Follow the directions in the attachment
Instructions: To get full credit for the final project, you will need to complete the project as described in class. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/uciml/student-alcohol-consumption This data may work if you use ONE OF THE GRADE VARIABLES as the outcome. You will need to conduct a regression model like those covered in the course and you will need to provide a write up like the one demonstrated in class and like the example write up that was included with the Cognition Aging example we covered. The example of the cognition aging example is listed below under : Octogenerian Study of Cognition and Aging This data may work if you use ONE OF THE GRADE VARIABLES as the outcome. Then you will use the guiding questions to answer about the data set. Also below is the example of the narrative and how it should be written. There is the rubric as well. . Octogenerian Study of Cognition and Aging William Murrah 3/22/2020 The purpose of this study was to predict cognitive decline in older adults. Differences in cognition were examined in 550 older adults age 80 to 97 (M = 84.93, SD = 3.43). Cognition was measured by the Information Test, a measure of crystallized intelligence (M = 24.82, SD = 10.99, possible scores range from 0 to 44). The sample consisted of 41% men and 59% women. Physical ability was assessed by grip strength as measured in pounds per square inch (M = 9.11 pounds, SD = 2.99, range = 0 to 19 pounds). To facilitate interpretation of the intercept, each predictor was centered such that 0 was a meaningful value, including age (0 = 85 years), grip strength (0 = 9 pounds). See Tables 1 and 2 for descriptive statistics and correlations between key variables. Main effects for age and grip strength were included in the full model as depicted in Equation 1: \[ Y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1 Age_i + \beta_2 Grip_i + \varepsilon_i. \tag{1} \] The model results of the multiple regression are given in Table 3. Figure 1 displays a histogram of the studentized residuals with normal distribution superimposed, and suggests that the normality assumption is reasonable. Comparison of Studentized residuals to predicted values is consistent with the homogeneity of variance, but there was some evidence of a slight negative linear relation between the residuals and predicted values, suggesting that other variables might need to be included in the model. Further diagnostic plots suggest no major outliers or influential cases (see Figure 3). Based on this model, an 85 year-old with a grip strength of 9 pounds would be predicted to have a cognition score of about 25 points on average (\(\hat{\beta}_0 = 24.70\), \(p < .001\)).="" the="" main="" effect="" of="" age="" (\(\hat{\beta}_1="-0.42," p=".002\))" indicates="" that="" cognition="" is="" predicted="" to="" be="" lower="" by="" 0.42="" points="" on="" average="" for="" every="" additional="" year="" of="" age,="" for="" two="" people="" with="" the="" same="" grip="" strength.="" the="" main="" effect="" of="" grip="" strength="" (\(\hat{\beta}_2="0.80," p="">< .001\))="" indicates="" that="" cognition="" is="" predicted="" to="" be="" slightly="" greater="" on="" average="" for="" every="" additional="" pound="" of="" grip="" strength="" in="" persons="" of="" the="" same="" age.="" however,="" these="" effects="" are="" relatively="" small="" compared="" to="" the="" observed="" variability="" in="" cognitive="" scores="" in="" the="" sample="" (sd="10.99," see="" table="" 1).="" together="" these="" two="" predictors="" explain="" less="" than="" 10%="" of="" the="" variance="" in="" cognition="" (\(r^2=".075," f(2,="" 547)="22.14," p="">< .001\)).="" the="" focus="" of="" this="" study="" was="" to="" understand="" the="" impact="" of="" age="" and="" physical="" ability="" on="" cognition="" in="" adults="" over="" the="" age="" of="" 80="" years="" old.="" this="" study="" suggests="" that="" age="" and="" grip="" strength="" are="" reliable="" predictors="" of="" cognitive="" ability,="" but="" the="" estimated="" relations="" are="" small,="" suggesting="" that="" other="" factors="" are="" needed="" to="" explain="" differences="" in="" cognitive="" abilities="" among="" older="" adults="" in="" the="" united="" states.="" as="" older="" adults="" age="" the="" current="" model="" predicts="" a="" small="" decrease="" in="" cognitive="" ability="" holding="" their="" grip="" strength="" constant.="" older="" adults="" of="" the="" same="" age="" but="" with="" better="" grip="" strength="" are="" predicted="" to="" have="" slightly="" higher="" cognitive="" ability.="" this="" study="" suggests="" that="" maintaining="" physical="" fitness="" may="" reduce="" the="" effects="" of="" aging="" on="" cognitive="" ability.="" the="" low="" proportion="" of="" variance="" explained="" by="" the="" model="" and="" the="" residual="" diagnostics="" suggest="" that="" future="" work="" should="" consider="" other="" predictors="" of="" cognition="" in="" older="" adults.="" table="" 1:="" descriptive="" statistic="" for="" numeric="" variables="" vars="" n="" mean="" sd="" min="" max="" range="" se="" cognition="" 1="" 550="" 24.82="" 10.99="" 0.00="" 44.00="" 44.00="" 0.47="" age="" 2="" 550="" 84.93="" 3.43="" 80.02="" 96.97="" 16.95="" 0.15="" grip="" 3="" 550="" 9.11="" 2.98="" 0.00="" 19.00="" 19.00="" 0.13="" table="" 2:="" correlations="" between="" study="" variables="" cognition="" age="" grip="" cognition="" 1.00="" -0.17="" 0.24="" age="" -0.17="" 1.00="" -0.18="" grip="" 0.24="" -0.18="" 1.00="" table="" 3:="" sequential="" regression="" models="" predicting="" cognitive="" ability="" ="" age="" grip="" full="" model="" (intercept)="" 24.78***="" 24.72***="" 24.70***="" ="" (0.46)="" (0.46)="" (0.45)="" age="" (centered="" at="" 85="" yrs.)="" -0.55***="" ="" -0.42**="" ="" (0.13)="" ="" (0.13)="" grip="" (centered="" at="" 9="" lbs.)="" ="" 0.89***="" 0.80***="" ="" ="" (0.15)="" (0.15)="" r2="" 0.03="" 0.06="" 0.07="" adj.="" r2="" 0.03="" 0.06="" 0.07="" num.="" obs.="" 550="" 550="" 550="" ***p="">< 0.001;="" **p="">< 0.01;="" *p="">< 0.05 figure 1. histogram of residuals figure 2: model residuals compared to predicted values figure 3. diagnostic plots evaluating influential cases 0.05="" figure="" 1.="" histogram="" of="" residuals="" figure="" 2:="" model="" residuals="" compared="" to="" predicted="" values="" figure="" 3.="" diagnostic="" plots="" evaluating="" influential="">