Dr. Doodley thought that fast music enhanced people\'s work performance; she dec

Question

Dr. Doodley thought that fast music enhanced people's work performance; she decided to run an experiment to test this idea. She chose two secretarial pools to study. One pool did legal typing, and the other did medical typing. (By the way, all of the secretaries in both offices happened to be women.) Dr. Doodley convinced the supervisor of each pool to let her play music in the office for a week. In one office, she played fast music every day. In the other office, she played slow music. (Unfortunately, the slow music was taped from an old record, so it did have a slight hiss. However, the fast music was fine.) At the end of the week, Dr. Doodley convinced both supervisors to let her do all of the performance evaluations. She found that the first pool had an average performance rating of 90 points (out of 100 possible), while the second group averaged only 60 points (out of 100). Dr. Doodley found that the difference in scores between the two groups was statistically significant, so she concluded that fast music enhances people's work performance. 1. State the experimental hypothesis of this experiment, and label the independent and dependent variables. Which was the experimental group? Was an appropriate control group used? Why or why not? Can you find anything wrong with Dr. Doodley's experiment or conclusion? List any problems you notice, and explain how they might have affected Dr. Doodley's results. 2. How could this experiment be improved?

Explanation / Answer

Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the performance of the group who listened to fast music to the group who listened to the slow music.

Alternate hypothesis : There is difference .in the performance of the group who listened to fast music to the group who listened to the slow music.

Independent variable are the two groups who were assigned either fast music or slow music.

Dependent variable is the performance before and after istening to music.

The experiment group is the two groups legal typing and medical typing two secretial pools.

If the experiment is evaluated instead of going for two groups of typist from two different pools the result is difficult to compare as both require different type of attention while typing.

If the experiment was performed by forming two groups among the legal typing or two groups among medical typing then the results would be able to compare.

revision

1. yes it is very true to include men also for the study which is ignored in the present study.so you comment 1 should be included. thank you.

2. regarding comment 2 it is difficult to comment on skewness with existing data but one can say

The likelihood that a result or relationship is caused by something other than mere random chance. Statistical hypothesis testing is traditionally employed to determine if a result is statistically significant or not. This provides a "p-value" representing the probability that random chance could explain the result. In general, a 5% or lower p-value is considered to be statistically significant.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statistically_significant.asp

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse D
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.