Example 1

In a study conducted by the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Virginia Tech, the steel rods
supplied by two different companies were compared. Ten sample springs were made out of the steel
rods supplied by each company, and a measure of flexibility was recorded for each. The data are as
follows:

Company A Company B
9.3 11
8.8 9.8
6.8 9.9
8.7 10.2
8.5 10.1
6.7 9.7
8 11
6.5 11.1
9.2 10.2
7 9.6

Example 2
A dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) is used for measuring material resistance to
penetration (mm/blow) as a cone is driven into pavement or sub grade. Suppose that for a
particular application, it is required that the true average DCP value (µ) for a certain type of
pavement be less than 30. The pavement will not be used unless there is conclusive
evidence that the specification has been met. Let’s state and test the appropriate
hypotheses using the following data (“Probabilistic Model for the Analysis of Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer Test Values in Pavement Structure Evaluation,” J. of Testing and Evaluation,
1999: 7–14):
14.1 14.5 15.5 16.0 16.0 16.7 16.9 17.1 17.5 17.8
17.8 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.3 19.0 19.2 19.4 20.0 20.0
20.8 20.8 21.0 21.5 23.5 27.5 27.5 28.0 28.3 30.0
30.0 31.6 31.7 31.7 32.5 33.5 33.9 35.0 35.0 35.0
36.7 40.0 40.0 41.3 41.7 47.5 50.0 51.0 51.8 54.4
55.0 57.0
Example 3
Suppose that an engineer is interested in testing the bias in a pH meter. Data are collected
on a neutral substance (pH= 7.0). A sample of the measurements were taken with the data
as follows:
7.07 7.00 7.10 6.97 7.00 7.03 7.01 7.01 6.98 7.08

It is, then, of interest to test H 0 : μ=7 vs H 1 : μ ≠ 7

Example 4
The following data represent the running times of films produced by two motion-picture
companies.
Company Time (minutes)
I 103 94 110 87 98
II 97 82 123 92 175 88 118

Compute a 90% confidence interval for the difference between the average running times of
films produced by the two companies. Assume that the running-time differences are
approximately normally distributed with unequal variances.

Example 5
To find out whether a new serum will arrest leukemia, 9 mice, all with an advanced stage of
the disease, are selected. Five mice receive the treatment and 4 do not. Survival times, in
years, from the time the experiment commenced are as follows:
Treatment 2.1 5.3 1.4 4.6 0.9
No Treatment 1.9 0.5 2.8 3.1
At the 0.05 level of significance, can the serum be said to be effective? Assume the two
populations to be normally distributed with equal variances. Test H 0 : μ1=μ2 vs H 1 : μ 1 ≠ μ2

Example 6:
A clinic provides a program to help their clients lose weight and asks a consumer agency to
investigate the effectiveness of the program. The agency takes a sample of 15 people, weighing each
person in the sample before the program begins and 3 months later to produce the table below

Person Before After

1 210 197
2 205 195
3 193 191
4 182 174
5 259 236
6 239 226
7 164 157
8 197 196
9 222 201
10 211 196
11 187 181
12 175 164
13 186 181
14 243 229
15 246 231

Determine whether the program is effective?

Solution:

Paired T-Test and CI: Before, After

Paired T for Before - After

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Before 15 207.93 28.56 7.37
After 15 197.00 24.39 6.30
Difference 15 10.93 6.33 1.63

95% CI for mean difference: (7.43, 14.44)

T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs ≠ 0): T-Value = 6.69 P-Value = 0.000

Example 7:
A flotoxins produced by mold on peanut crops in Virginia must be monitored. A sample of
64 batches of peanuts reveals levels of 24.17 ppm, on average, with a variance of 4.25 ppm.
Test the hypothesis that σ 2=4.2 ppm against the alternative that σ 2 ≠ 4.2 ppm.

Test and CI for One Variance

Method

Null hypothesis σ-squared = 4.2

Alternative hypothesis σ-squared ≠ 4.2

The chi-square method is only for the normal distribution.

The Bonett method cannot be calculated with summarized data.

Statistics

N StDev Variance
64 2.06 4.25

95% Confidence Intervals

CI for CI for
Method StDev Variance
Chi-Square (1.76, 2.50) (3.08, 6.23)

Tests

Test
Method Statistic DF P-Value
Chi-Square 63.75 63 0.900

Example 8
Hydrocarbon emissions from cars are known to have decreased dramatically during the
1980s. A study was conducted to compare the hydrocarbon emissions at idling speed, in
parts per million (ppm), for automobiles from 1980 and 1990. Twenty cars of each model
year were randomly selected, and their hydrocarbon emission levels were recorded. The
data are as follows:
1980 models:
141 359 247 940 882 494 306 210 105 880
200 223 188 940 241 190 300 435 241 380
1990 models:
140 160 20 20 223 60 20 95 360 70
220 400 217 58 235 380 200 175 85 65
Assume both populations are normal.

1- Test the hypothesis that σ 1=275 against the alternative that σ 1 ≠ 275.

Test and CI for One Variance: 1980 models:

Method

Null hypothesis σ = 275

Alternative hypothesis σ ≠ 275

The chi-square method is only for the normal distribution.

The Bonett method is for any continuous distribution.

Statistics

Variable N StDev Variance

1980 models: 20 281 78999

95% Confidence Intervals

CI for CI for
Variable Method StDev Variance
1980 models: Chi-Square (214, 411) (45688, 168525)
Bonett (195, 449) (37996, 201874)

Tests

Test
Variable Method Statistic DF P-Value
1980 models: Chi-Square 19.85 19 0.808
Bonett — — 0.897

2- Test the hypothesis that σ 1=σ 2 against the alternative that σ 1 ≠ σ 2.

 Test and CI for Two Variances: 1980 models:, 1990 models:

Method

Null hypothesis σ(1980 models:) / σ(1990 models:) = 1

Alternative hypothesis σ(1980 models:) / σ(1990 models:) ≠ 1
Significance level α = 0.05

F method was used. This method is accurate for normal data only.

Statistics

95% CI for
Variable N StDev Variance StDevs
1980 models: 20 281.067 78998.516 (213.749, 410.518)
1990 models: 20 119.395 14255.082 ( 90.798, 174.384)

Ratio of standard deviations = 2.354

Ratio of variances = 5.542

95% Confidence Intervals

CI for
CI for StDev Variance
Method Ratio Ratio
F (1.481, 3.742) (2.194, 14.001)

Tests

Test
Method DF1 DF2 Statistic P-Value
F 19 19 5.54 0.000

One Way ANOVA

Suppose in an industrial experiment that an engineer is interested in how the mean absorption
of moisture in concrete varies among 5 different concrete aggregates. The samples are
exposed to moisture for 48 hours. It is decided that 6 samples are to be tested for each
aggregate, requiring a total of 30 samples to be tested. The data are recorded in Table 13.1.
The model for this situation may be set up as follows. There are 6 observations taken from
each of 5 populations with means μ1, μ2, . . . , μ5, respectively. We may wish to test
H0: μ1 = μ2 = · · · = μ5,
H1: At least two of the means are not equal.
Table 13.1: Absorption of Moisture in Concrete Aggregates
Aggregate 1 2 3 4 5
551 595 639 417 563
457 580 615 449 631
450 508 511 517 522
731 583 573 438 613
499 633 648 415 656
632 517 677 555 679

One-way ANOVA: t1, t2, t3, t4, t5

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05

Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Factor Information

Factor Levels Values

Factor 5 t1, t2, t3, t4, t5

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Factor 4 85356 21339 4.30 0.009
Error 25 124020 4961
Total 29 209377

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

70.4330 40.77% 31.29% 14.70%

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

t1 6 553.3 110.2 (494.1, 612.6)
t2 6 569.3 48.0 (510.1, 628.6)
t3 6 610.5 59.9 (551.3, 669.7)
t4 6 465.2 57.6 (405.9, 524.4)
t5 6 610.7 58.8 (551.4, 669.9)

Pooled StDev = 70.4330

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

t5 6 610.7 A
t3 6 610.5 A
t2 6 569.3 A B
t1 6 553.3 A B
t4 6 465.2 B

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Tukey Simultaneous Tests for Differences of Means

Difference Difference SE of Adjusted

of Levels of Means Difference 95% CI T-Value P-Value
t2 - t1 16.0 40.7 (-103.3, 135.3) 0.39 0.995
t3 - t1 57.2 40.7 ( -62.2, 176.5) 1.41 0.630
t4 - t1 -88.2 40.7 (-207.5, 31.2) -2.17 0.224
t5 - t1 57.3 40.7 ( -62.0, 176.7) 1.41 0.627
t3 - t2 41.2 40.7 ( -78.2, 160.5) 1.01 0.847
t4 - t2 -104.2 40.7 (-223.5, 15.2) -2.56 0.109
t5 - t2 41.3 40.7 ( -78.0, 160.7) 1.02 0.845
t4 - t3 -145.3 40.7 (-264.7, -26.0) -3.57 0.012
t5 - t3 0.2 40.7 (-119.2, 119.5) 0.00 1.000
t5 - t4 145.5 40.7 ( 26.2, 264.8) 3.58 0.012

Individual confidence level = 99.29%

Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs

Fisher Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Fisher LSD Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

t5 6 610.7 A
t3 6 610.5 A
t2 6 569.3 A
t1 6 553.3 A
t4 6 465.2 B

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Fisher Individual Tests for Differences of Means

Difference Difference SE of Adjusted

of Levels of Means Difference 95% CI T-Value P-Value
t2 - t1 16.0 40.7 ( -67.8, 99.8) 0.39 0.697
t3 - t1 57.2 40.7 ( -26.6, 140.9) 1.41 0.172
t4 - t1 -88.2 40.7 (-171.9, -4.4) -2.17 0.040
t5 - t1 57.3 40.7 ( -26.4, 141.1) 1.41 0.171
t3 - t2 41.2 40.7 ( -42.6, 124.9) 1.01 0.321
t4 - t2 -104.2 40.7 (-187.9, -20.4) -2.56 0.017
t5 - t2 41.3 40.7 ( -42.4, 125.1) 1.02 0.319
t4 - t3 -145.3 40.7 (-229.1, -61.6) -3.57 0.001
t5 - t3 0.2 40.7 ( -83.6, 83.9) 0.00 0.997
t5 - t4 145.5 40.7 ( 61.7, 229.3) 3.58 0.001

Simultaneous confidence level = 73.15%

Regression Analysis: Expenditure versus Income
Analysis of Variance

Source DF Seq SS Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Regression 1 7713005 70.63% 7713005 7713005 19.24 0.002
Income 1 7713005 70.63% 7713005 7713005 19.24 0.002
Error 8 3207268 29.37% 3207268 400908
Total 9 10920272 100.00%

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) PRESS R-sq(pred)

633.173 70.63% 66.96% 4895956 55.17%

Coefficients

Term Coef SE Coef 99% CI T-Value P-Value VIF

Constant -495 839 (-3312, 2322) -0.59 0.572
Income 0.723 0.165 (0.170, 1.275) 4.39 0.002 1.00

Regression Equation

Expenditure = -495 + 0.723 Income

Correlation: Expenditure, Income

Pearson correlation of Expenditure and Income = 0.840

P-Value = 0.002

Tabulated Statistics: R, C

Using frequencies in C1

Rows: R Columns: C

High
Bechelors School Masters PhD All

F 54 60 46 41 201
49.87 50.89 50.38 49.87

M 44 40 53 57 194
48.13 49.11 48.62 48.13

All 98 100 99 98 395

Cell Contents: Count

Expected count

Pearson Chi-Square = 8.006, DF = 3, P-Value = 0.046

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 8.045, DF = 3, P-Value = 0.045