Hattie Burford

Dr. Stack
MATH 533 Graduate Student Portfolio Problems
Spring 2018

1. The nitrogen contents of red clover plants inoculated with five strains of Rhizobium are given in the
following table:

3DOK1 3DOK5 3DOK7 3DOK9 3DOK11

29.4 19.2 20.9 22.3 24.1
32.6 25.6 20.0 20.9 25.3
27.0 24.5 21.5 21.1 23.0
32.1 18.4 19.8 21.3 22.8
20.7 18.6 22.0 23.4
20.1 20.3 25.1
21.0 22.2
25.0

a. Is there evidence of a difference in the effects of the five treatments on the mean nitrogen content?
Analyze the data completely and draw conclusions based on your analysis. Use alpha = 0.01.

ANOVA test of hypothesis:

H0: µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = µ4= µ5
Ha: Not all the µi’s are equal

Shown are the results of running a one-way

ANOVA in Stat Crunch:

Using table 8 to find the CR:

𝒅𝒇𝟏 = 𝒕 − 𝟏 = 𝟓 − 𝟏 = 𝟒

𝒅𝒇𝟐 = 𝒏𝒕 − 𝒕 = 𝟑𝟎 − 𝟓 = 𝟐𝟓 and 𝜶 =. 𝟎𝟏

CR: 𝑭 ≥ 𝟒. 𝟏𝟖

Based on our ANOVA test, our F statistic is ≈ 𝟐𝟑. 𝟒𝟒𝟐 with a p-value of ≈. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏. Since our F-statistic lies in
the critical region we would reject Ho. Since our p-value is less than 𝜶 =. 𝟎𝟏, we would reject Ho. Therefore,
we can conclude that there is evidence of a difference in the effects of the five treatments on the mean
nitrogen content.

In order to see where the differences lie, we will use Fisher’s LSD because we do not have equal treatment
sample sizes:

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 = 𝒕𝜶/𝟐 , 𝒗(√𝑴𝑺𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓)(√𝒏 + 𝒏 )
𝒊 𝒋

.𝟎𝟏
𝒅𝒇 = 𝒏𝒕 − 𝒕 = 𝟑𝟎 − 𝟓 = 𝟐𝟓 with 𝜶 = =. 𝟎𝟎𝟓
𝟐
Hattie Burford
Dr. Stack
MATH 533 Graduate Student Portfolio Problems
Spring 2018

Therefore, our value from table 2 is 2.787

Our MSError is found from the ANOVA table: 3.1569414
Our ni and nj may be: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟒 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟓 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟑. 𝟑𝟐𝟏𝟖
𝟒 𝟓

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟒 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟔 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟑. 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟒
𝟒 𝟔

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟒 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟕 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟑. 𝟏𝟎𝟑𝟖
𝟒 𝟕

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟒 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟖 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟑. 𝟎𝟑𝟐𝟒
𝟒 𝟖

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟔 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟐. 𝟗𝟗𝟖𝟓
𝟓 𝟔

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟕 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟐. 𝟖𝟗𝟗𝟓
𝟓 𝟕

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟖 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟐. 𝟖𝟐𝟑𝟎
𝟓 𝟖

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟕 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟐. 𝟕𝟓𝟓𝟎
𝟔 𝟕

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟖 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟐. 𝟔𝟕𝟒𝟑
𝟔 𝟖

𝟏 𝟏
𝑳𝑺𝑫 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒏𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒋 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝟕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝟖 = (𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟕)(√𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟒) (√ + ) ≈ 𝟐. 𝟓𝟔𝟐𝟖
𝟕 𝟖

We will now calculate the difference in sample means for each of the pairwise comparisons:

𝝁𝟏 (n=4) 𝝁𝟐 (n=5) 𝝁𝟑 (n=6) 𝝁𝟒 (n=7) 𝝁𝟓 (n=8)

3DOK1 3DOK5 3DOK7 3DOK9 3DOK11
30.275 21.68 20.15 21.271429 23.8625

𝝁𝟏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟐 :
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
|𝒀̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟑𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟓 − 𝟐𝟏. 𝟔𝟖| = |𝟖. 𝟓𝟗𝟓| = 𝟖. 𝟓𝟗𝟓
𝟖. 𝟓𝟗𝟓 > 𝟑. 𝟑𝟐𝟏𝟖
Therefore, there is a significant difference between 𝝁𝟏 & 𝝁𝟐

𝝁𝟏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟑 :
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
|𝒀̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟑𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟓 − 𝟐𝟎. 𝟏𝟓| = |𝟏𝟎. 𝟏𝟐𝟓| = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟏𝟐𝟓
Hattie Burford
Dr. Stack
MATH 533 Graduate Student Portfolio Problems
Spring 2018

𝟏𝟎. 𝟏𝟐𝟓 > 𝟑. 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟒

Therefore, there is a significant difference between 𝝁𝟏 & 𝝁𝟑

𝝁𝟏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟒 :
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
|𝒀̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟑𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟓 − 𝟐𝟏. 𝟐𝟕𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟗| = |𝟗. 𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟓𝟕𝟏| = 𝟗. 𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟓𝟕𝟏
𝟗. 𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟓𝟕𝟏 > 𝟑. 𝟏𝟎𝟑𝟖
Therefore, there is a significant difference between 𝝁𝟏 & 𝝁𝟒

𝝁𝟏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟓 :
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
|𝒀̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟑𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟓 − 𝟐𝟑. 𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟓| = |𝟔. 𝟒𝟏𝟐𝟓| = 𝟔. 𝟒𝟏𝟐𝟓
𝟔. 𝟒𝟏𝟐𝟓 > 𝟑. 𝟎𝟑𝟐𝟒
Therefore, there is a significant difference between 𝝁𝟏 & 𝝁𝟓

𝝁𝟐 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟑 :
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
|𝒀̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟐𝟏. 𝟔𝟖 − 𝟐𝟎. 𝟏𝟓| = |𝟏. 𝟓𝟑| = 𝟏. 𝟓𝟑
𝟏. 𝟓𝟑 < 𝟐. 𝟗𝟗𝟖𝟓
Therefore, there is not a significant difference between 𝝁𝟐 & 𝝁𝟑

𝝁𝟐 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟒 :
|𝒀̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟐𝟏. 𝟔𝟖 − 𝟐𝟏. 𝟐𝟕𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟗| = |. 𝟒𝟎𝟖𝟓𝟕𝟏| =. 𝟒𝟎𝟖𝟓𝟕𝟏
. 𝟒𝟎𝟖𝟓𝟕𝟏 < 𝟐. 𝟖𝟗𝟗𝟓
Therefore, there is not a significant difference between 𝝁𝟐 & 𝝁𝟒

𝝁𝟐 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟓 :
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
|𝒀̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟐𝟏. 𝟔𝟖 − 𝟐𝟑. 𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟓| = |−𝟐. 𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟓| = 𝟐. 𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟓
𝟐. 𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟓 < 𝟐. 𝟖𝟐𝟑𝟎
Therefore, there is not a significant difference between 𝝁𝟐 & 𝝁𝟓

𝝁𝟑 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟒 :
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
|𝒀̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟐𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 − 𝟐𝟏. 𝟐𝟕𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟗| = |−𝟏. 𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟗| = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟗
𝟏. 𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟗 < 𝟐. 𝟕𝟓𝟓𝟎
Therefore, there is not a significant difference between 𝝁𝟑 & 𝝁𝟒

𝝁𝟑 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟓 :
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
|𝒀̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟐𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 − 𝟐𝟑. 𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟓| = |−𝟑. 𝟕𝟏𝟐𝟓| = 𝟑. 𝟕𝟏𝟐𝟓
𝟑. 𝟕𝟏𝟐𝟓 > 𝟐. 𝟔𝟕𝟒𝟑
Therefore, there is a significant difference between 𝝁𝟑 & 𝝁𝟓

𝝁𝟒 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟓 :
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
|𝒀̅𝒊 − ̅̅̅
𝒀𝒋 |=|𝟐𝟏. 𝟐𝟕𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟗 − 𝟐𝟑. 𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟓| = |−𝟐. 𝟓𝟗𝟏𝟎𝟕𝟏| = 𝟐. 𝟓𝟗𝟏𝟎𝟕𝟏
𝟐. 𝟓𝟗𝟏𝟎𝟕𝟏 > 𝟐. 𝟓𝟔𝟐𝟖
Therefore, there is a significant difference between 𝝁𝟒 & 𝝁𝟓
Hattie Burford
Dr. Stack
MATH 533 Graduate Student Portfolio Problems
Spring 2018

Ho: µi - µj = 0 is rejected when comparing:

𝝁𝟏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟐
𝝁𝟏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟑
𝝁𝟏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟒
𝝁𝟏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟓
𝝁𝟑 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟓
𝝁𝟒 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝝁𝟓
b. Was there any evidence of a violation in the required conditions needed to conduct your analysis in
part (a)? Explain.

In order to test if there was a violation in the required conditions to conduct the ANOVA, Hartley’s F
test was conducted.

Ho: 𝝈𝟐𝟏 = 𝝈𝟐𝟐 = 𝝈𝟐𝟑 = 𝝈𝟐𝟒 = 𝝈𝟐𝟓

Ha: Population variances are not all equal

Sample Variances were found using Stat Crunch:

3DOK1 3DOK5 3DOK7 3DOK9 3DOK11

6.7425 10.297 .987 ≈.46238 1.3998214

Hartley’s test statistic:

𝑺𝒎𝒂𝒙𝟐 𝟏𝟎. 𝟐𝟗𝟕
𝑭′ = = ≈ 𝟐𝟐. 𝟐𝟔𝟗𝟔
𝑺𝒎𝒊𝒏𝟐 . 𝟒𝟔𝟐𝟑𝟖

our p-value≈. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟔

Using table 12 with 𝜶 =. 𝟎𝟏, df1=t=5, and df2=𝒎𝒂𝒙𝒏 − 𝟏 =7

𝑭 ≥ 𝟏𝟔. 𝟓

Therefore, since our F statistic falls in the CR and our p-value is less than alpha, we would reject Ho,
meaning the conditions were not met.
Therefore, we may want to consider using a nonparametric test, such as the Kruskel-Wallis Test to test if:
Ho: the t distributions are identical
Ha: not all t distributions are identical
Using Stat Crunch to run the Kruskel-Wallis test:
df=4, Chi-squared=19.347235, and our p-value=.0007
Using table 7, our CR:
𝑿𝟐 ≥ 𝟏𝟑. 𝟐𝟖.
Therefore, we would reject Ho.
Hattie Burford
Dr. Stack
MATH 533 Graduate Student Portfolio Problems
Spring 2018

2. Biofeedback is a treatment technique in which people are trained to improve their health by using
signals from their own bodies. Specialists in many different fields use biofeedback to help their
patients cope with pain. A study was conducted to compare a biofeedback treatment for chronic pain
with an NSAID medical treatment. A group of 2,000 newly diagnosed chronic pain patients were
randomly assigned to receive one of the two treatments. After six weeks of treatments, the pain level
of the patients was assessed with the following results:

Significant Reduction in Pain

Treatment Yes No Total
Biofeedback 780 220 1,000
NSAID 690 310 1,000
Total 1470 530 2,000
a. For both treatments, place 95% confidence intervals on the proportion of patients who experienced a
significant reduction in pain.
Using my 1-Prop Z Interval on my TI83:
For the Biofeedback treatment:
x=780, n=1000
CI: (.75433, .80567)
̂𝟏=.78
𝒑
For the NSAID treatment:
x=690, n=1000
CI: (.66133, .71867)
̂𝟐=.69
𝒑

b. Is there significant evidence (alpha = 0.05) of a difference in the two treatments relative to the
proportions of patients who experienced a significant reduction in pain?
Using my 2-prop Z test on my TI83:
x1=780, x2=690
n1,2=1000
𝒑𝟏 ≠ 𝒑𝟐
Z’=4.55996
p=.000005
̂𝟏=.78
𝒑
̂𝟐=.69
𝒑
̂=.735
𝒑
Hattie Burford
Dr. Stack
MATH 533 Graduate Student Portfolio Problems
Spring 2018

Therefore, since our p-value is approximately 0, less than alpha=.05, we reject Ho. Our proportions for the
two treatments are statistically different.

c. Place a 95% confidence interval on the difference in the two proportions.

Using my TI83 2-prop z interval:

x1=780, x2=690
n1,2=1000

CI: (.05152, .12848)

3. A petroleum company was interested in comparing the miles per gallon achieved by four different
gasoline blends (A, B, C, and D). Because there can be considerable variability due to differences in
driving characteristics and car models, these two extraneous sources of variability were included as
“blocking” variables in the study. The researcher selected four different brands of cars and four
different drivers. The drivers and brands of cars were assigned to blends in the manner displayed in
the following table. The mileage (in mpg) obtained over each test run was recorded as follows:

Car Model
Driver 1 2 3 4
1 A(14.5) B(32.8) C(12.7) D(24.2)
2 B(15.3) C(26.4) D(15.1) A(25.5)
3 C(13.5) D(33.5) A(19.5) B(32.1)
4 D(16.0) A(31.5) B(15.7) C(27.6)
a. Write a model for this experimental setting.
Ho: 𝝁𝑨 = 𝝁𝑩 = 𝝁𝑪 = 𝝁𝑫
Ha: At least one of the means is not equal

We are testing the means to determine if the choice in gasoline blend affects the miles per gallon
achieved.

b. Conduct an analysis of variance. Use alpha = 0.05

Hattie Burford
Dr. Stack
MATH 533 Graduate Student Portfolio Problems
Spring 2018

Source Df SS MS F’ P-Value
Rows 3 40.8319 13.6106 3.8862 .074003
Columns 3 803.3219 267.77397 76.4566 .000036
Treatment 3 32.2719 10.7573 3.0715 .1124
Error 6 21.0137 3.5023
Total 15 897.4394

c. What conclusions can you draw concerning the best gasoline blend?
Since our p-value (for treatments) is not less than alpha=.05, we would FAIL TO REJECT. This means
that we conclude that, statistically, our means of our treatments are equal.

d. Compute the relative efficiency of the Latin square design relative to a completely randomized design.
Interpret this value.
𝑴𝑺𝑹 + 𝑴𝑺𝑪 + (𝒕 − 𝟏)𝑴𝑺𝑬
𝑹𝑬 =
(𝒕 + 𝟏)(𝑴𝑺𝑬)

𝟏𝟑. 𝟔𝟏𝟎𝟔 + 𝟐𝟔𝟕. 𝟕𝟕𝟑𝟗𝟕 + (𝟑)(𝟑. 𝟓𝟎𝟐𝟑)

= ≈ 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟔𝟖𝟓𝟓𝟖𝟗𝟓
(𝟓)(𝟑. 𝟓𝟎𝟐𝟑)

Therefore, we would need about 17 x more data in using a completely randomized design to have the same
efficiency as this Latin square.

e. If future studies were to be conducted, would you recommend using both car model and driver as
blocking variables? Explain.

Because we found our relative efficiency to be rather large, we can assume that using the model and driver
as blocking variables would be beneficial in future studies, since we found this design to be efficient.

4. An experiment was set up to compare the effect of different soil pH and calcium additives on the
increase in trunk diameters for orange trees. Annual applications of elemental sulfur, gypsum, soda
ash, and other ingredients were applied to provide pH value levels of 4, 5, 6, and 7. Three levels of a
calcium supplement (100, 200, and 300 pounds per acre) were also applied. All factor-level
combinations of these two variables were used in the experiment. At the end of a 2-year period, four
diameters were examined at each factor-level combination. The data appear in the table below:

Calcium
pH Value 100 200 300
4.0 5.2 7.4 6.3
5.9 7.0 6.7
6.3 7.6 6.1
6.1 7.2 6.4
5.0 7.1 7.4 7.3
Hattie Burford
Dr. Stack
MATH 533 Graduate Student Portfolio Problems
Spring 2018

7.4 7.3 7.5

7.5 7.1 7.2
7.2 7.0 7.0
6.0 7.6 7.6 7.2
7.2 7.5 7.3
7.4 7.8 7.0
7.0 7.9 7.2
7.0 7.2 7.4 6.8
7.5 7.0 6.6
7.2 6.9 6.4
7.3 7.1 6.5
a. Construct a profile plot…..what do the data suggest?

I constructed this plot to look at the diameter means

for all three calcium levels at the different pH levels.
By looking at the plot, we can see that there is no
specific pattern that encompasses all three calcium
levels. Rather, the increase in the mean of trunk
diameters for each calcium level changes as the pH
changes. This suggests that the calcium level and pH
level relationship has an effect on the trunk diameter.
For example, at pH level 4, the largest diameter was
the shown by the 200 calcium level, while at a high pH
level 7, the largest diameter was shown by the 100
calcium level. The 100 calcium level jumped
significantly as the pH rose to level 5.

Below is a much prettier one that I figured out after

making one by hand-I decided to keep mine as well 
Hattie Burford
Dr. Stack
MATH 533 Graduate Student Portfolio Problems
Spring 2018

b. Write an appropriate statistical model.

The model that we will use will be for the factorial design.
𝒚𝒊𝒋 = 𝝁 + 𝜶𝟐 + 𝜷𝒋 + 𝜶𝜷𝒊𝒋 + 𝝐𝒊𝒋
𝑾𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆:
𝒚𝒊𝒋 = 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒏𝒌 𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒎𝒕𝒆𝒓
𝝁 = 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏
𝜶𝟐 = 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝑯
𝜷𝒋 = 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒄𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍
𝜶𝜷𝒊𝒋 = 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒄𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝑯
𝝐𝒊𝒋 = 𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒐𝒎 𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓

c. Perform an analysis of variance (create the ANOVA table) and identify the experimental design. Let
alpha = 0.05 and run the test.
Using the Two-Way ANOVA on Stat Crunch (AOV table for the complete factorial design):

𝑭′ = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟑𝟓𝟔𝟔𝟏𝟖
𝒑 − 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 <. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏

Therefore, since our p-value is less than

alpha=.05, we reject Ho, therefore, we
can conclude that the interaction
between pH and calcium level is
significant. Also, we do not have to
continue with the tests of hypothesis for
factors.