# (Solved): AVS 5205: Test 2 Take - Home Part (50 points) Fall, 2023 Given: October, 2023...

**Test 2 Take-Home Part (50 points) **

**Given: October, 2023
Due: October, 2023**

**Part B (Take-Home): Total 50 points**

1. This part of the examination contains 3 items worth a total of 50 points. You got to use Times New Roman, size 12 font, and double space throughout the paper.

2. Place your solutions on your own paper. To facilitate my grading, please label each problem, show all work, and number all of your pages.

3. Include copies of your statistical output at the end of the exam. Please do NOT incorporate the output as part of your solutions. Failure to follow this requirement could result in a loss of 10 points. To facilitate my grading, please label the output appropriately and include a note in your solutions that directs me to the output (e.g., “See summary statistics on page 5”).

4. All pages of your solutions, and corresponding output are to be submitted on Canvas, Wednesday, October 25th, 2023 by 5 pm EDT. No late work will be accepted.

5. You may use Gallo et al. (2023), class slides, and other resources that I provided you for reference.

6. Important Note: Although this part of the exam is being given as a take-home activity, you are expected to do your own work and follow the same exam protocols applied to an in-class examination. Please sign below to confirm that this was indeed the case.

I confirm that I completed this exam on my own and did not receive any assistance from anyone other than Dr. Sharma. I also confirm that the output attached to this exam as required in Item 3 above was the result of the analyses I performed personally and is not a copy of someone else’s output. I understand that noncompliance to these requirements could result in a grade of 0 for this part of the exam.

____________________________________________________ __________________

Signature

**Use the following research description and corresponding excel data file to answer Items A-C.**

A researcher wanted to investigate the relationship between different variables associated with airline transport pilots (ATPs). Thererefore, she collected the below listed variables from a sample of commercial airline pilots in the U.S. All the pilots are FAA approved Part 121 Airline Transport Pilots (ATPs).

• Age. A continuous variable and measured in years.

• Biological Sex. A self-reported dichotomous nominal variable coded 1 = Female and 0 = Male.

• Marital status. A self-reported dichotomous nominal variable coded 1 = Married and 0 = Not Married.

• Psychological distress. A continuous variable that was measured using Goldberg and Williams’ (1988) General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). The GHQ is a 12-item instrument, scored on a 4-point Likert-type response scale that is designed to measure a person’s general psychological health. Possible responses are 0 = Not at all, 1 = No more than usual, 2 = Rather more than usual, and 3 = Much more than usual. Thus, scores could range from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating higher levels of psychological distress such as depression and anxiety.

• Self-Efficacy. A continuous variable that was measured using Chen, Gully, and Eden’s (2001) New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSES). The NGSES is an 8-item instrument scored on a 5-point traditional Likert response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with higher scores reflecting a higher level of self-efficacy.

• Total flight hours. A self-reported continuous variable.

• Hazardous events. A continuous variable that was measured using Hunter’s (2002a) 10-item Hazardous Events Scale (HES). The HES asked participants to reflect on the number of times they were involved in various aviation-related hazardous events. Possible responses for each item are 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 or more, with higher scores indicating a higher level of actions by pilots that could lead or contribute to an unplanned or undesired event such as an accident.

• Attitudes toward aviation safety. A continuous variable that was measured using Hunter’s (2002b) Aviation Safety Attitudes Scale (ASAS). The ASAS is a 27-item instrument scored on a traditional 5- point Likert response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with higher scores reflecting a more positive attitude toward aviation safety.

• Risk perception. A continuous variable that was measured using Hunter’s (2006) Risk Perception-Other (RP-O) instrument. The RP-O is a 17-item instrument scored on a 100-point response scale (1 to 100). Each item presents a scenario and participants are to asked to assess the amount of risk they perceive in the given scenario. Higher scores indicate a higher degree of risk perception, which suggests the participant is more risk aversive than risk prone.

The file “Part B_Test_2” contains a set of hypothetical data relative to this imaginary study.

**A. Descriptive Statistics (2 x 7 = 10 points)**

1. Prepare a frequency table for all the categorical variables.

2. Prepare a descriptive statistics summary table for all the continuous variables.

**Use the below description to answer items B and C (2 x 20 points = 40 points)**

The researcher initially wanted to explore four primary objectives using the data that she collected:

(a) The first objective of the researcher was to compare the psychological distress of the ATPs to the military pilots. Based on her previous research experience, she found that the average psychological distress of military pilots in the U.S. was 14 when measured using GHQ (scored on a scale of 0 to 36). Although she believed that ATPs should feel less depressed than the military pilots, the related literature had mixed results and therefore she was uncertain whether ATPs’ psychological distress would be higher or lower than the military pilots.

(b) The second objective of the researcher was to investigate the relationship between ATPs’ self-efficacy and attitude towards aviation safety. Based on her literature review, the researcher claims that the two variables should have a positive correlation.

(c) The third objective of the researcher was to derive a prediction equation that could be used to predict ATPs’ risk perception, based on their total flight hours, independent of any other factor.

(d) The fourth objective was to compare the mean self-efficacy of male ATPs to the mean self-efficacy of female ATPs, to see which group has a higher self-efficacy.

However, due to time, budget, and other resource constraints, she decided to investigate only two of the four primary objectives. Help the researcher in conducting the analyses listed in items B and C

**B.** Conduct a Pearson Correlation analysis for one of the four objectives you think is appropriate.

**C.** Conduct a single sample t test for one of the four objectives you think is appropriate.

**For the items B and C perform all the tasks listed below (20 points breakdown)**

**Pre-Data Analysis (4 points)**

1. Specify the research question. **(1 point)**

2. Specify the research hypothesis.** (1 point)**

3. Determine the appropriate research methodology/design and explain why it is appropriate. **(1 point)**

4. Conduct an a priori power analysis to determine the minimum sample size needed. Compare this result to the size of the given data set and explain what impact the size of the given sample will have on the results relative to the minimum size needed. **(1 point)**

**Data Analysis (8 points)**

1. Conduct a hypothesis test by applying all four steps. For regression you also need to report and interpret the terms of the regression equation (i.e., B and B0). **(4 steps x 2 points = 8 points)**

**Post-Data Analysis (8 points)**

1. Determine and interpret the effect size and determine and interpret effect size from both explained variance and prediction perspectives, wherever it is required. **(3 points)**

2. Determine and interpret the 95% confidence interval, including its precision and AIPE. Also Determine and interpret the standard error of estimate, RMSE, wherever it is required. **(2 points)**

3. Determine and interpret the power of the study from a post-hoc perspective. **(1 point)**

4. Present at least two plausible explanations for the results **(2 points)**