I want answer with explanation...

I'll upvote you...

A researcher has explored the effect of wilderness therapy as a treatment for schizophrenia. They compared a group of individuals with schizophrenia who have received wilderness therapy to a control group of individuals with schizophrenia. They determine that those who received wilderness therapy have better overall outcomes on your primary outcome measure, z = 6.3, p < 0.01. They immediately run to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to advocate for the use of wilderness therapy as the new standard of care for those with schizophrenia. As a member of the IOM, what reason could you give this researcher as to why they should be cautious about their new therapy?

		Established medical science says wilderness therapy isn t an effective form of treatment
		They should have compared their therapy to a sample of individuals without schizophrenia
		They implemented wilderness therapy incorrectly
		Statistical significance just means the chances of observing this result under the null hypothesis is unlikely, not that the treatment worked.

In speaking with the researcher from the prior question about wilderness therapy, what advice could you give them to bolster the claim that their treatment does work?

		Repeat the experiment with the same individuals and see if you get the same result
		Repeat the experiment with a new sample to see if you get the same result
		Develop a brand-new treatment to compare to wilderness therapy to see if one is better
		Its probably best to find a new career

If the researcher decides to conduct their wilderness therapy experiment again, should they expect the exact same result if they use a different sample?

		Yes - replicability means that you obtain the exact same results each time
		Yes - deviations of samples from the population are not expected and usually mean that something was wrong in the sampling procedure
		No - a degree of sampling error is expected
		No - a new sample will yield an entirely different result