Then they generated the percentage of each group that considered the food healthy. And the NYT put the nutritionist responses on a Y-axis, and commoners on the X, and made a lovely scatterplot...
|Nutritionists and non-nutritionists agree that chocolate chip cookies are not healthy. However, nutritionists are far more critical of American cheese than are non-nutritionists.|
...and provided us with the raw data as well.
The article mostly highlights the foods where there is a large discrepancy of opinion between the two groups (see above).
There are many teachable moments in this article:
-Inter-rater reliability. Kind of. It is high when nutritionists and non-nutritionists agree, low when they don't. When there is low reliability, the food becomes an outlier (so talk about outliers/influential observations).
-Lots of descriptive data is presented.
-If you wanted, you could conduct a paired t-test on this data. Compare nutritionist data to lay person data. This data is available in separate tables accompanying the story.
-While you are at it, run the correlation and generate the regression line.
-Discuss real life application of this data. What are the commonalities for food that lay people ID as unhealthy that actually are healthy? And vice-versa? How can the government concentrate on suggesting healthy, confusing food to lay people?