A survey late published in the San Jose Mercury News suggests the parents of corpulent kids do non comprehend their kids as corpulent. An analysis of this survey. its methods. and its findings is an of import exercising in understanding the significance and relevancy of all research. The ability to read research critically and understand how it was generated allows us to place possible design defects or to recognize the cogency of its decisions and do appropriate usage of the informations.

The survey was conducted through an internet research house for the University of Michigan. Its end was to find the per centum of parents who realized their kids are corpulent and to compare it to the per centum of parents that do non recognize their kids are corpulent. The participants were selected by simple random sampling and were considered a representative sample of American parents. The sample included 2060 respondents ( Runk. 2007 ) .

The information appeared to be collected through cyberspace studies. The survey was experimental and measured uninterrupted informations sets including the tallness. weight. age. and gender of the participant’s kids ( Bennett. Briggs. & A ; Triola. 2003 ) . A organic structure mass index greater than or equal to the 95th percentile in comparing to kids the same age and gender was the standards used for fleshiness in this survey. The information from these kids was so compared the national per centum of kids considered corpulent by the same criterions. Qualitative informations refering to whether or non the parents thought their kids were “slightly overweight. really fleshy. or about right” was besides collected ( Runk. 2007 ) .

Although it was non specifically stated. I hypothesize the kids studied were broken down into bins by age and gender. The first bin comprised of corpulent misss six to 11 old ages old and the 2nd bin corpulent male childs six to11 old ages old. For the 12 to 17 twelvemonth old group the first bin included corpulent misss 12 to 17 old ages old and the 2nd bin included corpulent male childs 12 to 17 old ages old. I farther speculate the parents of kids in each group were binned harmonizing to their response to the qualitative appraisal of their child’s weight. For each age group the first bin included parents who answered ” really overweight. ” the 2nd bin included parents who answered “slightly overweight. ” and the 3rd bin included parents who answered “about normal” ( Bennett. Briggs. & A ; Triola. 2003 ) .

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

The findings in the six to 11 twelvemonth old group revealed 15 % of the kids in this age group met the standards for fleshiness. This determination was non significantly different from the national figure which reports 17 % of all kids in the United States are corpulent by the criterion of this survey. Thirteen per centum of the parents of corpulent kids in this age group categorized their kids as “very corpulence. ” 37 % classified their kids as “slightly overweight. ” and 43 % reported their kids were about right” ( Runk. 2007 ) .

The findings in the 12 to 17 twelvemonth old group revealed 10 % of kids in this age group met the standards for fleshiness. This determination is significantly lower than the national figure for corpulent kids. Thirty one per centum of the parents of corpulent kids in this age group reported their kids as being “very corpulence. ” 56 % reported their kids as “slightly overweight. ” and 11 % reported their kids were “about right” ( Runk. 2007 ) .

Research workers concluded both age groups under reported the incidence and badness of fleshiness when compared to the national statistic saying 17 % of all kids meet the standards for fleshiness outlined in this survey ( Runk. 2007 ) . I agree the badness of fleshiness was greatly under reported in both groups. However. I disagree with the averment the incidence of fleshiness was under reported in the six to 11 twelvemonth old group. I believe the difference between 15 % and 17 % could easy be a happenstance. It may besides hold resulted because the cyberspace was used to roll up informations and hapless kids are more likely to be corpulent and less likely to hold internet entree ( Vieweg. Johnston. Fernandez & A ; Pandurangi. 2007 ) .

I do hold that fleshiness seemed to be well under reported in the 12 to 17 twelvemonth old group. A statistically important difference ( about 7 % ) occurred between that age groups 10 % incidence and the 17 % national incidence of childhood fleshiness ( Runk. 2007 ) . Such a big difference is improbable to be a happenstance and supports the theory that fleshiness was under reported in this age group or confounding was present ( Bennett. Briggs. & A ; Triola. 2003 ) .

Critical analysis of this information reveals many strengths and a few important failings in the design and execution of this survey. The end is clearly stated. to find the per centum of parents who realized their kids are corpulent and to compare it to the per centum of parents that do non recognize their kids are corpulent. This end was clearly accomplished for all the survey participants. The beginning of the survey is the University of Michigan which can be considered a dependable. impersonal beginning. The sampling is sufficiently big. but whether or non it is representative of childhood fleshiness in this state is questionable. A serious job with the sample exists as a consequence of utilizing the cyberspace as the scene. High proportions of corpulent kids are socioeconomically disadvantaged and may non hold internet entree.

The cyberspace scene is likely to account for the evident under coverage of corpulent kids noted in this survey and as such is a likely beginning of confusing. The standard for fleshiness is good defined and could be easy measured in all the topics. but I remain concerned a important part of corpulent kids may hold been unwittingly omitted from consideration. In the terminal. nevertheless. I find there is a strong practical usage for this information. Healthcare suppliers are made witting of the fact that the parents are. more frequently than non. truly incognizant their kid is corpulent. This information supports the determination to open a duologue with parents and offer learning about the dangers and bar of childhood fleshiness the clear class of action.

Mentions:

Bennett. J. . Briggs. W. . & A ; Triola. M. ( 2003 ) . Statistical Reasoning for EverydayLife. Second Edition. Upper Saddle River. New jersey: Addison Wesley. RetrievedDecember 5. 2007. from University of Phoenix resource HCS 438.

Runk. D. ( 2007. December 24 ) . Parents don’t recognize their childs are fat. MercuryNews ( San Jose ) . Retrieved December 28. 2007. fromhttp: //www. mercurynews. com/healthandscience/ci_7799918? nclick_check=1.

Vieweg. V. . Johnston. Fernandez. A. . & A ; Pandurangi. A. ( 2007 ) . Correlation
between high hazard fleshiness groups and low socioeconomic position in school kids. Southern Medical Association. Retrieved January 12. 2008. from University of Phoenix library [ EBSCOhost ] .

x

Hi!
I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out