Question

A. Highlight the information in the following abstract that indicates the inferential nature of the data analysis performed in this study. Explain why it indicates inferential statistics. (2 points. 1 for highlighting appropriate info, 1 for rationale)

Abstract

Context: Cognitive function in older adults is related to independent living and need for care. However, few studies have addressed whether improving cognitive functions might have short- or long-term effects on activities related to living independently.

Objective: To evaluate whether 3 cognitive training interventions improve mental abilities and daily functioning in older, independent-living adults.

Design: Randomized, controlled, single-blind trial with recruitment conducted from March 1998 to October 1999 and 2-year follow-up through December 2001.

Setting and Participants: Volunteer sample of 2832 persons aged 65 to 94 years recruited from senior housing, community centers, and hospital/clinics in 6 metropolitan areas in the United States.

Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: 10-session group training for memory (verbal episodic memory; n = 711), or reasoning (ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern; n = 705), or speed of processing (visual search and identification; n = 712); or a no-contact control group (n = 704). For the 3 treatment groups, 4-session booster training was offered to a 60% random sample 11 months later.

Main Outcome Measures: Cognitive function and cognitively demanding everyday functioning.

Results: Thirty participants were incorrectly randomized and were excluded from the analysis. Each intervention improved the targeted cognitive ability compared with baseline, durable to 2 years (P<.001 for all). Eighty-seven percent of speed-, 74% of reasoning-, and 26% of memory-trained participants demonstrated reliable cognitive improvement immediately after the intervention period. Booster training enhanced training gains in speed (P<.001) and reasoning (P<.001) interventions (speed booster, 92%; no booster, 68%; reasoning booster, 72%; no booster, 49%), which were maintained at 2-year follow-up (P<.001 for both). No training effects on everyday functioning were detected at 2 years.

Conclusions: Results support the effectiveness and durability of the cognitive training interventions in improving targeted cognitive abilities. Training effects were of a magnitude equivalent to the amount of decline expected in elderly persons without dementia over 7- to 14-year intervals. Because of minimal functional decline across all groups, longer follow-up is likely required to observe training effects on everyday function.

B. According to the abstract above, what is the sample and what is the target population in this study? (2 points, 1 for sample, 1 for population)

C. According to the abstract above, what is the research question (or one of the research questions) for the study? What is the null hypothesis (in words) being tested by the inferential statistics? (2 points, 1 for research question and 1 for null hypothesis)

Answer 1

A. In the given abstract, p-values indicates the inferential nature of the study. Because, the p-values are given if there is any hypothesis being tested. If the study has any hypothesis to be tested then the study's nature is inferential.

B.

Sample: 65 to 94 years aged persons from 6 metropolitan areas in the United States.

Population: Older adults who are living independent

C.

Research Question: Whether 3 cognitive training interventions improve mental abilities and daily functioning in older, independent-living adults?

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the mental abilities and daily functioning in older adults among 4 groups (3 intervention and placebo group)