The experiment which was done analyzed food items to check on their effect of being allergic. The food items which were analyzed are pears, Pot pie, Rice, Coffee, Ice cream, bread, butter, chicken Ice cream and ham. The analysis of the food items were depicted by either out put being +Ve which signified that the test was +ve while when the result is negative it shows that it is non-allergic.
Categories of the output
The analyses which were displayed on the screen were labeled P1 while those which were displayed with other food items they were recorded as P2. The analysis which were displayed by itself were pears, which was positive, Pot Pie and Chicken which were positive, Coffee and rice which is negative, Ice cream and Ham were also displayed by their own and they were negative.
For the tests which were done with another food item were Coffee and rice whose result were negative, bread and mushrooms were positive, pear and butter result was positive together with chicken while Ice cream and Ham result were positive.
The results test were categorized in A, B, C & D which was the order adopted for the food items paired and presented. The experiments were based on blocking paradigm, the theory used specify that leaning occurs when there is positive or negative effects on the research being done (Goodwin, 2007). The negative and positive output of the research contrast with each other depending on how the results are and provide a clear indication of the difference between those tests which are positive and those which are negative.
The testing which was done in the experiment each were tested using Super Lab Software for analysis and those who participated were presented with images of the food samples they were using on the screen of the computers. Each of the participants in the experiment was informed to pretend they are allergic and select on the food which they thought would cause allergic reactions if consumed.
The test was done following a procedure which selected the research being done randomly and the trials which were done were 30 which 6 of them were being predicted at a time. Each of the trial the experiment provided an output of the test which was done. There were a total of 36 trails which were then followed with a procedure used to ask the participants on the food which is more likely to cause allergic reaction.
During the research the participants hypothesized that surprises would be necessary tools for learning. They described the methods of the tests which were done and see that they were true. The research included discussion, literature review, general topic and specific hypothesis.
The application of the research would be used by an allergist to discover on the foods which are more likely to cause allergic reactions to the patient. The most appropriate way is to experiment with the patient by instructing him/her on the meals which they should take daily and record on if there was any reactions or not. The result found from the research should then be recorded for application and implication by the allergists.
When the allergist follows such research measure they will be sure that the result of the reaction is for the meals taken that day (Bordens & Abbott, 2007). With such high levels of accuracy the results would be applied with ease to all its applicants and they would be able to provide results which would be applicable in their operations.
The experiments should be done by taking single food without mixing them first to realize on which are allergic if they are consumed alone. Then the research should follow with findings of the food which when it is combined causes allergic reactions. Being allergists one is experienced on the combinations of meals which people are more allergic. They should first start with the research of those foods followed with other meals which are less allergic.
That way they will minimize on the number of experiments by reducing most of the experiments which would not provide a clear finding of the result because the research provides only YES or NO it does not have an option of being not certain if it causes reactions or not. Such straight response to findings provides a good guidance to the researcher and the patients as they have a good understanding on the meals which they are allergic to.
It is advisable to computerize the data obtained in the research because it is much easy to analyze it than when it is being done manually. Accuracy on data collection, analysis and output is essential in improving the research process. Therefore, even in this research the allergists should consider computerizing data collection, analysis and output (Hawley, 2009). Digitized research not only does it improve on accuracy of the day but also saves on time of the research. It is also important for the allergists to note the challenges which they have experienced with the research so as they would be able to improve on subsequent research.
References
Bordens, K & Abbott, B. (2007). Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodwin, C. (2007). Research in Psychology: Methods and Design. Chichester: Wiley.
Hawley, M. (2009). Design Research Methods for Experience Design. Web.