Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test.

T represents the T

statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

Most publications recommend using archaeological animal tooth

enamel to provide a small scale ‘baseline’ for the local environment,

even if the exact geographic origin of such individuals is unknown

(e.g. Bentley and Knipper, 2005; Chala-Aldana et al., 2018; Evans et al.,

2019; Knipper et al., 2020; Laffoon et al., 2019; Lambert, 2019;

Whelton et al., 2018). However, tooth specimens might not be readily

available, which explains why animal or even human bone tissue is

sometimes analysed (Graham and Bethard, 2019; Knudson et al.,

2012; Scharlotta, 2018), even though bone is considered to be more

prone to diagenetic overprinting (Hollund et al., 2015; Kendall et al.,

2018; Lee-Thorp and Sponheimer, 2003). Strontium signatures in

water, soil leachates and vegetation are increasingly used as proxies as

well, although values can be affected by modern fertilizers and may

not always be good indicators for historical environments (Maurer

et al., 2012; Thomsen and Andreasen, 2019).

At present, environmental proxies are mostly used to design large

scale strontium isoscapes, i.e. baseline maps of 87Sr/86Sr ratios based

on spatial modelling methods (e.g. Bataille et al., 2018; Evans et al.,

2010; Hoogewerff et al., 2019; Kootker et al., 2020; Scaffidi and

Knudson, 2020; Snoeck et al., 2020; Willmes et al., 2018). Recently,

Lengfelder et al. (2019) proposed a novel approach to model proxy information

in order to establish the range of local 87Sr/86Sr ratios of bioavailable

strontium for archaeological sites. They used concentration

weighted mixingmodelswidely applied in geochemical source analyses

(Christensen et al., 2018; McCarthy et al., 2019) as well as in ecological

studies for assessing the contributions of different food sources to an

end consumer in the food chain (Fernandes et al., 2014; Phillips, 2012;

Vaslet et al., 2015).

Specifically, Lengfelder et al. (2019) applied two different approaches

to predict local isotopic signatures based on modern

environmental samples. Their first approach, a “two-componentmixing

model”, considers the 87Sr/86Sr ratios of single ground water and vegetation
samples for each archaeological site. Thismixingmodel was considered

suitable for predicting the 87Sr/86Sr span of local animal species.

However, because very narrow local spans resulted when applying this

modelling approach, a soil sample was added to obtain a “mixing triangle”,

thus providing a wider local range. According to the authors this

method provides a “good capture” of the 87Sr/86Sr variability of a site.

Using the two-component mixing approach as a starting point, the

study presented here develops a three-component mixing model

based on local vegetation, archaeological faunal remains and ground

water in order to establish the approximate local range necessary to assess

human data and test the accuracy ofmixingmodels in general. The

latter was made possible through a representative sample set of over

fifty human 87Sr/86Sr ratios for the archaeological sites in Erding

(Upper Bavaria, Germany). According to Burton and Hahn (2016),

such a data set allows the range of local 87Sr/86Sr ratios to be determined

without the use of proxies (Bentley et al., 2004; Pellegrini et al., 2016).

The local range is then deduced exclusively from the central tendency

of the acquired human data assuming that the majority of the interred

individuals are local.

To ensure the best possible results,we considered the geological surroundings

and further strontium isotope data from the northern pre-

Alpine lowland, one of the most intensively studied areas worldwide

in this regard (for a reviewsee Knipper et al., 2017). Under these conditions,

themeasured distribution of human 87Sr/86Sr ratio data can serve

as a basis of comparison for the local 87Sr/86Sr ratio spans predicted by

the models.

2. Material andmethods

2.1. Material

Samples analysed in this study originate fromarchaeological sites in

the county of Erding, Most publications recommend using archaeological animal tooth

enamel to provide a small scale ‘baseline’ for the local environment,

even if the exact geographic origin of such individuals is unknown

(e.g. Bentley and Knipper, 2005; Chala-Aldana et al., 2018; Evans et al.,

2019; Knipper et al., 2020; Laffoon et al., 2019; Lambert, 2019;

Whelton et al., 2018). However, tooth specimens might not be readily

available, which explains why animal or even human bone tissue is

sometimes analysed (Graham and Bethard, 2019; Knudson et al.,

2012; Scharlotta, 2018), even though bone is considered to be more

prone to diagenetic overprinting (Hollund et al., 2015; Kendall et al.,

2018; Lee-Thorp and Sponheimer, 2003). Strontium signatures in

water, soil leachates and vegetation are increasingly used as proxies as

well, although values can be affected by modern fertilizers and may

not always be good indicators for historical environments (Maurer

et al., 2012; Thomsen and Andreasen, 2019).

At present, environmental proxies are mostly used to design large

scale strontium isoscapes, i.e. baseline maps of 87Sr/86Sr ratios based

on spatial modelling methods (e.g. Bataille et al., 2018; Evans et al.,

2010; Hoogewerff et al., 2019; Kootker et al., 2020; Scaffidi and

Knudson, 2020; Snoeck et al., 2020; Willmes et al., 2018). Recently,

Lengfelder et al. (2019) proposed a novel approach to model proxy information

in order to establish the range of local 87Sr/86Sr ratios of bioavailable

strontium for archaeological sites. They used concentration

weighted mixingmodelswidely applied in geochemical source analyses

(Christensen et al., 2018; McCarthy et al., 2019) as well as in ecological

studies for assessing the contributions of different food sources to an

end consumer in the food chain (Fernandes et al., 2014; Phillips, 2012;

Vaslet et al., 2015).

Specifically, Lengfelder et al. (2019) applied two different approaches

to predict local isotopic signatures based on modern

environmental samples. Their first approach, a “two-componentmixing

model”, considers the 87Sr/86Sr ratios of single ground water and vegetation

samples for each archaeological site. Thismixingmodel was considered

suitable for predicting the 87Sr/86Sr span of local animal species.

However, because very narrow local spans resulted when applying this

modelling approach, a soil sample was added to obtain a “mixing triangle”,

thus providing a wider local range. According to the authors this

method provides a “good capture” of the 87Sr/86Sr variability of a site.

Using the two-component mixing approach as a starting point, the

study presented here develops a three-component mixing model

based on local vegetation, archaeological faunal remains and ground

water in order to establish the approximate local range necessary to assess

human data and test the accuracy ofmixingmodels in general. The

latter was made possible through a representative sample set of over

fifty human 87Sr/86Sr ratios for the archaeological sites in Erding

(Upper Bavaria, Germany). According to Burton and Hahn (2016),

such a data set allows the range of local 87Sr/86Sr ratios to be determined
without the use of proxies (Bentley et al., 2004; Pellegrini et al., 2016).

The local range is then deduced exclusively from the central tendency

of the acquired human data assuming that the majority of the interred

individuals are local.

To ensure the best possible results,we considered the geological surroundings

and further strontium isotope data from the northern pre-

Alpine lowland, one of the most intensively studied areas worldwide

in this regard (for a reviewsee Knipper et al., 2017). Under these conditions,

themeasured distribution of human 87Sr/86Sr ratio data can serve

as a basis of comparison for the local 87Sr/86Sr ratio spans predicted by

the models.

2. Material andmethods

2.1. Material

Samples analysed in this study originate fromarchaeological sites in

the county of Erding, a settlement microregion located about 40 km

northeast ofMunich in Upper Bavaria (Fig. 1),which has been inhabited

more or less continuously since the 4th millennium BCE. Three subsets

of 87Sr/86Sr ratios will be considered, i.e. human enamel samples, control

data and proxies.

2.1.1. Human enamel samples from Erding

Archaeological human bone material sampled originates from two

cemeteries. The first, Erding-Kletthamer Feld, is a late roman cemetery

used fromthe second half of the 4th until the first quarter of the 5th century

CE. It consisted of 13 inhumations including eight males, four females

and one child. Integrated into the Roman Empire following the

conquest of the Alps in 15 BCE, the northern Alpine foreland remained

under roman cultural influence for almost five centuries until the end

of the 5th century CE. One of the male individuals was buried with a

roman military fibula and it is suggested that the males may have

been roman soldiers who had spent the last part of their lives together

with their families somewhere near the burial site (cf. Sofeso et al.,

2012). Sofeso et al. (2012) measured strontium isotope ratios in either

the first or the second molar in ten out of twelve adult individuals. Dental

remains were absent in two individuals.

The early medieval cemetery of Altenerding, a municipal district of

Erding, was in continuous use from the first half of the 5th century

until the end of the 7th centuryMost publications recommend using archaeological animal tooth

enamel to provide a small scale ‘baseline’ for the local environment,

even if the exact geographic origin of such individuals is unknown

(e.g. Bentley and Knipper, 2005; Chala-Aldana et al., 2018; Evans et al.,

2019; Knipper et al., 2020; Laffoon et al., 2019; Lambert, 2019;

Whelton et al., 2018). However, tooth specimens might not be readily

available, which explains why animal or even human bone tissue is

sometimes analysed (Graham and Bethard, 2019; Knudson et al.,

2012; Scharlotta, 2018), even though bone is considered to be more

prone to diagenetic overprinting (Hollund et al., 2015; Kendall et al.,

2018; Lee-Thorp and Sponheimer, 2003). Strontium signatures in

water, soil leachates and vegetation are increasingly used as proxies as

well, although values can be affected by modern fertilizers and may

not always be good indicators for historical environments (Maurer

et al., 2012; Thomsen and Andreasen, 2019).

At present, environmental proxies are mostly used to design large

scale strontium isoscapes, i.e. baseline maps of 87Sr/86Sr ratios based

on spatial modelling methods (e.g. Bataille et al., 2018; Evans et al.,

2010; Hoogewerff et al., 2019; Kootker et al., 2020; Scaffidi and

Knudson, 2020; Snoeck et al., 2020; Willmes et al., 2018). Recently,

Lengfelder et al. (2019) proposed a novel approach to model proxy information

in order to establish the range of local 87Sr/86Sr ratios of bioavailable

strontium for archaeological sites. They used concentration

weighted mixingmodelswidely applied in geochemical source analyses

(Christensen et al., 2018; McCarthy et al., 2019) as well as in ecological

studies for assessing the contributions of different food sources to an

end consumer in the food chain (Fernandes et al., 2014; Phillips, 2012;

Vaslet et al., 2015).

Specifically, Lengfelder et al. (2019) applied two different approaches

to predict local isotopic signatures based on modern

environmental samples. Their first approach, a “two-componentmixing

model”, considers the 87Sr/86Sr ratios of single ground water and vegetation

samples for each archaeological site. Thismixingmodel was considered

suitable for predicting the 87Sr/86Sr span of local animal species.

However, because very narrow local spans resulted when applying this

modelling approach, a soil sample was added to obtain a “mixing triangle”,

thus providing a wider local range. According to the authors this

method provides a “good capture” of the 87Sr/86Sr variability of a site.

Using the two-component mixing approach as a starting point, the

study presented here develops a three-component mixing model

based on local vegetation, archaeological faunal remains and ground

water in order to establish the approximate local range necessary to assess

human data and test the accuracy ofmixingmodels in general. The

latter was made possible through a representative sample set of over

fifty human 87Sr/86Sr ratios for the archaeological sites in Erding

(Upper Bavaria, Germany). According to Burton and Hahn (2016),

such a data set allows the range of local 87Sr/86Sr ratios to be determined

without the use of proxies (Bentley et al., 2004; Pellegrini et al., 2016).

The local range is then deduced exclusively from the central tendency

of the acquired human data assuming that the majority of the interred

individuals are local.

To ensure the best possible results,we considered the geological surroundings

and further strontium isotope data from the northern pre-

Alpine lowland, one of the most intensively studied areas worldwide

in this regard (for a reviewsee Knipper et al., 2017). Under these conditions,

themeasured distribution of human 87Sr/86Sr ratio data can serve

as a basis of comparison for the local 87Sr/86Sr ratio spans predicted by

the models.

2. Material andmethods
2.1. Material

Samples analysed in this study originate fromarchaeological sites in

the county of Erding, a settlement microregion located about 40 km

northeast ofMunich in Upper Bavaria (Fig. 1),which has been inhabited

more or less continuously since the 4th millennium BCE. Three subsets

of 87Sr/86Sr ratios will be considered, i.e. human enamel samples, control

data and proxies.

2.1.1. Human enamel samples from Erding

Archaeological human bone material sampled originates from two

cemeteries. The first, Erding-Kletthamer Feld, is a late roman cemetery

used fromthe second half of the 4th until the first quarter of the 5th century

CE. It consisted of 13 inhumations including eight males, four females

and one child. Integrated into the Roman Empire following the

conquest of the Alps in 15 BCE, the northern Alpine foreland remained

under roman cultural influence for almost five centuries until the end

of the 5th century CE. One of the male individuals was buried with a

roman military fibula and it is suggested that the males may have

been roman soldiers who had spent the last part of their lives together

with their families somewhere near the burial site (cf. Sofeso et al.,
2012). Sofeso et al. (2012) measured strontium isotope ratios in either

the first or the second molar in ten out of twelve adult individuals. Dental

remains were absent in two individuals.

The early medieval cemetery of Altenerding, a municipal district of

Erding, was in continuous use from the first half of the 5th century

until the end of the 7th century CE. Comprising about 1450 graves, it

is one of the largest early medieval graveyards excavated in Bavaria

(Sage, 1984) and focus of archaeological and anthropological research

(e.g. Feldman et al., 2016; Hakenbeck et al., 2010; Losert and Pleterski,

2003; Veeramah et al., 2018). However, until now, no systematic strontium

isotope analysis has been carried out. Here we present the

87Sr/86Sr CE. Comprising about 1450 graves, it

is one of the largest early medieval graveyards excavated in Bavaria

(Sage, 1984) and focus of archaeological and anthropological research

(e.g. Feldman et al., 2016; Hakenbeck et al., 2010; Losert and Pleterski,

2003; Veeramah et al., 2018). However, until now, no systematic strontium

isotope analysis has been carried out. Here we present the

87Sr/86Sra settlement microregion located about 40 km

northeast ofMunich in Upper Bavaria (Fig. 1),which has been inhabited

more or less continuously since the 4th millennium BCE. Three subsets

of 87Sr/86Sr ratios will be considered, i.e. human enamel samples, control

data and proxies.

2.1.1. Human enamel samples from Erding

Archaeological human bone material sampled originates from two

cemeteries. The first, Erding-Kletthamer Feld, is a late roman cemetery

used fromthe second half of the 4th until the first quarter of the 5th century

CE. It consisted of 13 inhumations including eight males, four females

and one child. Integrated into the Roman Empire following the

conquest of the Alps in 15 BCE, the northern Alpine foreland remained

under roman cultural influence for almost five centuries until the end

of the 5th century CE. One of the male individuals was buried with a

roman military fibula and it is suggested that the males may have

been roman soldiers who had spent the last part of their lives together

with their families somewhere near the burial site (cf. Sofeso et al.,

2012). Sofeso et al. (2012) measured strontium isotope ratios in either

the first or the second molar in ten out of twelve adult individuals. Dental

remains were absent in two individuals.

The early medieval cemetery of Altenerding, a municipal district of

Erding, was in continuous use from the first half of the 5th century

until the end of the 7th century CE. Comprising about 1450 graves, it

is one of the largest early medieval graveyards excavated in Bavaria

(Sage, 1984) and focus of archaeological and anthropological research

(e.g. Feldman et al., 2016; Hakenbeck et al., 2010; Losert and Pleterski,

2003; Veeramah et al., 2018). However, until now, no systematic strontium

isotope analysis has been carried out. Here we present the

87Sr/86SrF. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J.

Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General

formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,
A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples
turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,
S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12
What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn
=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.T
xx

Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,
S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the

respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

T

xx

nsns

nnnn

( − ) +( − )

+−

( − ) +( − )

+−

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being
compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

( − ) +( − )
+−

difference between the two samples.

xx

Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when
we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

( − ) +( − )

+−

s from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being
compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

( − ) +( − )
+−

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

( − ) +( − )

+−

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,
M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.T

xx

Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being
compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,
J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the

respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

( − ) +( − )

+−
−

( − ) +( − )

+−

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective
samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

( − ) +( − )

+−

difference between the two samples.

xx

Sx x

−
12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T

represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General formula for an independent

samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,
P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate
the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;
x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak, I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1
2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,
J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex

calculations Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T

represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1
2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the

T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,
P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate
the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;
x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J.

Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,
J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V. Verougs

Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T

statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General

formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,
A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples
turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,
S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12
What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn
=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.T
xx

Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General formula for an independent

samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General

formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,
D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,
A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,
in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,
P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.T

xx

Sx x

12
12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J.

Matschullat,for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J.

Matschullat,traete, Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test.

T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Fb<rsgq<fr<f<gffveffFormula 5.7 General

formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V.

Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x

12
12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2

2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns
nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,

J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.Sx x
=

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,

in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

Formula 5.8 Complete formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the two means; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective

samples; s1

2 and s2
2 are the variances of the two respective samples.

xx

nsns

nnnn

=Formula 5.7 General formula for an independent samples T-test. T represents the T statistic;

x1 − x2 represents the difference between the mean of the two samples; Sx x 1− 2 represents the

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,

M. McLaughlin, B.I Malyuk, R. Maquil, R.G. Meuli, G. Mol, P. Negrel, O. Connor, R.K Oorts, R.T. Ottesen,

A. Pasieczna,W. Petersell, S.. Pfleiderer, M. Poňavič, S Pramuka, C. Prazeres, U. Rauch, S. Radusinović, C.

Reimann,

M. Sadeghi, I. Salpeteur, R. Scanlon, A. Schedl, A.J Scheib, I. Schoeters, P. Šefčik, E. Sellersjö, F. Skopljak,

I. Slaninka,
J.M. Soriano-Disla, A. Šorša, R. Srvkota, T. Stafilov, T. Tarvainen, V. Trendavilov, P. Valera, V.

Verougstraete,

D. Vidojević, A. Zissimos, Z. Zomeni

a National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

b Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway

c Dept.T

xx

Sx x

12

12

What this means is that, if we collected samples from two different populations, we could estimate

the standard error of the difference between the means of those samples through complex calculations

involving their standard deviations, just as we did for a single sample. When the samples are being

compared, this situation is not too complicated, as the standard error of the difference between

samples

turns just to be the sum of the SEMs for the two samples. This is made much more difficult, however,
in the likely event that the sizes of the two samples being compared are different, necessitating the

weighting of the standard error term according to the respective sizes of the samples. However, when

we substitute in this formula for the standard error term in Formula 5.7, we find the horridly complex

complete formula for the independent samples T-test.

W. De Vos, E. Dinelli, M. Ďuriš, A. Dusza-Dobek, O.A. Eggen, M. Eklund, V. Ernstsen, P. Filzmoser, D.M.A

Flight,

S. Forrester, M. Fuchs, U. Fügedi, A. Gilucis, V. Gregorauskiene, W. De Groot, A. Gulan, J. Halamić, E.

Haslinger,

P. Hayoz, R. Hoffmann, H. Hrvatovic, S. Husnjak, L. Janik, G. Jordan, M. Kaminari, J. Kirby, J. Kivisilla, V.

Klos,

F. Krone, F. Kwećko, L. Kuti, A. Lima, J. Locutura, D.P Lucivjansky, A. Mann, D. Mackovych, J. Matschullat,