directors of the National Parkinson’s Association should use for decision into funding one of the researches. The following the results of number of months that patients went without experiencing a debilitating symptoms following each of the lab’s trials.

Table 1: Number of months that patients went without experiencing debilitating symptoms Group 1 resultsGroup 2 results 445536586101521822137245536 The following table summarizes descriptive statistics for the results. Computations were done using Microsoft Excel.Table 2: Descriptive statistics Group 1 results Group 2 Rresults  Mean5.083333Mean6.583333Median3.5Median5.5Mode5Mode5Standard Deviation5.534328Standard Deviation4.231018Range21Range17The memoInternal memorandumMarch 23, 2014To: Member of the Board of DirectorsFrom: Re: Recommendations for decision on research funding The board of directors of the National Parkinson’s Association is the executive decision making organ and needs to make an informed decision on the research, on medications to decrease the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s disease that the association should fund.

Two groups have performed tests on effects of medications and the following table shows their results.Number of months that patients went without experiencing debilitating symptoms Table1: Results Group 1 resultsGroup 2 results 445536586101521822137245536Analysis of these results generated the following descriptive statistics.Table 2: Descriptive statistics Group 1 results Group 2 results  Mean5.083333Mean6.583333Median3.5Median5.5Mode5Mode5Standard Deviation5.534328Standard Deviation4.231018Range21Range17Based on the statistics, the analysis recommends funding of group 2 because it offers better results in management of symptoms of Parkinson’s diseases.

Its higher mean of months that patients took without reporting debilitating symptoms of the disease, 6.58 months, than means months for group 1, 5.08 months, suggests that treatment for group two trial is more effective and should be funded for better results among patients of the disease. Median of the number of months that patients in each group took without reporting the symptoms supports the choice for group two lab for funding. This is because group two reports better median period, 5.5 months, than group 1 lab that reports a median 3.5 months. Range of the data is another statistic that informs selection of group two lab for funding and therefore supports the mean and median statistics.

Group two results have a smaller rage, an indicator that effects of treatment are more consistent than effects of treatment for group one lab. The range for group two lab is 17 months while the range for group one lab is 21 months. Both groups have outliers, 22 months in group one and 10 and 18 in group two (Morgan, Leech, Ggloeckner and Barret, 2012; Welkowitz, Cohen and Lea, 2012). Analysis of variance to test significance of difference in the means also identifies significance as shown in the table below (Mann, 2010; Graveter and Walnau, 2013).

ANOVA tableANOVA TableSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.group1 * group2Between Groups(Combined)324.250746.32114.628.010Within Groups12.66743.167Total336.91711Mean and median for the two data sets shows that group two have better results and analysis of variance test confirms significance of the difference. This analysis therefore recommends that the board approve funding of group two lab. ReferencesGraveter, F. and Walnau, L. (2013). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Mann, P. (2010).

Introductory statistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Morgan, G., Leech, N., Gloeckner, G. and Barret, K. (2012). IBM SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. New York, NY: Routledge. Welkowitz, J., Cohen, B. and Lea, R. (2012). Introductory statistics for the behavioral sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.