Recently, an association that represented police in New Jersey complained that the incidence of cancer was unusually high among police officers who used radar guns in tracking the speed of drivers. The association brought suit against the state, claiming that those officers who used these radar guns had an incidence of cancer 18 percent higher than a comparable group of government workers from the state park service who were randomly selected for comparison purposes. The comparison sample and the police officers were matched on educational level, age, gender, and years of service. The sample was large: 283 police officers and 231 park workers.
- Was the case justified? Why or why not? (Be sure to support your answer with reference to the strengths and weaknesses of the design, and consider possible confounds.)
- What kind of study is this? What are the problems associated with this kind of study?
- How would you improve the study?