Give conclusion
"The rapid growth of video game popularity has generated concern among practitioners, parents, scholars and politicians," wrote researchers Hope M. Cummings and Elizabeth A. Vandewater. "Particularly during adolescence, when social interactions and academic success lay the groundwork for health in adulthood, there is concern that video games will interfere with the development of skills needed to make a successful transition to adulthood." [Source: Cummings, H., & Vandewater, E. (2007). Relation of adolescent video game play to time spent in other activities. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(7), 684-689.] Cummings and Vandewater measured the time adolescents spent playing video games and the time they spent doing other activities, such as interacting with family and friends, reading or doing homework, or playing sports. Suppose you decide to conduct a similar study among a random sample of 62 teenage girls who play video games. You want to determine whether the amount of time girls spend playing video games is positively correlated with the amount of time they play with a sibling or peer, so you ask the girls to keep a log of their activities over a week's time. You want to use a Pearson correlation coefficient to measure the relationship between the amount of time girls spend playing video games and the amount of time they play with a sibling or peer. Which of the following are required assumptions to be able to interpret and test the significance of the Pearson correlation coefficient in the population? Check all that apply. The time girls spend playing video games is measured on an interval or ratio scale. The time girls spend playing video games and the time girls play with a sibling or peer cannot have any zero values. The amount of time the girls play with a sibling or peer is more than the amount of time they spend playing video games. The time girls spend playing video games and the time girls play with a sibling or peer form a bivariate normal distribution.Given your conclusion, what is the most appropriate interpretation of your result? This study found no linear relationship between the time girls spend playing video games and time spent playing with a sibling or peer. When girls play video games, their siblings want to join them. O The more time girls spend playing video games, the more time they spend playing with a sibling or peer. O There is no linear relationship between the time girls spend playing video games and time spent playing with a sibling or peer. After you completed your study, you wonder whether your result would have been different had you included girls who do not play video games. You determine that the Pearson correlation coefficient would not be a useful choice for this new study because you no longer expect the distribution of the amount of time the girls play video games to be normal. You expect a lot of zero values, producing a skewed distribution. You realize, however, that a Spearman correlation coefficient would still be appropriate because it is based on ranks and does not have parametric assumptions. Suppose you repeat your study using the expanded population and you calculate a Spearman correlation coefficient between the time girls spend playing video games and the time girls play with a sibling or peer. Once you have calculated rs, how does the process of testing the significance of r, differ from the process of testing the significance of the Pearson correlation coefficient? You can only test the significance of the Spearman correlation when the sample size is 30 or less. Testing the significance of the Spearman correlation is identical to testing the significance of the Pearson correlation except you consult a different table of critical values. For significance testing of the Spearman correlation, you can only conduct two-tailed tests. Testing the significance of the Spearman correlation is identical to testing the significance of the Pearson correlation
