5 views

Uploaded by darkcloud9

save

- Hypothesis Testing for Means & Proportions
- Hypothesis Test
- Kaplan Chap 13 Hypothesis Tests
- Bajaj adv
- multiplereg2 (1)
- Hypothesis Testing
- ST 511 Self Notes
- Unit 5_Testing of Hypothesis_SLM
- Excerpt From HypoTesting with SPSS thesis Testing With SPSS eBook (Jim Mirabella)
- Hypothesis Test
- Copy of Wk5_checkpoints GM 533
- Hypothesis Testing Chandru
- Six Sigma
- MATH 533 Week 8 Final Exam
- Lecture 12
- 08Chap8
- hypothesis testing
- ME Structural MA510 Unit III Test of Hypothesis.284234729
- ATTITUDE OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS TOWARDS TEACHING IN ENGLISH MEDIUM IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
- Rothman (1990) No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons.pdf
- SAS Elementary Statistics Procedures
- Abo Chapter Three Useful
- evert butkowski final paper
- CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN RELATION TO THEIR LEVEL OF ASPIRATION
- Game Theory
- statistik
- Csr Status-nse Infty Companies-2012 -India
- Moh_Solution.docx
- Sample Ch 4 for Experimental.docx
- Testing of Hypothesis
- Pubmed Result
- 20043701 the Cranberries Zombie Piano Music Sheet
- Something Chimes in Me.pdf
- Something Chimes in Me
- VirtualDJ 7 - Audio Setup Guide
- The Silver Swan
- Documentation
- Human Memory T Cell Formation
- Something Chimes in Me Draft V2
- dota_tchinese
- Firework(Full)
- 18304894 Breaking Benjamin the Diary of Jane
- Lacie Song Ver
- Contoh Karangan
- 14751794-FIR-Wo-Men-De-Ai
- Crisis Core
- EMINEM Love the Way You Lie
- [Free Scores.com] Cornish William Robin Gentle Robin 11168
- Beautiful Day

You are on page 1of 5

**1.a) In this experiment, the null hypothesis is that agamine’s effectiveness will not be affected by the
**

presence of blockamine while the alternative hypothesis is that agamine will be less effective in the

presence of blockamine. Dr Wocky analyses his data with unpaired t-test giving p=0.063.

In the Fisherian ‘significance testing’ paradigm, P- value indicates the strength of evidence

against the null hypothesis, the smaller the p-value, the more confidence we are able to reject the

null hypothesis. The evaluation process of rejecting the null hypothesis takes into account of existing

findings related to the experiment. A P-value of 0.063 suggests limited evidence against the null

hypothesis. In this interpretation, it is inappropriate to reject the null hypothesis without further

investigating the drug effects. Further investigation can be comparing his result with existing

experiments or repeating the experiment. Increasing the experimental unit is a good way to more

accurately measure the real mean of both treatment groups; control and Blockamine, and so will be

able to help Dr Wocky to better interpret his data. Increasing experimental unit does not however

help him to infer if the change in effectiveness of agamine is practically significant.

Interpreting with the Neyman-Pearson ‘hypothesis-testing’ paradigm, Dr Wocky will be

unable to reject the null hypothesis with p=0.068, which is higher than the pre-set α=0.05. Neymon-

Pearson approach is used to limit false positive error rate, α. Since Dr Wocky has predetermined his

maximum tolerable α as 0.05(probably by convention), getting a P-value higher than predetermined

α indicate false positive error rate of higher than maximum tolerable and hence inability to reject

the null hypothesis.

b. The choice of whether to make a one tailed or two tailed t test should be determined before

observation is made.

Using one tailed p-value would give a smaller and more significant p value. This would allow him to

reject the null hypothesis in terms of Neyman-pearson hypothesis and increase strength against the

null hypothesis in terms of Fisher’s interpretation. Futhermore, his alternative hypothesis that

agamine will be less effective in the presence of blockamine implies the direction of the tail.

He must however has a strong reason to be sure that blockamine will reduce the effectiveness of

agamine. Otherwise, he risk being forced to accept his null hypothesis even if there is a significant

change in the opposite direction of what his alternative hypothesis says(ie. Agamine increase in

effectiveness in the presence of blockamine) and accept that the extreme in result is due to chance.

2.) A ) The two unlabelled rows should be labelled StDev(standard deviation), representing the

spread of technical replicates of each jar, before and after application of thickening compound.

B) The value for technical replicate 3, Jar 4 is 11.1, resulting in a high means of replicates and

standard deviation of technical replicate, which results in a high p-value. The value is unusually high

as it is higher than the viscosity of mayonnaise after mixing with the thickening compound. James

unneccesarily counted Stdev of technical replicate. In that, he calculates the accuracy of his

measurement instead of the initial or final mean of the viscosity of mayonnaise.

Viscosity unit of 11.1 could be misplacement of decimal point. This can be checked given access to

his notebook where the raw data is written.

C) Addressing the viscosity of technical replicate 3, Jar 4, if we found that it is indeed a misplacement

of decimal point, we can change the value to 1.11 and recalculate the mean of technical replicate of

jar 4. Using the mean of technical replicates to calculate the mean of initial viscosity of all 4 jars.

Using the means of technical replicates to calculate the StDev and using that to calculate P-value.

Technical replicates are only measuring the accuracy of viscometer and the consistency of

mayonnaise, which are not what the aim of experiment is. By measuring the mean of biological

replicates(mean of the mean of technical replicates of 4 jars), and comparing the before and after

treatment’s viscosity value, only then can we measure the effect of the new thickening compound.

If the raw data in his notebook indeed showed 11.1, I would suggest him to repeat his experiment.

D. The 3 forms of T tests are single, paired and unpaired T-test.

Using the values of means of replicates in the table and calculating using graphpad prism, we

obtain a p-value of 0.4434 which if rounded off to 2 decimal point will give 0.44, his value, this test

however is an unpaired t test. He should use paired t test as he is testing the effect of his agent

before and after addition into the same mayonnaises.

E.

The statistical analysis shows that the change in viscosity of mayonnaise after treatment is

statistically significant. The null hypothesis, the new compound does not make a change to the

viscosity of mayonnaise is rejected and the alternative hypothesis where the new compound

increases the viscosity of mayonnaise is accepted.

F. Protocol: Careful with the selection of mayonnaise to prevent unnecessary introduction of more

variables. This includes batch number and stores at which mayonnaise was bought. Some possible

variables include possible compound variation between batches, storage condition such as humidity

and temperature which may affect the action of thickening compound on mayonnaise. It is advisable

to keep in mind that this experiment does not aim to look at the effect of storage condition on

thickening compound but rather if the compound increases the viscosity of commercially prepared

mayonnaise. A different brand can be tested with the same protocol but in only interpreted as a

different set of data.

A control Jar with no treatment. Stirring might increase viscosity(?).

Analysis: Along the changes made in 2(E), (that is analysing the statistics using Mean of reps), I also

suggest to compare the change in viscosity of each jar and compare the mean of change in viscosity.

To use paired t test as we are testing the effect of thickening compound before and after addition

into the same mayonnaise

Amendment:

Before Jar 1 Jar 2 Jar 3 Jar 4

T.R 1.07 0.96 1.60 0.80

T.R 1.15 1.22 1.47 0.99

T.R 1.34 1.23 1.30 1.11

AVERAGE(1) 1.19 1.14 1.46 0.97

Mean(2) StDev SEM

1.19 0.20 0.10

After Jar 1 Jar 2 Jar 3 Jar 4

T.R 2.09 2.69 3.84 1.91

T.R 2.42 3.01 3.47 1.86

T.R

2.65 2.79 3.76 2.12

AVERAGE 2.39 2.83 3.69 1.96

Mean StDev SEM

2.72 0.74 0.37

Variable 1 Variable 2

Mean 1.19 2.72

Variance 0.04 0.55

Observations 4.00 4.00

Pearson Correlation 0.94

Hypothesized Mean

Difference

0.00

Df 3.00

t Stat -5.54

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.006

t Critical one-tail 2.35

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.012

t Critical two-tail

3.18

3.

A)

Freddo-

frogamine

treated

Control

22 19.9

38.6 31.6

33.2 20.8

50.2 22.4

28.1 36.1

38 22.9

41.2 25.1

Mean 35.9 25.5

StDev 9.18 6.05

SEM 3.47 2.29

Df 6 6

t(a/2), a=0.05 2.4469 2.4469

Upper 95% CI 44.39 31.14

Lower 95% CI 27.41 19.95

Difference between mean 10.36

SE(difference between mean) 4.155

Df 12

t(a/2), a=0.05 2.179

Up 95% CI 19.41

Low 95% CI 1.30

Values calculated using Microsoft excel spreadsheet. t(a/2)

of a=0.05 with a degree of freedom of 6 is 2.4469

according to t distribution

table(http://easycalculation.com/statistics/t-distribution-

critical-value-table.php). CI calculated with Mean ± [t(a/2)

x SEM]. The 95% CI of Freddofrogamine treated is 27.41

to 44.39. The 95% CI of control group is 19.95 to 31.14.

SE(difference between mean) is calculated by the

following formula:

SE

(difference between mean)

= sqrt [ StDev

2

(Freddogamine)

/

n

(Freddogamine)

+ StDev

2

(control)

/ n

(control)

] = 4.155(3d.p.)

95% CI of difference between mean is calculated by

difference between mean ± [t(a/2) x SE(difference

between mean)] with degree of freedom 12 and t =2.179.

The CI is from 1.30 to 19.41.

B) Using t=

**, we calculate t value to be 2.493. With a degree of freedom of 12, we obtain
**

a p value of 0.0283. (x1=Mean of freddogamine treated = 35.9, x2=Mean of control=25.5. SE

x1-

x2

=SE(difference between mean) = 4.155.)

C) The assumptions are random student sampling, unknown population mean and standard

deviation, both groups have normal distribution, equal variance and is unskewed. The bleeding time

for the control group will most likely resemble a normal distribution. The distribution is not likely to

be affected by factors such as age as we sample from a similar age population. Unknown population

mean and standard deviation are reasonable assumption as we did not sample the whole population.

D) The true means of freddogamine, control and the difference in mean falls within their respective

interval 95% of the time. Significance test shows a p-value of 0.0283 which has a strong evidence

against the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the groups. However, it is not

possible to conclude the anti-bleeding property of Freddogamine as the difference in mean has a

positive value, indicating an increase in bleeding time.

E) Conduct a linear comparison of all 14 student, before and after drug, dividing them into two

groups of either taking Freddogamine or placebo(vitamin pill). Subjects should be selected randomly,

within a narrow group range, healthy(not taking medication to prevent drug interference). Study

includes man only as hormonal cycle in woman might affect drug effectiveness.

- Hypothesis Testing for Means & ProportionsUploaded byr01852009pa
- Hypothesis TestUploaded bykhem_singh
- Kaplan Chap 13 Hypothesis TestsUploaded byLike Free
- Bajaj advUploaded byPunit Singh Sardar
- multiplereg2 (1)Uploaded byMuhammad Haris
- Hypothesis TestingUploaded byHans Sicangco
- ST 511 Self NotesUploaded byvikasptk
- Unit 5_Testing of Hypothesis_SLMUploaded byVineet Sharma
- Excerpt From HypoTesting with SPSS thesis Testing With SPSS eBook (Jim Mirabella)Uploaded byKuthubudeen T M
- Hypothesis TestUploaded bySherifa
- Copy of Wk5_checkpoints GM 533Uploaded byYoander Vmon
- Hypothesis Testing ChandruUploaded byChandra Shekar
- Six SigmaUploaded byabhinavcobra
- MATH 533 Week 8 Final ExamUploaded bykimmiekimmie
- Lecture 12Uploaded byAnonymous 0cbz1W
- 08Chap8Uploaded byJolia Eric
- hypothesis testingUploaded byAlfie
- ME Structural MA510 Unit III Test of Hypothesis.284234729Uploaded bySayantan Nandy
- ATTITUDE OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS TOWARDS TEACHING IN ENGLISH MEDIUM IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLSUploaded byAnonymous CwJeBCAXp
- Rothman (1990) No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons.pdfUploaded byLyly Magnan
- SAS Elementary Statistics ProceduresUploaded bymanideepkumar
- Abo Chapter Three UsefulUploaded byAkanni Lateef O
- evert butkowski final paperUploaded byapi-350309124
- CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN RELATION TO THEIR LEVEL OF ASPIRATIONUploaded byImpact Journals
- Game TheoryUploaded bySrujan Reddy
- statistikUploaded byReskiwati Salam
- Csr Status-nse Infty Companies-2012 -IndiaUploaded byyogasana
- Moh_Solution.docxUploaded byPandurang Thatkar
- Sample Ch 4 for Experimental.docxUploaded byDennis Maligaya
- Testing of HypothesisUploaded bySiddharth Bahri

- Pubmed ResultUploaded bydarkcloud9
- 20043701 the Cranberries Zombie Piano Music SheetUploaded bydarkcloud9
- Something Chimes in Me.pdfUploaded bydarkcloud9
- Something Chimes in MeUploaded bydarkcloud9
- VirtualDJ 7 - Audio Setup GuideUploaded bydarkcloud9
- The Silver SwanUploaded bydarkcloud9
- DocumentationUploaded bydarkcloud9
- Human Memory T Cell FormationUploaded bydarkcloud9
- Something Chimes in Me Draft V2Uploaded bydarkcloud9
- dota_tchineseUploaded bydarkcloud9
- Firework(Full)Uploaded bydarkcloud9
- 18304894 Breaking Benjamin the Diary of JaneUploaded bydarkcloud9
- Lacie Song VerUploaded bydarkcloud9
- Contoh KaranganUploaded bydarkcloud9
- 14751794-FIR-Wo-Men-De-AiUploaded bydarkcloud9
- Crisis CoreUploaded bydarkcloud9
- EMINEM Love the Way You LieUploaded bydarkcloud9
- [Free Scores.com] Cornish William Robin Gentle Robin 11168Uploaded bydarkcloud9
- Beautiful DayUploaded bydarkcloud9