Assignment:
Review a book hostile attitudes and the coronary prone personality by Brendan S.Weekes and Lan K.Waterhouse and complete the following:
Introduction
1. In their discussion of the literature on hostility as a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD),, Weeks and Waterhouse suggested that the relationship between hostility and CHD may be moderated by another variable. What is this variable?
2. Weeks and Waterhouse suggested that the association between and hostility that emerges in retrospective studies may be reduced by another variable. What is this variable?
3. Weeks and Waterhouse included a measure of depression in their study. Was this measure incorporated in the stated aims of the study or in their hypothesis/ Should it have been? Why? State a hypothesis that would be consistent with their arguments in the introduction regarding depression, hostility and CHD.
Method
4. There may be a problem with Weeks and Waterhouse's control group. What do you think this may be?
5. Weeks and Waterhouse reported the test-retest reliability of the HOS. Is the same size for this adequate? If not, why not? What wouldb be a reasonable sample size?
6. Weeks and Waterhouse defended using the JAS to measure Type A personality on the grounds that theirs is a 'survey design"? What is a "survey design"?
7. Do you think the design of the Weeks and Waterhouse's study adequately addressed the theoretical and methodological issues raised by these authors in their introduction.
Results
8. According tot he authros, a total of 88 participants were used in the study. What do you think would account for the error degrees of freedom being discrepant between tables 1 and 2? Is either of the reported error degrees of the freedom consistent with the total of 88 participants used? What essential information is missing that would allow you to determine whether the reported error degrees of freedom are correct?
9. What critical comments would you make about the reported correlation fo .27 between BDI and the HOS scale for the whole sample? What implication has this, if any, for any conclusions drawn about the relationship between hostility and CHD or depression and CHD?
10. How appropriate are the analyzes for answering the questions posed by the investigators? Do they relate directly to the hypothesis stated at thee and of the Introduction? Do they adequately address the methodological flaws raised by the authors in their Introduction?