d. Given the result of this first step, do you need to do further testing? Do you think it would name sense to NP 2016 w

[answerhappygod]

D Given The Result Of This First Step Do You Need To Do Further Testing Do You Think It Would Name Sense To Np 2016 W 1 (36.93 KiB) Viewed 20 times

D Given The Result Of This First Step Do You Need To Do Further Testing Do You Think It Would Name Sense To Np 2016 W 2 (31.33 KiB) Viewed 20 times

D Given The Result Of This First Step Do You Need To Do Further Testing Do You Think It Would Name Sense To Np 2016 W 3 (31.33 KiB) Viewed 20 times

d. Given the result of this first step, do you need to do further testing? Do you think it would name sense to NP 2016 with P 1989 ? (justify briefly) e. Clearly state which post-hoc comparison method you choose -if and only if it is necessary to do the post hoc test- Then calculate the proper test value for 1 (and I only for time management) comparison) (remember to use the proper alpha level) mean std.dev n NP 2016 4 1.58 6 NP 1989 18.5 2.03 7 P 2016 0.6375 1.93 6 P 1989 7.125 2.32 8

P21028) Bamdech et al. (2013) analyzed data on all bicycle accidents involving collisions with motor vehicles in New South Wales Australia during 2001-2009. Their very satensive multivariable analysis includes the following numbers. After clearly stating what test you will be using, perform the test and conclude. silme a point estimate for the probability of having a head injury and wearing a helmet, having a head injury when not wearing a helmet. Other Head injury Wearing Helmet No helmet 372 257 4715 1391 This is an observational study only, but given the results, (and the proper test and so on) do you think wezring a heimet has an effect on the risk of head injury?