Name: SURBANO, CARILLE STAT 20053

UGADDAN, SEAN THYRDEE M. BSMA 2-4

MODULE 4
ACTIVITIES/ASSESSMENTS: Determine whether the sampling is dependent or independent.

Dependent 1. A researcher wishes to compare academic aptitudes of married mathematicians and

their spouses. She obtains a random sample of 287 such couples who take an academic aptitude
test and determines each spouse’s academic aptitude.

Dependent 2. A political scientist wants to know how a random sample of 18- to 25- year-olds
feel about Democrats and Republicans in Congress. She obtains a random sample of 1030
registered voters 18 to 25 years of age and asks; do you have favorable/unfavorable opinion of the
Democratic/ Republican party? Each individual was asked to disclose his or her opinion about
each party.

Independent 3. An educator wants to determine whether a new curriculum significantly improves

standardized test scores for third grade students. She randomly divides 80 third-graders into two
groups. Group 1 is taught using the new curriculum, while group 2 is taught using the traditional
curriculum. At the end of the school year, both groups are given the standardized test and the mean
scores are compared.

Independent 4. A stock analyst wants to know if there is difference between the mean rate of
return from energy stocks and that from financial stocks. He randomly selects 13 energy stocks and
computes the rate of return for the past year. He randomly selects 13 financial stocks and compute
the rate of return for the past year.

Dependent 5. An urban economist believes that commute times to work in the South are less than
commute times to work in the Midwest. He randomly selects 40 employed individuals in the south
and 45 employed individuals in the Midwest and determines their commute times.

II. Solve the following problems. Make sure to follow the 6 steps procedure.

1. A study is designed to test whether there is a difference in mean daily calcium intake in adults
with normal bone density, adults with osteopenia (a low bone density which may lead to
osteoporosis) and adults with osteoporosis. Adults 60 years of age with normal bone density,
osteopenia and osteoporosis are selected at random from hospital records and invited to
participate in the study. Each participant's daily calcium intake is measured based on reported
food intake and supplements. The data are shown below.
Is there a statistically significant difference in mean calcium intake in patients with normal bone density as
compared to patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis?

STEP 1: STATE THE NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS

Null Hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in mean calcium intake in patients
with normal bone density as compared to patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference in mean calcium intake in
patients with normal bone density as compared to patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis.

STEP 2: SET THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OR ALPHA LEVEL (α)

α=0.05

STEP 3: DETERMINE THE TEST DISTRIBUTION TO USE

Dependent Variable: Mean daily intake
Independent Variable: Bone density of adults (normal density, Osteopenia, Osteoporosis)

Since we are comparing the means of one independent variable that consists of two or more
categorical groups, we will use the one-way ANOVA.

Using p-value approach: If pvalue ≤, reject Ho, otherwise failed to reject Ho

F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Normal Bone Osteopenia

Mean 938.3333333 800
Variance 26016.66667 48000
Observations 6 6
df 5 5
F 0.542013889
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.258864847
F Critical one-tail 0.1980069

Failed to reject Ho
Ho: Equal Variances Assumed
Ha: Equal Variances Not Assumed
 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Normal Bone Osteoporosis

Mean 938.3333333 715
Variance 26016.66667 89950
Observations 6 6
df 5 5
F 0.28923476
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.099780503
F Critical one-tail 0.1980069

Failed to Reject Ho
Ho: Equal Variances Assumed
Ha: Equal Variances Not Assumed

STEP 4: CALCULATE TEST STATISTICS OR P-VALUE

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Normal Bone 6 5630 938.3333333 26016.67
Osteopenia 6 4800 800 48000
Osteoporosis 6 4290 715 89950

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 152477.7778 2 76238.88889 1.394897 0.278229 3.68232
Within Groups 819833.3333 15 54655.55556

Total 972311.1111 17
STEP 5: MAKE STATISTICAL DECISION
Using p-value approach: If p-value ≤, reject Ho, otherwise failed to reject Ho.

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Normal Bone 6 5630 938.3333333 26016.67
Osteopenia 6 4800 800 48000
Osteoporosis 6 4290 715 89950

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 152477.7778 2 76238.88889 1.394897 0.278229 3.68232
Within Groups 819833.3333 15 54655.55556

Total 972311.1111 17

Failed to reject Ho

STEP 6: CONCLUSION
There is no statistically significant evidence at a =0.05 to show that there is a difference in mean
calcium intake in patients with normal bone density as compared to osteopenia and osteoporosis.

Bone
Indicator
density Mean f-value p-value Decision Remarks
Normal
Mean Daily Bone Failed to
938.3333
Calcium 1.394897 0.278229 reject Insignificant
Intake Osteopenia 800 Ho
Osteoporosis 715

2. Some studies have shown that in the United States, men spend more than women buying gifts and
cards on Valentine’s Day. Suppose a researcher wants to test this hypothesis by randomly sampling
nine men and 10 women with comparable demographic characteristics from various large cities across
the United States to be in a study. Each study participant is asked to keep a log beginning one month
before Valentine’s Day and record all purchases made for Valentine’s Day during that one-month
period. The resulting data are shown below. Use these data and a 1% level of significance to test to
determine if, on average, men actually do spend significantly more than women on Valentine’s Day.
Assume that such spending is normally distributed in the population and that the population variances
are equal.
STEP 1: STATE THE NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS
Null Hypothesis: The average spending of men on Valentine’s Day is equal to the average spending
of women on Valentine’s Day (Ho: μ1=μ2).
Alternate Hypothesis: The average spending of men on Valentine’s Day is more than the average
spending of women on Valentine’s Day (Ha: μ1>μ2).

STEP 2: SET THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OR ALPHA LEVEL (α)

α=0.01.

STEP 3: DETERMINE THE TEST DISTRIBUTION TO USE

Dependent Variable: Amount spent (in USD).
Independent Variable: Sex (Men and Women).
Since we are comparing the means of two independent groups, we will use the independent sample
t-test.

Using p-value approach: If pvalue ≤, reject Ho, otherwise failed to reject Ho

F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Men (in USD) Women (in USD)

Mean 110.9066667 75.481
Variance 829.85955 930.6784544
Observations 9 10
df 8 9
F 0.891671604
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.441123383
F Critical one-tail 0.169187022
Failed to reject Ho
Since we failed to reject Ho, we will proceed to t-test: Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances.
STEP 4: CALCULATE TEST STATISTICS OR P-VALUE

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Men (in USD) Women (in USD)

Mean 110.9066667 75.481
Variance 829.85955 930.6784544
Observations 9 10
Pooled Variance 883.2342641
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 17
t Stat 2.594325902
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.009450253
t Critical one-tail 2.566933984
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.018900507
t Critical two-tail 2.89823052

STEP 5: MAKE STATISTICAL DECISION

Using p-value approach: If p-value ≤, reject Ho, otherwise failed to reject Ho.

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Men (in USD) Women (in USD)

Mean 110.9066667 75.481
Variance 829.85955 930.6784544
Observations 9 10
Pooled Variance 883.2342641
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 17
t Stat 2.594325902
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.009450253
t Critical one-tail 2.566933984
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.018900507
t Critical two-tail 2.89823052

STEP 6: CONCLUSION
There is not enough evidence to support that men actually do spend significantly more than women on
Valentine’s Day.
Indicator Sex Mean t-value p-value Decision Remarks
Men 110.9066667 Failed to
Amount Not
2.594326 0.018901 reject
Spent Women 75.481 Significant
Ho
3. A researcher is interested whether a training course increases the teaching performance of the
teachers who attended the training courses. Test at 10% level of significance. The data are shown
below:

STEP 1: STATE THE NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS

Null Hypothesis: A training course does not increase the teaching performance of the teachers who
attended the training courses (Ho: μ1≥μ2).
Alternate Hypothesis: A training course does increase the teaching performance of the teachers who
attended the training courses (Ha: μ1<μ2).

STEP 2: SET THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OR ALPHA LEVEL (α)

α=0.10

STEP 3: DETERMINE THE TEST DISTRIBUTION TO USE

Dependent Variable: Teaching Performance.
Independent Variable: Treatment (Before and After).
Since we are comparing the means of two related groups, we will use the dependent sample t-test.

STEP 4: CALCULATE TEST STATISTICS OR P-VALUE

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Before After
Mean 85.25 94.1
Variance 8.092105 13.14737
Observations 20 20
Pearson Correlation 0.221966
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 19
t Stat -9.69648
P(T<=t) one-tail 4.31E-09
t Critical one-tail 1.327728
P(T<=t) two-tail 8.63E-09
t Critical two-tail 1.729133
STEP 5: MAKE STATISTICAL DECISION
Using p-value approach: If p-value ≤, reject Ho, otherwise failed to reject Ho.
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Before After
Mean 85.25 94.1
Variance 8.092105 13.14737
Observations 20 20
Pearson Correlation 0.221966
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 19
t Stat -9.69648
P(T<=t) one-tail 4.31E-09
t Critical one-tail 1.327728
P(T<=t) two-tail 8.63E-09
t Critical two-tail 1.729133
Reject Ho

STEP 6: CONCLUSION
There is sufficient evidence to support that the training course does increase the teaching performance
of the teachers who attended the training courses.
Indicator Treatment Mean t-value p-value Decision Remarks
Teaching Before 85.25
performance of -9.696475625 4.3134E-09 Reject Ho Significant
the teachers After 94.1

4. A pediatrician wants to determine the relation that may exist between a child’s height and head
circumference. She randomly selects eleven 3-year-old children from her practice, measures their heights
and head circumference, and obtains the data shown in the table below.
STEP 1: STATE THE NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between a child’s height and head circumference.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between a child’s height and head
circumference.

STEP 2: SET THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OR ALPHA LEVEL (α)

α=0.05

STEP 3: DETERMINE THE TEST DISTRIBUTION TO USE

Dependent Variable: Height
Independent Variable: Head Circumference

Since we are testing the significant relationship of two variables, we will use Pearson r.

STEP 4: CALCULATE TEST STATISTICS OR P-VALUE

Head Circumference
Height (inches) (inches)
27.75 17.5 Pearson r 0.911072733
24.5 17.1 t-value 6.630071669
25.5 17.1 p-value 9.59039E-05
26 17.3
25 16.9
27.75 17.6
26.5 17.3
27 17.5
26.75 17.3
26.75 17.5
27.5 17.5
STEP 5: MAKE STATISTICAL DECISION
Using p-value approach: If pvalue ≤, reject Ho, otherwise failed to reject Ho

Pearson r 0.911072733 strong direct correlation

t-value 6.630071669
Reject Ho
p-value 9.59039E-05
STEP 6: CONCLUSION

Height
Pearson r Description p-value Decision Remarks

Head Circumference Strong and

0.911072733 Direct 9.59039E-05 Reject Ho Significant
Correlation

There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant relationship between the height and head
circumference of a child.
5. The following data represent the smoking status from a random sample of 1054 U.S. residents 18 years
or older by level of education. Test whether smoking status and level of education are independent at the
α = 0.05 level of significance.

STEP 1: STATE THE NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS

Null Hypothesis: Smoking status and level of education are independent.
Alternate Hypothesis: Smoking status and level of education are dependent.

STEP 2: SET THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OR ALPHA LEVEL (α)

α=0.05

STEP 3: DETERMINE THE TEST DISTRIBUTION TO USE

Two Categorical Variables:
Smoking Status (Current, Former, or Never).
Level of Education (by Years).
Since we are testing the significant relationship of two categorical variables, we will use Chisquare: test
for independence.

STEP 4: CALCULATE TEST STATISTICS OR P-VALUE

Actual/ Observed
Level of Smoking Status Row
Education Current Former Never Total
>12 178 88 208 474
12 137 69 143 349
13-15 44 25 44 113
16 or more 34 33 51 118
Column Total 393 215 446 1054

Expected

Level of Smoking Status

Education Current Former Never
>12 176.7381 96.6888 200.5731
12 130.13 71.1907 147.6793
13-15 42.13378 23.05028 47.81594
16 or more 43.9981 24.07021 49.93169
STEP 5: MAKE STATISTICAL DECISION
Using p-value approach: If pvalue ≤, reject Ho, otherwise failed to reject Ho

Actual/Observed
Level of Smoking Status Row
Education Current Former Never Total
>12 178 88 208 474
12 137 69 143 349
13-15 44 25 44 113
16 or more 34 33 51 118
Column Total 393 215 446 1054

Expected

Level of Smoking Status

Education Current Former Never
>12 176.7381 96.6888 200.5731
12 130.13 71.1907 147.6793
13-15 42.13378 23.05028 47.81594
16 or more 43.9981 24.07021 49.93169

p-value 0.252895516
Failed to reject Ho

STEP 6: CONCLUSION
There is not sufficient evidence to reject ho; hence accept Ho and conclude that Smoking Status and Level
of Education are Independent.

Level of Smoking Status Row

Education Current Former Never Total
>12 178 88 208 474
12 137 69 143 349
13-15 44 25 44 113
16 or more 34 33 51 118
Column Total 393 215 446 1054
6.A pediatrician wants to determine the relation that may exist between a child’s height and head
circumference. She randomly selects eleven 3-year-old children from her practice, measures their heights
and head circumference, and obtains the data shown in the table below.

STEP 1: STATE THE NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between a child’s height and head circumference.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between a child’s height and head
circumference.

STEP 2: SET THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OR ALPHA LEVEL (α)

α=0.05

STEP 3: DETERMINE THE TEST DISTRIBUTION TO USE

Dependent Variable: Height
Independent Variable: Head Circumference

Since we are testing the significant relationship of two variables, we will use Pearson r.

STEP 4: CALCULATE TEST STATISTICS OR P-VALUE

Head Circumference
Height (inches) (inches)
27.75 17.5 Pearson r 0.911072733
24.5 17.1 t-value 6.630071669
25.5 17.1 p-value 9.59039E-05
26 17.3
25 16.9
27.75 17.6
26.5 17.3
27 17.5
26.75 17.3
26.75 17.5
27.5 17.5
STEP 5: MAKE STATISTICAL DECISION
Using p-value approach: If pvalue ≤, reject Ho, otherwise failed to reject Ho

Pearson r 0.911072733 strong direct correlation

t-value 6.630071669
Reject Ho
p-value 9.59039E-05

STEP 6: CONCLUSION

Height
Pearson r Description p-value Decision Remarks

Head Circumference Strong and

0.911072733 Direct 9.59039E-05 Reject Ho Significant
Correlation

There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant relationship between the height and head
circumference of a child.