Kathryn Lee Statistics 1040 Project Part 5 and 6 PART 5: Hypothesis Test: I chose to complete a hypothesis test for

the population mean. I chose to do this because our group sample met the necessary requirements for this hypothesis test. The sample size was 30+. I used the information we had gathered from doing a confidence interval for the population mean (both from our systematic data and from the stratified data we gathered.) These met the necessary requirements for being a SRS because we had a list of data and a known number of population data values that we were taking the stratified and systematic sample data from. Systematic Sample: Sample Mean (171.6) The test statistic I computed was .33. The rejection region (based on alpha values previously determined as .005 was 2.57.) Seeing as this is a two-tailed test the value of .33 does not fall within the rejection region of below -2.57 or above 2.57. Stratified Sample: Sample Mean (171.2) The test statistic I computed was .059. The rejection region ((based on alpha values previously determined as .005 was 2.57.) Since .059 does not fall below -2.57 or above 2.57 and this is a two-tailed test there is insufficient evidence to reject Hnaught. H(naught): M=171.1 H1: M does not = 171.1 Seeing that neither of the two calculated means from the samples fall within rejection region we can say that there is insufficient evidence to reject the claim that the population mean is 171.1. A type I error for this would be rejecting H(naught) when it is actually true. In this case that would mean that we conclude that the population mean is not 171.1 when it actually is 171.1. PART 6: For this project we worked as a group to learn to organize data and use various tools to determine values from the data sets which would give us insights into statistical methods we learned in class and ways to organize and interpret data. Our group chose to pick a data set from the Body Measurements data table and focused on weight and height. We then practiced using 2 different sampling methods we had learned (stratified and systematic) and applied them to our data set of 30 samples chosen (according to the respective sampling method) from 507 different quantitative values. We created pie charts and histograms to depict a visual representation of this data so that we could compare how our sample related to the population data as a whole. We looked at similarities and differences in the

samples, such as subtle differences in standard deviation and mean and how these have to be accounted for. Additionally, we recognized the importance of ensuring that our sample data included both men and women since initially we had only included men in our stratified sample because the first half of the numerical data had been collected from men and we realized this afterwards. We used Statcrunch to make our charts, including Pareto charts and boxplots. After we had gotten a visual analysis of our data, we learned how to organize it and pull important information from it using Statcrunch and our calculators (such as standard deviation, mean, mode, etc.) We then constructed confidence intervals for this data using appropriate formulas which allowed us to determine confidence intervals for the population proportion and population mean based on the data we had collected in our sample. We used a 99% confidence interval because we were dealing with data from the health sciences field and thought that 99% confidence was appropriate. We compared our sample confidence intervals with the data from the whole population and found that the mean of the population did in fact fall within those intervals. Then, I formed a hypothesis test to predict the population mean using the sample mean (that also fell within the confidence intervals). I used the critical value method and chose the value coinciding with the .005 that came from the alpha/2 associated with the 99% confidence level we used to determine a critical value of (-) 2.57 and found insufficient evidence to reject my null hypothesis (and claim) that the population mean was 171.1. Throughout the course of this semester I have learned a lot about how I learn and about having patience with myself. A lot of the formulas that we have learned in this course seemed very overwhelming, almost like another language, upon first glance. However, after I sat down with the information and really went through it bit by bit I saw that these formulas were manageable and would just require patience until I became familiar with them. I have always been someone who is much better with words than with numbers and I am much better with looking at things conceptually than I am with microdetails, but I realized that once I could place the data we were looking at into a broader picture of what we were trying to determine/make sense of/predict I could approach it more effectively. I feel like the attention to detail that I have needed for this statistics course will be an incredibly important skill to continue to hone as I go forward in pursing nursing. I will be working with medications and small details where I cannot make any mistakes because peoples lives will be in my hands, so remembering the importance of being thorough, double, and triple checking work will be very important. If I chose to do any medical research, the skills that I have learned in this course will also come in very handy as I look at how to approach collecting data in a manner that will not undermine the study. Recently, I looked at a copy of the new GRE and found that even though I have not taken a traditional math course in several years when I took math as part of my undergrad, most of the GRE math was based on concepts that I have seen this semester in this course. If the time comes when I want to apply for a graduate program in nursing it is good to know that I will have a basic understanding of some of the concepts the test highlights.