Question

Arachnophobia is the fear of spiders. People with arachnophobia suffer to different degrees, but they tend to react intensely to visible signs of the presence of spiders, such as webs. The director of a clinic decides to investigate different treatment types for arachnophobia. She gathers three groups of clients: One group receives in vivo flooding, which involves prolonged or repeated exposure to the actual anxiety-producing stimuli. The second group receives imaginal flooding, which involves the same techniques as in vivo flooding, except the exposure occurs in the client's imagination. The third group receives no treatment. The results come in, and a statistician conducts an analysis of variance. Null hypothesis or alternate hypothesis: The null hypothesis is that at least one of the population means is different from another (in other words, there is an effect of at least one of the treatments). The alternate hypothesis is that there is no difference between the population means (in other words, there is no treatment effect). The factor; the dependent variable or the different: The treatment type is the factor, and the dependent variable is the different treatment types. The factor; the dependent variable or the different: The treatments (in vivo flooding, imaginal flooding, and no treatment) are levels of the factor. Which of the following might contribute to between-treatments variance? Check all that apply. Systematic differences caused by in vivo flooding being more effective than imaginal flooding. Flaws in the tool used to measure the pretreatment and posttreatment severity of the arachnophobia. Individual differences in the resistance of a person with arachnophobia to any form of treatment.

Arachnophobia is the fear of spiders. People with arachnophobia suffer to different degrees, but they tend to react intensely to visible signs of the presence of spiders, such as webs.
The director of a clinic decides to investigate different treatment types for arachnophobia. She gathers three groups of clients: One group receives in vivo flooding, which involves prolonged or repeated exposure to the actual anxiety-producing stimuli. The second group receives imaginal flooding, which involves the same techniques as in vivo flooding, except the exposure occurs in the client's imagination. The third group receives no treatment. The results come in, and a statistician conducts an analysis of variance.
Null hypothesis or alternate hypothesis:
The null hypothesis is that at least one of the population means is different from another (in other words, there is an effect of at least one of the treatments). The alternate hypothesis is that there is no difference between the population means (in other words, there is no treatment effect).
The factor; the dependent variable or the different:
The treatment type is the factor, and the dependent variable is the different treatment types.
The factor; the dependent variable or the different:
The treatments (in vivo flooding, imaginal flooding, and no treatment) are levels of the factor.
Which of the following might contribute to between-treatments variance? Check all that apply.
Systematic differences caused by in vivo flooding being more effective than imaginal flooding. Flaws in the tool used to measure the pretreatment and posttreatment severity of the arachnophobia. Individual differences in the resistance of a person with arachnophobia to any form of treatment.

Added by Jaime J.

Question

Please give Ace some feedback