Foster care versus orphanages Do abandon children placed in foster homes do better than

similar children placed in an institution? The Bucharest Early Intervention Project found that

the answer is a clear “Yes.” The subjects were $136$ young children abandoned at birth and living in

orphanages in Bucharest, Romania. Half of the children, chosen at random, were placed in foster

homes. The other half remained in the orphanages.$55$ (Foster care was not easily available in Romania at the time and so was paid for by the study.) What conclusion can we draw from this study? Explain.

Number of young children, $n=136$
Half of the children were placed in foster families at random. The remaining half remained in orphanages.

Most statistical studies try to draw conclusions that go beyond the data itself. In order to make population inferences, participants in a study must be randomly picked from the greatest population. Cause and effect can be inferred from a well-designed experiment in which treatments are randomly assigned to experimental units.

Foster care was not readily available in Romania at the time of the study, so foster care was paid for by the study, according to the question. However, it's probable that the researchers influenced the study because they gathered money for foster care and wanted the study to come out in favor of it. As a result, we can't trust the study's findings and, as a result, we can't draw any conclusions from it.