Stat.

Analysis with Software Application: Problem Set 3

Problem: 1
The data on the number of minutes that patients had to wait for their appointment with 5
doctors.
DOCTOR

A B C D E
21 9 18 9 29
20 11 17 11 30
21 15 16 28 24
30 12 15 30 26
28 18 20 15 25

Step 1. State the null hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the 5 groups of patients in terms of the number of
minutes of waiting time in their appointment.
Step 2. Set the level of Significance:

➢ 𝛼 = 0.05

Step 3. Test statistics:

➢ the F-test ( ANOVA)

Step 4. Calculate the test statistics:

➢ Use Excel Application

Step 5. Identify the Critical Value

➢ Tabular value (F crit)= 2.87

Step 6. Show the table here

Step 7. Decision Rule:

➢ Since the computed F - value of 5.41 is less than the tabular value of 2.87 at 0.05 level of
significance, the researcher accepts the null hypothesis.

Step 8. Conclusion:

➢ There is no significant difference between the 5 groups of patients in terms of the number of
minutes of waiting time in their appointment .It only means that patients waiting time in
relation to the number population sample have no effect in the services conducted in having
an appointment with the doctor.

Problem: 2
The data below represent the number of hours of pain relief provided by two brands
of headache tablets administered to 24 subjects. These subjects were randomly
divided into two groups and each group was treated with a different brand. Is there
a significant difference between the average number of hours of pain relief
provided by the two brands of headache tablets?

Brand X1 Brand X2
5 3
8 2
7 1
3 4
4 5
8 6
7 7
5 3
6 5
7 4
5 2
5 3

Step 1. State the null hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the average number of hours of pain relief provided
by the two brands of headache tablets.
Step 2. Set the level of Significance:
➢ 𝛼 = 0.05

Step 3. Test statistics:

➢ T test for independent sample

Step 4. Calculate the test statistics:

➢ Use Excel Application

Step 5. Identify the Critical Value

➢ T tab= 2.07

Step 6. Show the table here

Group Highes Lowest N Mean Mean Valu Interpretation
t value value difference t- e
Calc Tab
Brand X1 8 3 12 5.83 2.08 3.04 2.07 Reject Null
Brand X2 7 1 12 3.75 Hypothesis

Step 7. Decision Rule:

➢ Since the computed T- value of 3.04 is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 at 0.05 level of
significance, the researcher rejects the null hypothesis.

Step 8. Conclusion:

➢ There is a significant difference between the average number of hours of pain relief
provided by the two brands of headache tablets. It only means that between the two
brands, one is more effective in relieving the headache faster than the other.

Problem: 3
 A certain livelihood program was given to 15 farmers to enhance their income. The
data were recorded before and after the implementation as shown below.
Before the Implementation After the Implementation
5,000 6,000
7,500 7,000
8,000 10,000
7,000 8,000
7,000 7,000
8,000 9,000
8,500 9,000
10,000 10,000
6,000 8,000
7,000 8,000
5,000 10,000
6,000 7,000
5,500 6,000
8,000 9,000
10,000 11,000

Step 1. State the null hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the before and after the implementation of incomes
for the 15 farmers.
Step 2. Set the level of Significance:

➢ 𝛼 = 0.05

Step 3. Test statistics:

➢ T test for dependent sample

Step 4. Calculate the test statistics:

➢ Use Excel Application

Step 5. Identify the Critical Value

➢ T tab= 2.14
Step 6. Show the table here
Income Highest Lowest N Mean Mean Valu Interpretation
value value difference t- e
Tab
Calc
Before 10,000 5,000 15 7,233.33 1,100 3.35 2.14 Reject Null
After 11,000 6,000 15 8,333.00 Hypothesis

Step 7. Decision Rule:

➢ Since the computed T- value of 3.35 is greater than the tabular value of 2.14 at 0.05 level of
significance, the researcher rejects the null hypothesis.

Step 8. Conclusion:

There is a significant difference between the before and after the implementation of incomes
for the 15 farmers. It means that the 15 farmers receive a higher income after the
implementation compared to the income before the implementation of their income based on
the data given.

Problem: 4
The following data show the percentage of the votes predicted by a poll survey for 10
candidates for the senate in different provinces and the percentage of the votes which
they actually received.
Poll Survey Actually Received
43 50
46 48
30 35
40 40
25 25
36 35
40 46
50 52
 20 30
25 28

Step 1. State the null hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between the percentage of votes predicted in the result of
the poll survey and actual vote received.
Step 2. Set the level of Significance:

➢ 𝛼 = 0.05

Step 3. Test statistics:

➢ Pearson R

Step 4. Calculate the test statistics:

➢ Use Excel Application

Step 5. Identify the Critical Value

➢ df= n-2
➢ df= 10-2
➢ df= 8
➢ CVtab= 0.632

Column 1 Column 2
Column 1 1
Column 2 0.936617 1

Step 6. Show the table here

Vote Highest Lowest N Mean Mean Value Interpretation
value value differenc C Tab
e
Calc
Poll survey 50 20 10 35.50 3.4 0.94 0.62 Reject Null
Actually 52 25 10 38.90 Hypothesis
received

Step 7. Decision Rule:

➢ Since the computed C-value of 3.4 is greater than the tabular value of 0.94 at 0.05 level of
significance, the researcher rejects the null hypothesis.

Step 8. Conclusion:

There is significant relationship between the percentage of votes predicted in the

result of the poll survey and actual vote received. It comes to show that votes from
 poll survey are not consistent with the actual result. Therefore, votes that are
actually received are more reliable compared to votes from poll survey.

Problem: 5

1.
A random sample of 400 adults are classified according to marital status and drinking
habits.
Drinking Habits Single Married Widowed
Nondrinkers 29 74 18
Moderate Drinkers 32 75 39
Heavy Drinkers 55 61 17

Step 1. State the null hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between marital status relating to drinking habit.
Step 2. Set the level of Significance:

➢ 𝛼 = 0.05

Step 3. Test statistics:

➢ Chi-square test of independence

Step 4. Calculate the test statistics:

➢ Use Excel Application

Step 5. Identify the Critical Value

➢ df= (c-1) (r-1)

➢ df= (3-1) (3-1)
➢ df= 4
➢ CVtab= 9.49

Observed Expected Computed Value

Drinking Habits Single Married Widowed Total Single Married Widowed Total Single Married Widowed Total

Nondrinkers 29 74 18 121 35.09 63.525 22.385 121 1.05694215 1.72728257 0.8589781 3.643203
Moderate
32 75 39 146 42.34 76.65 27.01 146 2.52516769 0.03551859 5.3224769 7.883163
Drinkers
Heavy Drinkers 55 61 17 133 38.57 69.825 24.605 133 6.9988307 1.11536878 2.3505802 10.46478
Total 116 210 74 400 116 210 74 400 10.5809405 2.87816994 8.5320351 21.99115
Step 6. Show the table here

Computed Value( X2= Ʃ (O-E)2/ E

Single Married Widowed Total

1.05694215 1.72728257 0.858978 3.643203

2.52516769 0.03551859 5.322477 7.883163
6.9988307 1.11536878 2.35058 10.46478
10.5809405 2.87816994 8.532035 21.99115

X2= 21.99
pv= 0.000201235
Step 7. Decision Rule:

➢ Since the computed C-value of 21.99 is greater than the tabular value of 9.49 at 0.05 level
of significance, the researcher rejects the null hypothesis.

Step 8. Conclusion:

There is a significant relationship between marital status relating to drinking habit. It

means that there is an existing psychological and emotional impact of a person’s
marital status towards its drinking habits.