Group 3 Assignment 10-3 1
Assignment 10-3: Project III Intelliboost Study David Brinser, Tiana Harris and Michele C. Hladik Professor Todd Hoff 8-5-11
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 2 Note: Brisardik Pharmaceuticals and Intelliboost were invented for the sake of this project. All data was created for the project purposes only. Data collection methods are designed to show how the data would have been collected if the company, drug and study were real. Intelligence is important to many people for many reasons. Finding a way to boost intelligence could lead to important opportunities for individuals and society as a whole. Brisardik Pharmaceuticals has a drug it believes could boost intelligence. This study was conducted to determine if the drug manufactures is on the right track and if Intelliboost can really boost intelligence. HISTORY Brisardik Pharmaceuticals was created in 1987 and is based in Columbus, Ohio. The company is comprised of three divisions dealing with emotional and mental health and growth. It employs more than 1,500 people including more than 500 physicians, chemists and laboratory assistants. Brisardik is most known for its successful work with attention deficit disorder medications and anti depressants. Intelliboost is expected to be its next great success. Intelliboost is a small white pill designed to be taken once a day for as long as the patient and physician deem necessary. It would typically be used long term since the medication needs time to build up in the brain. Once taken, Intelliboost gradually works its way through a person’s circulatory system and into the brain where it strengthens and develops the portions of the brain used in decision making and information processing. It would be sold in 30, 60 and 90 count packages through the pharmacy and would require a prescription to ensure the medication is not misused. This study will be used to test whether the medication is ready for production and release for sale to the public.
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 3 METHODS All 60 participants in this study are randomly selected people the Columbus area. They were selected from a list of Brisardik customers and research volunteers. Each person was required to sign a waiver before to being assigned a participant identification number. Each person then completed the Smith and Jones Test of Intelligence prior to beginning the study and the scores were recorded under the participant’s ID number. The participants were then divided into two categories, but were not told what category they would fall under. One group of 30 participants was given Intelliboost and the other category of 30 participants was given a placebo. The Smith and Jones Test of Intelligence was administered every two months of the six month study to measure whether their intelligence increased. All test results were again recorded under the participants ID number. The data collected for this study was recorded and reviewed in several ways and tables of the data can be found in the appendix of this report. The first table contains a list of all 60 participants, their ID numbers, the test scores before starting the study and the test scores at the end of the study. The second table contains the same information for the 30 participants administered Intelliboost and the third table contains the same information for the 30 participants who were administered the placebo. Tables four and five classify the participants taking Intelliboost or the Placebo based on gender and age. Tables six and seven show the age groups which experienced increases in test results at two and four month intervals. RESULTS Concerning the bivariate data, three summary outputs were generated: one for all of the data, one for the data regarding patients who had taken the IQ medication, and another regarding the data for patients who had taken the placebo.
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 4 In regards to the summary output for all of the data, the independent data is the medicine/placebo and the dependent variable is the IQ score. The coefficient of correlation, r is 0.9911 and the interpretation of the correlation is that there is a strong positive correlation. This represents a good model and the regression line fits well. The coefficient of correlation r suggests that there is a strong linear correlation between IQ scores and the use of the new medication or placebo. Based on the scatter diagram for all data the outliers are: (94,105), (96,106), (97,103), (75,75), and (129, 135). If the point of (77,79) is entered into the regression line the result would be y=7.6633+.9474(77)=81. This predicted answer is close to the observed answer of 79 and is not too far beyond the scope of available data. The point with the largest residual is (94,105). If this point is entered into the regression line the result would be y=7.6633+.9474(94)=97. This solution creates a residual amount equaling 8, the largest residual. This point does not accurately reflect the regression line.
After
All Participants Before/After 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Af te r
0
50
100 Before
slope=1.036 p=0.0000 r=0.9911 y=a+bx a=7.6633
b=.9474 n=60 y=7.6633+.9474x
150
200
Li n e ar (A ft
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 5 In regards to the summary output for the medication data the independent variable is the medicine and the dependent variable is the IQ score. The coefficient of correlation r is .9847 and the interpretation of the correlation is that there is a strong positive correlation. This represents a good model fits and the regression line fits well. The coefficient of correlation r suggests that there is a strong linear correlation between IQ scores and the use of the new medication or placebo. Based on the scatter diagram for all data the outliers are: (113,125) and (99,110). Using point (140,143) and entering it into the regression line: y=9.4258+0.9457(140)=142 with a residual of 1. The predicted answer of 142 is close to the observed answer of 143 and it not too far beyond the scope of available data. According to this data, 97% of participants saw a change in their IQ scores after taking the medicine. The point with the largest residual is (113,125). If this point is entered into the regression line: y=9.4258+0.9457(113)=116 with a residual difference of 9. This point has the largest residual value among this data set and does not accurately represent the regression line. Patients Taking New Medication 160 140
After
120 100 80
Series1
60
Linear (Series1)
40 20 0 0
20
slope=1.025282845 p=0.0000 r=0.9847 r square=0.9696 y=a+bx
40
60
80 Before
a=9.4258 b=0.9457 n=30 9.4258+.9457x
100
120
140
160
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 6 In regards to the summary output for the placebo data the independent variable is the placebo and the dependent variable is the IQ score. The coefficient of correlation r is 0.9963 and the interpretation of the correlation is that there is a strong positive correlation. This represents a good model fits and the regression line fits well. The coefficient of correlation r suggests that there is a strong linear correlation between IQ scores and the use of the new medication or placebo. Based on the scatter diagram for all data there are no outliers for this data set. If the point (80,82) is used and entered into the regression line: y=5.8513+0.9491(80) with a residual of 0. The predicted answer is exactly the same as the observed answer of 82, this is exactly within the scope of available data. If the point (97,103) is entered into the regression line: y=5.8513+0.9491(97)=98 with a residual of 5. This point has the largest residual value and does not accurately represent the regression line. Patients Taking New Placebo 160 140
After
120 100 80
Series1
60
Linear (Series1)
40 20 0 0
slope=1.0458 p=0.0000 r=0.9963 r square=0.9926 y=a+bx a=5.8513 b=0.9491
20
40
60
80 Before
100
n=30 5.8513+0.9491x
120
140
160
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 7 In part of the analysis of the data an Anova was performed on both sets of data. There was a group that was given the drug and a group that was given a placebo. The hypothesis for both tests the mean of the IQ scores will remain the same after the second test. The alternative hypothesis would be the mean IQ score will change after the second test. The data sets seem to be relatively normal and four means (2 sets of 2). The critical value of F with 1 degree of freedom in the numerator and 58 degrees of freedom in the denominator is 4.0012. These scores will be evaluated against.05 significance. If the p value is less than the significance the null hypothesis will be rejected. The results for the new medication yielded a p value of .5654, and the results of the placebo gave a p value of .9286. It is important to note that the average mean for the new medication increased the IQ score by 3.4 points and the placebo only increased by .5333. In analyzing these results we would fail to reject the null hypothesis the means are fairly equal. The drug does appear to provide a boost in the average IQ score although this test did prove the means are not that different. If a person feels they need some more intelligence it may be worth taking. Anova new medicine: Average Anova f= .33425 p=.5654
110.9333 114.3333
Anova placebo: Average Anova f=.00809 p=.9286
104.4 104.9333
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 8 The last test that was run was a paired data test on the drug and the placebo test groups. The null hypothesis for both tests was the difference of the IQ scores (new-old) to be equal or less than 0. The alternative hypothesis is the difference of the IQ scores are greater than 0. The significance for this test is .05. The critical value of the test statistic with 29 degrees of freedom is t= 2.045. If the test statistic is lower than the critical value we will fail to reject the null hypothesis. The results that were obtained from the new drug gave a test statistic of t= 4.5528 and a p value of .0000043. The results of the placebo yielded a test statistic of 1.2867 and a p value of .1042. When we analyze this data we would reject the null hypothesis for the drug and fail to reject the null hypothesis for the placebo. The p value of the drug is extremely low and helps to prove that the drug does increase IQ scores. This drug should be marketed for its ability to increase IQ scores, because of its very strong results that back its effectiveness. In conclusion the data obtained and conducted in the research of Intelliboost suggests and supports that the medicine does have an effect in raising a person’s IQ score. All of the bivariate data suggests a strong positive correlation between the drug’s use and it’s outcome and the Anova and paired testing suggests the same.
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 9 Appendix Table 1: All Study Participants Participant ID. 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030
Before 140 110 80 97 92 138 141 90 123 70 119 142 77 113 78 134 99 143 125 81 91 86 126 144 112 76 127 98 145 92
After 143 110 82 103 92 135 142 95 123 74 122 138 79 115 78 132 100 145 130 85 94 87 128 142 115 80 128 98 145 95
Participant ID. 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060
Before 117 84 71 95 147 79 96 135 93 116 148 89 74 110 97 129 149 94 85 130 99 111 120 95 112 90 114 75 121 96
After 117 84 77 96 150 86 105 130 95 117 148 89 74 112 105 135 149 105 90 128 98 111 121 95 112 94 120 75 121 106
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 10 Table 2: Patients Taking Intelliboost Participant ID. 1001 1002 1006 1007 1010 1011 1014 1015 1018 1019 1022 1023 1026 1027 1030 1031 1034 1035 1037 1043 1045 1046 1047 1048 1050 1051 1054 1055 1057 1060
Before 140 110 138 141 70 119 113 78 143 125 86 126 76 127 92 117 95 147 96 74 97 129 149 94 130 99 95 112 114 96
After 143 110 135 142 74 122 125 78 144 130 87 127 80 128 95 117 96 148 105 74 105 135 149 105 128 110 100 112 120 106
Table 3: Patients Taking Placebo Participant ID. 1003 1004 1005 1008 1009 1012 1013 1016 1017 1020 1021 1024 1025 1028 1029 1032 1033 1036 1038 1040 1041 1044 1042 1039 1049 1052 1053 1056 1058 1059
Before 80 97 92 90 123 142 77 134 99 81 91 144 112 98 145 84 71 79 135 116 148 110 89 93 85 111 120 90 75 121
After 82 103 92 95 123 138 77 132 100 85 93 142 112 98 145 84 72 79 130 116 148 112 89 93 86 111 121 94 75 121
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 11 Table 4: Participants by Gender
Males Females
Intelliboost 16 14
Placebos 14 16
Table 5: Participants by Age (in years)
Intelliboost Placebo
18-27 6 5
28-37 9 8
38-47 8 9
48-57 5 6
58 and older 2 2
Table 6: Increased IQ with Intelliboost
Table 7: Increased IQ with Placebo
Age 18-27 28-37 38-47 48-57 58 & Older
Age 18-27 28-37 38-47 48-57 58 & Older
January 3 4 5 4 1
March 1 2 3 1 0
SUMMARY OUTPUT FOR ALL STUDY PARTICIPANTS Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations
0.991146183 0.982370755 0.982066803 2.995916297 60
January 2 4 4 2 0
March 1 2 2 1 0
Group 3 Assignment 10-3 12 SUMMARY OUTPUT FOR PATIENTS TAKING NEW MEDICATION Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations
0.984677661 0.969590096 0.968504028 3.959697168 30
SUMMARY OUTPUT FOR PATIENTS TAKING PLACEBO Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations
0.9962843 0.9925824 0.99231749 1.96287465 30