Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
this was my discussion post:
Quinn et al. (1999) associated childhood myopia with night-time lighting using a small, clinic-based sample with high myopia prevalence and fewer than optimal numbers of parent data, subject to selection and reporting biases. However, Zadnik et al. (2000), using a larger, more diverse, school-based sample, found no such link, stressing that other factors involving genetic components, such as parental myopia, are responsible for the linkage. Their conclusions varied due to differences in sample size, diversity, and controls.
I find Zadnik et al. (2000) more convincing since its methodology is robust. It sampled a larger, ethnically more diverse school-based sample and controlled for parental myopia, a known risk factor. Elements of reliability and generalizability of the study are improved when compared to Quinn et al. (1999), which used a smaller and highly biased sample, making it more likely for confounding variables to influence their results.
The study of Quinn et al. (1999) was causal, suggesting that light at night was linked to myopia development, but there were not enough controls for confounding variables. Zadnik et al. (2000) was a comparative study of myopia within different lighting conditions while controlling for genetic factors. Zadnik’s design focused on statistical power and broader generalizability to real-world populations.
Quinn et al. (1999) report using a clinic-based sample with high myopia prevalence and selection bias risk as well as unaccounted confounders. On the other hand, Zadnik et al. (2000) used a larger school-based sample that considered genetic factors, such as parental myopia. They controlled this robustly, demonstrating that genetics, rather than the environment, dominate and reverse Quinn’s findings.
Quinn et al. (1999) obtained data from parent-reported night light use and clinical myopia diagnoses. In Zadnik et al. (2000), parent surveys for lighting history, cycloplegic autorefraction for children’s myopia, and detailed parental refractive status helped collect data more objectively and comprehensively.
In Quinn et al. (1999), night-time lighting exposure was the independent variable, and childhood myopia was the dependent variable. The independent variables Zadnik et al. (2000) used were lighting exposure and parental myopia, and myopia in the children was the dependent variable.
References
Quinn, G. E., Shin, C. H., Maguire, M. G., & Stone, R. A. (1999). Myopia and ambient lighting at night. Nature, 399(6732), 113–114.
Zadnik, K., Jones, L. A., Irvin, B. C., Kleinstein, R. N., Manny, R. E., Shin, J. A., & Mutti, D. O. (2000). Myopia and ambient night-time lighting. Nature, 404(6774), 143-144.
This was my instructors reply please answer this:
hank you for your post for this week’s discussion. Great thoughts.
Why did Quinn and Zadnik have different results or outcomes?
Quinn and Zadnik, while both experts in the field of myopia research, have sometimes arrived at different results or outcomes due to variations in their study designs, sample populations, and methodologies. Why do you suppose that was?
Consider specifically the differences in sample populations, age groups, and approaches to intervention.
Determine if each of the following contains an argument and then determine the issue, conclusion and premise(s). Please write your responses out in paragraph format.
Changes are real. Now, changes are only possible in time, and therefore time must be something real.—Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
Because the limbic system has a primary function in emotions such as pain, pleasure, anger, rage, fear, sorrow, sexual feelings, docility, and affection, it is sometimes called the “emotional” brain.—Gerard Tortora, Principles of Human Anatomy
School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.—U.S. Supreme Court, Santa Fe v. Doe(2000)
In the stratosphere the air temperature begins to increase with height, producing a temperature inversion. The reason for the inversion in the stratosphere is that the gas ozone plays a major part in heating the air at this altitude.—C. Donald Ahrens, Essentials of Meteorology
There is no need for a legal definition of death. There is no assurance that it would accomplish its intended purpose, and such legislation would lead directly to euthanasia.—The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Committee for Pro-Life Activities.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.