 Provide a table of odds ratios, confidence intervals and significance values for each predictor variable.
 How do you interpret the findings for living arrangements?
 Provide a preliminary interpretation and conclusion about the influence of the predictor variables on road traffic accidents. In particular, what is the effect of changes (increase or decrease) in “driver aggression” on the odds of experiencing a road traffic accident?
 Provide a table of odds ratios, confidence intervals and significance values for each predictor variable.
 Again, how do you interpret the findings for living arrangements?
 Provide a preliminary interpretation and conclusion about the influence of the predictor variables on obesity at followup. In particular, what is the effect of changes (increase or decrease) in the number of parents with university education on the likelihood of later obesity?
Distinguish between different statistical tests, especially in terms of application and interpretation
Develop a sound statistical approach to the analysis and interpretation of public health data and communicate findings in an academicstandard output
Critique public health research on the basis of its statistical methods, analysis and interpretation
Question one
 Age descriptive statistics
Descriptive Statistics 


N 
Minimum 
Maximum 
Mean 
Std. Deviation 
AGE 
38681 
16 
59 
20.50 
4.889 
Valid N (listwise) 
38681 




Table 1
It can be observed from the table above that the mean age for the participants was 20.5. The youngest participant was 16 years old while the oldest participant was 59 years old.
 Frequency for new age category
Statistics 

Age category 

N 
Valid 
38681 
Missing 
0 
Table 2
Age category 


Frequency 
Percent 
Valid Percent 
Cumulative Percent 

Valid 
18 years 
11881 
30.7 
30.7 
30.7 
19  21 years 
11666 
30.2 
30.2 
60.9 

22  25 years 
5494 
14.2 
14.2 
75.1 

26 or more 
3755 
9.7 
9.7 
84.8 

system missing 
5885 
15.2 
15.2 
100.0 

Total 
38681 
100.0 
100.0 

Table 3
The table above table shows the frequency of age groups. Participants who were 18 years old were 11,881 representing 30.7%. This was followed closely by those within the age of 19 to 21 years. They were 11,666 representing 30.2%. Those who were 26 years old and above were 3,755, representing 9.7% of the total.
Question two
Age descriptive statistics
Descriptive Statistics 


N 
Sum 
Mean 
AGE 
38681 
792845 
20.50 
Valid N (listwise) 
38681 


Table 4
The mean age of the participants was 20.5 while the sum total of their age was 792,845 years.
State descriptive
STATE 


Frequency 
Percent 
Valid Percent 
Cumulative Percent 

Valid 
NSW 
15860 
41.0 
41.0 
41.0 
Victoria 
13571 
35.1 
35.1 
76.1 

Queensland 
7528 
19.5 
19.5 
95.5 

ACT 
1722 
4.5 
4.5 
100.0 

Total 
38681 
100.0 
100.0 

Table 5
From the table above, it can be observed that 41% of the participants come from NSW, 35.1% come from Victoria, and 19.5% come from Queensland while the minority of the participants (4.5%) comes from ACT.
GENDER 


Frequency 
Percent 
Valid Percent 
Cumulative Percent 

Valid 
Male 
10449 
27.0 
27.0 
27.0 
Female 
28232 
73.0 
73.0 
100.0 

Total 
38681 
100.0 
100.0 

Table 6
It can be observed that majority of the participants were females. They were 28,232 in number and represented 73%. The rest were females who were 10,449 representing 27%.
LIVING_ARRANGE 


Frequency 
Percent 
Valid Percent 
Cumulative Percent 

Valid 
At home 
20840 
53.9 
53.9 
53.9 
College/student accommodation 
6850 
17.7 
17.7 
71.6 

Independently 
10991 
28.4 
28.4 
100.0 

Total 
38681 
100.0 
100.0 

Table 7
The table above shows the how participants are accommodated. It can be observed that 53.9% (20,840) were being accommodated from their homes. 17.7% (6,850) were accommodated at the college while 28.4% (10,991) had their own independent accommodation.
FACULTY 


Frequency 
Percent 
Valid Percent 
Cumulative Percent 

Valid 
Arts and Sciences 
9004 
23.3 
23.3 
23.3 
Education 
15038 
38.9 
38.9 
62.2 

Health Sciences 
11729 
30.3 
30.3 
92.5 

Theology and Philosophy 
588 
1.5 
1.5 
94.0 

Business 
2322 
6.0 
6.0 
100.0 

Total 
38681 
100.0 
100.0 

Table 8
The table above shows the distribution of the student participants based on their faculties. Majority of them came from the faculty of education (15,038) representing 38.9%. This is followed by students from the faculty of health sciences (11,729) who represented 30.3%. The least number of students came from the faculty of theology and philosophy. They were 588 representing 1.5%.
DEGREE_TYPE 


Frequency 
Percent 
Valid Percent 
Cumulative Percent 

Valid 
Single 
34620 
89.5 
89.5 
89.5 
Double 
4061 
10.5 
10.5 
100.0 

Total 
38681 
100.0 
100.0 

Table 9
The table above shows distribution of participants by the type of their degrees. It can be observed that 89.5% were pursuing single degrees while 10.5% were pursuing double degrees.
METRO 


Frequency 
Percent 
Valid Percent 
Cumulative Percent 

Valid 
Metro 
27223 
70.4 
84.4 
84.4 
Nonmetro 
5015 
13.0 
15.6 
100.0 

Total 
32238 
83.3 
100.0 


Missing 
System 
6443 
16.7 


Total 
38681 
100.0 


Table 10
The table above shows the location of origin of the students. It can be observed that majority of them came from metropolitan areas (70.4%) while 13% came from nonmetropolitan areas.
STUDY_MODE 


Frequency 
Percent 
Valid Percent 
Cumulative Percent 

Valid 
FT 
34770 
89.9 
89.9 
89.9 
PT 
3911 
10.1 
10.1 
100.0 

Total 
38681 
100.0 
100.0 

Table 11
From the table above, it can be observed that 89.9% of the students pursued full time studies while 10.1% pursued part time studies.
FEE_STATUS 


Frequency 
Percent 
Valid Percent 
Cumulative Percent 

Valid 
Domestic 
32238 
83.3 
83.3 
83.3 
International 
6443 
16.7 
16.7 
100.0 

Total 
38681 
100.0 
100.0 

Table 12
It can be observed that 83.3% (32,238) of the students are domestic students while 16.7% (6,443) are international students.
 Test for the difference in mean for aggression, thrill seeking and risk acceptance scores by gender
Independent Samples Test 


Levene's Test for Equality of Variances 
ttest for Equality of Means 

F 
Sig. 
t 
df 
Sig. (2tailed) 
Mean Difference 
Std. Error Difference 
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference 

Lower 
Upper 

driver_agg 
Equal variances assumed 
.117 
.732 
.083 
38679 
.934 
.004 
.050 
.093 
.102 
Equal variances not assumed 


.083 
18712.803 
.934 
.004 
.050 
.093 
.102 

thrill 
Equal variances assumed 
.847 
.357 
.370 
38679 
.711 
.005 
.014 
.033 
.022 
Equal variances not assumed 


.371 
18783.250 
.710 
.005 
.014 
.033 
.022 

risk_accep 
Equal variances assumed 
.054 
.817 
1.571 
38679 
.116 
.078 
.050 
.019 
.176 
Equal variances not assumed 


1.571 
18663.180 
.116 
.078 
.050 
.019 
.176 
Table 13
From the ttest table results above, it can be observed that the pvalues computed are large compared to the level of significance (0.05). This means that the mean aggression, thrill seeking and risk acceptance scores do not differ by gender.
 Test for the difference in mean for aggression, thrill seeking and risk acceptance scores by metropolitan background status
Independent Samples Test 


Levene's Test for Equality of Variances 
ttest for Equality of Means 

F 
Sig. 
t 
df 
Sig. (2tailed) 
Mean Difference 
Std. Error Difference 
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference 

Lower 
Upper 

driver_agg 
Equal variances assumed 
1.060 
.303 
.714 
32236 
.475 
.048 
.067 
.083 
.178 
Equal variances not assumed 


.719 
7029.087 
.472 
.048 
.066 
.082 
.177 

thrill 
Equal variances assumed 
1.845 
.174 
.686 
32236 
.493 
.013 
.019 
.024 
.050 
Equal variances not assumed 


.692 
7048.178 
.489 
.013 
.019 
.024 
.049 

risk_accep 
Equal variances assumed 
3.228 
.072 
.866 
32236 
.386 
.058 
.067 
.189 
.073 
Equal variances not assumed 


.874 
7040.476 
.382 
.058 
.066 
.188 
.072 
Table 14
From the ttest table results above, it can be observed that the pvalues computed are large (0.3, 0.17 and 0.07) compared to the level of significance (0.05). This means that the mean aggression, thrill seeking and risk acceptance scores do not differ by metropolitan background status.
 Test for the difference in mean for aggression, thrill seeking and risk acceptance scores by study mode.
Independent Samples Test 


Levene's Test for Equality of Variances 
ttest for Equality of Means 

F 
Sig. 
t 
df 
Sig. (2tailed) 
Mean Difference 
Std. Error Difference 
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference 

Lower 
Upper 

driver_agg 
Equal variances assumed 
.323 
.570 
.309 
38679 
.757 
.023 
.073 
.166 
.121 
Equal variances not assumed 


.310 
4834.453 
.757 
.023 
.073 
.166 
.121 

thrill 
Equal variances assumed 
.222 
.637 
.132 
38679 
.895 
.003 
.021 
.038 
.043 
Equal variances not assumed 


.132 
4829.635 
.895 
.003 
.021 
.038 
.043 

risk_accep 
Equal variances assumed 
.045 
.832 
2.269 
38679 
.023 
.167 
.073 
.311 
.023 
Equal variances not assumed 


2.261 
4823.706 
.024 
.167 
.074 
.311 
.022 
Table 15
From the ttest table results above, it can be observed that the pvalues computed are large (0.57, 0.63 and 0.83) compared to the level of significance (0.05). This means that the mean aggression, thrill seeking and risk acceptance scores do not differ by study mode.
 Test for the difference in mean for aggression, thrill seeking and risk acceptance scores by RTA (follow up survey)
Independent Samples Test 


Levene's Test for Equality of Variances 
ttest for Equality of Means 

F 
Sig. 
t 
df 
Sig. (2tailed) 
Mean Difference 
Std. Error Difference 
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference 

Lower 
Upper 

driver_agg 
Equal variances assumed 
3179.609 
.000 
93.863 
38679 
.000 
5.552 
.059 
5.668 
5.436 
Equal variances not assumed 


144.454 
11183.466 
.000 
5.552 
.038 
5.627 
5.476 

thrill 
Equal variances assumed 
1715.363 
.000 
92.063 
38679 
.000 
1.539 
.017 
1.572 
1.507 
Equal variances not assumed 


133.493 
10036.697 
.000 
1.539 
.012 
1.562 
1.517 

risk_accep 
Equal variances assumed 
1951.956 
.000 
78.154 
38679 
.000 
4.775 
.061 
4.895 
4.655 
Equal variances not assumed 


106.209 
9076.181 
.000 
4.775 
.045 
4.863 
4.687 
Table 16
From the ttest table results above, it can be observed that the pvalues computed are less (0.00) compared to the level of significance (0.05). This means that the mean aggression, thrill seeking and risk acceptance scores differ significantly by RTA.
Question four
 Depression by gender
ANOVA 

depression 


Sum of Squares 
df 
Mean Square 
F 
Sig. 
Between Groups 
.026 
1 
.026 
.280 
.597 
Within Groups 
3555.361 
38679 
.092 


Total 
3555.387 
38680 



Table 17
The anova results show that the computed pvalue (0.57) is greater compared to the level of significance (0.05). This means that the null hypothesis is accepted. It is concluded therefore that null hypothesis is significant at 95% level of confidence.
 Depression by metropolitan background status
ANOVA 

depression 


Sum of Squares 
df 
Mean Square 
F 
Sig. 
Between Groups 
.010 
1 
.010 
.114 
.736 
Within Groups 
2962.189 
32236 
.092 


Total 
2962.200 
32237 



Table 18
The anova results show that the computed pvalue (0.736) is greater compared to the level of significance (0.05). This means that the null hypothesis is accepted. It is concluded therefore that null hypothesis is significant at 95% level of confidence.
 Depression by study mode
Results table
ANOVA 

depression 


Sum of Squares 
df 
Mean Square 
F 
Sig. 
Between Groups 
.282 
1 
.282 
3.072 
.080 
Within Groups 
3555.105 
38679 
.092 


Total 
3555.387 
38680 



Table 19
The anova results show that the computed pvalue (0.08) is greater compared to the level of significance (0.05). This means that the null hypothesis is accepted. It is concluded therefore that null hypothesis is significant at 95% level of confidence.
 Depression by fee status
Results table
ANOVA 

depression 


Sum of Squares 
df 
Mean Square 
F 
Sig. 
Between Groups 
.000 
1 
.000 
.003 
.956 
Within Groups 
3555.387 
38679 
.092 


Total 
3555.387 
38680 



Table 20
The anova results show that the computed pvalue (0.956) is greater compared to the level of significance (0.05). This means that the null hypothesis is accepted. It is concluded therefore that null hypothesis is significant at 95% level of confidence.
Question five
 Binary logistic regression (RTA and Demographics).
Table of results
Variables in the Equation 


B 
S.E. 
Wald 
df 
Sig. 
Exp(B) 

Step 1^{a} 
Age_category 
.003 
.000 
42.072 
1 
.000 
.997 
GENDER 
.262 
.033 
64.299 
1 
.000 
.769 

LIVING_ARRANGE 
.049 
.019 
6.801 
1 
.009 
.952 

FEE_STATUS 
.248 
.041 
36.290 
1 
.000 
1.282 

Constant 
1.673 
.031 
2885.476 
1 
.000 
.188 

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Age_category, GENDER, LIVING_ARRANGE, FEE_STATUS. Table 21 
From the results table above, it can be observed that the value of the coefficient for the living arrangement is 0.049. This value is close to zero. It is an indication that there is no association between RTA and living arrangement. To add on, the odds of the predictor variables are tending towards 1, this is an indication that they cause a great variation in RTA if they are increased.
 Binary logistic regression (RTA and driving distance).
Results table
Variables in the Equation 


B 
S.E. 
Wald 
df 
Sig. 
Exp(B) 

Step 1^{a} 
dist_driving 
.016 
.031 
.268 
1 
.605 
.984 
Constant 
1.885 
.024 
5937.971 
1 
.000 
.152 

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: dist_driving. 
Table 22
From the results table above, it can be observed that the value of the coefficient for the driving distance is 0.016. This value is close to zero. It is an indication that there is no association between RTA and driving distance. The odd of the predictor variable is 0.94 indicating a strong influence on RTA.
 Binary logistic regression (RTA with aggression, thrill seeking and risk acceptance).
Table of results
Variables in the Equation 


B 
S.E. 
Wald 
df 
Sig. 
Exp(B) 

Step 1^{a} 
Driver aggression 
.612 
.024 
661.998 
1 
.000 
1.844 
thrill 
.516 
.078 
43.584 
1 
.000 
1.675 

Risk acceptance 
.596 
.009 
4017.531 
1 
.000 
1.815 

Constant 
17.579 
.327 
2887.675 
1 
.000 
.000 

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: driver_agg, thrill, risk_accep. 
Table 23
From the results table above, it can be observed that the values of the coefficients for the predictor variables are 0.61, 0.52 and 0.596. It is an indication that there are significant associations between RTA and predictor variables. To add on, the odds of the predictor variables are tending towards 1, this is an indication that they cause a great variation in RTA if they are increased.
Question six
 Binary logistic regression (OB and Demographics).
Results table
Variables in the Equation 


B 
S.E. 
Wald 
df 
Sig. 
Exp(B) 

Step 1^{a} 
Age_category 
.003 
.000 
40.576 
1 
.000 
.997 
GENDER 
.267 
.033 
66.548 
1 
.000 
.766 

LIVING_ARRANGE 
.012 
.017 
.447 
1 
.504 
.988 

Constant 
1.654 
.031 
2863.657 
1 
.000 
.191 

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Age_category, GENDER, LIVING_ARRANGE. 
Table 24
From the results table above, it can be observed that the value of the coefficient for the living arrangement is 0.012. This value is close to zero. It is an indication that there is no association between obesity at third year follow up and living arrangement.
 Binary logistic regression (OB and overweight and depression).
Table of results
Variables in the Equation 


B 
S.E. 
Wald 
df 
Sig. 
Exp(B) 

Step 1^{a} 
depression 
1.787 
.037 
2325.596 
1 
.000 
5.970 
BL_owob 
.017 
.032 
.270 
1 
.603 
.983 

Constant 
2.186 
.027 
6644.566 
1 
.000 
.112 

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: depression, BL_owob. 
Table 25
 Binary logistic regression (OB and edu_par and presence or absence of obese).
Variables in the Equation 


B 
S.E. 
Wald 
df 
Sig. 
Exp(B) 

Step 1^{a} 
owob_par 
1.881 
.169 
124.423 
1 
.000 
6.561 
edu_par 
2.210 
.061 
1331.774 
1 
.000 
.110 

Constant 
2.826 
.170 
277.272 
1 
.000 
.059 

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: owob_par, edu_par. 
Table 26
The odds of the predictor variable (parents university education) is low (0.11), this is an indication that it causes minimal variation in obesity if they are increased.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2020). Statistical Analysis And Findings. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/freesamples/pubh620biostatisticsanalysisofdataset.
"Statistical Analysis And Findings." My Assignment Help, 2020, https://myassignmenthelp.com/freesamples/pubh620biostatisticsanalysisofdataset.
My Assignment Help (2020) Statistical Analysis And Findings [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/freesamples/pubh620biostatisticsanalysisofdataset
[Accessed 03 March 2024].
My Assignment Help. 'Statistical Analysis And Findings' (My Assignment Help, 2020) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/freesamples/pubh620biostatisticsanalysisofdataset> accessed 03 March 2024.
My Assignment Help. Statistical Analysis And Findings [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2020 [cited 03 March 2024]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/freesamples/pubh620biostatisticsanalysisofdataset.