Name: Ybur Clieve Olsen B.

Dahilog
Course: MS GENERAL SCIENCE EDUCATION
Adviser: Raul Orongan PhD.

EDUC – 242: STATISTICS ACTIVITY 2

1. The water pollution readings at CERTAIN Beach seem to be lower than last year. A sample of 12
readings was randomly selected from the records of this year’s daily reading:
4.1 1.9 2.8 1.7 2.3 4.2 1.2 2.4 2.7 3.5 2.8 3.5
Does this sample provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the mean of this year’s pollution reading
is significantly lower than last year’s mean of 3.2 at the 0.05 level? Assume that all such reading have
normal distribution.
A. VARIABLES
Independent Variable - Beach
Dependent variable- Water Pollution Readings
B. HYPOTHESIS
Ho : >3.2
Hi : < 3.2
C. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE: 0.05 level of significance
D. APPROPRIATE STATISTICS: One sample T-test
E. COMPUTATION

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

readings 12 2.758 .9346 .2698

Test Value = 3.2

95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

readings -1.637 11 .130 -.4417 -1.036 .152

F. INTERPRETATION/ IMPLICATION/ CONCLUSION

Since the p-value is .130, this means that the null hypothesis is not rejected. The mean of this year’s
pollution reading is NOT significantly lower than last year’s mean.

2. Suppose that as a military psychologist you know that the population of sonar operators has a
mean identification rate of 70 targets out of 100. You have just developed a new sonar training system
that, you claim, will increase the number of targets correctly identified. Using the data from the 16
trainees listed below conduct a single sample t test to determine whether they perform significantly
better than the population of sonar operators trained using the traditional method.
Number o f targets correctly identified
75 79 83 74 90 79 92 82 79 87 91 75 70 69 85 75
A. VARIABLES
Independent Variable - Sonar Operators
Dependent variable - Performance Of Sonar Operators
 B. HYPOTHESIS
Ho : The sonar operators in the new sonar training system did not perform significantly
better than population of sonar operators trained using the traditional method.
Hi : The sonar operators in the new sonar training system performed significantly better
than population of sonar operators trained using the traditional method.
C. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE: 0.05 level of significance
D. APPROPRIATE STATISTICS: One sample T-test
E. COMPUTATION

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

targets 16 80.3125 7.23619 1.80905

Test Value = 70
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

targets 5.701 15 .001 10.31250 6.4566 14.1684

F. INTERPRETATION/ IMPLICATION/ CONCLUSION

The p-value of the target is at .001. This means that the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, we can infer
that the sonar operators in the new sonar training system performed significantly better than
population of sonar operators trained using the traditional method.

3. A professor wants to know if her introductory statistics class has a good grasp of basic math. Six
students are chosen at random from the class and given a math proficiency test. The professor wants
the class to be able to score above 80 on the test. The 10 students get scores of 78, 91, 86, 97, 75, 69,
79, 88, 86, and 90. Can the professor have 90 percent confidence that the mean score for the class on
the test would be above 80?
A. VARIABLES
Independent Variable - Students In Introductory Statistics Class
Dependent variable- Basic Math Proficiency Test Score
B. HYPOTHESIS
Ho : ≤ 80
Hi : > 80
C. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE: 0.05 level of significance
D. APPROPRIATE STATISTICS: One sample T-test
 E. COMPUTATION

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

testscore 10 83.9000 8.46496 2.67686

Test Value = 80
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

testscore 1.457 9 .179 3.90000 -2.1555 9.9555

F. INTERPRETATION/ IMPLICATION/ CONCLUSION

The p- value is at .179, this means that the null hypothesis is retained. The mean score for the class
would not be above 80.

4. It has been suggested that abnormal male children tend to occur more in children born to older
– than average parents. Case histories of 20 abnormal males were obtained, and the ages of 20 mothers
were:
42 34 29 32 34 45 27 38 39 41 31 25 38 39 35 38 37 35 21 28
The mean age at which mothers in the general population give birth is 30.0 years. Does the sample give
sufficient evidence to support the claim that abnormal male children have older-than average mother?
Use α-0.05. Assume ages have a normal distribution.
A. VARIABLES
Independent Variable - Mothers
Dependent variable- Ages of Mothers
B. HYPOTHESIS
Ho : There is no association between higher rate of abnormal male children in the older-
than average mother.
Hi : There is an association between higher rate of abnormal male children in the older-
than average mother.
C. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE: 0.05 level of significance
D. APPROPRIATE STATISTICS: One sample T-test
E. COMPUTATION

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

age 20 34.4000 6.12501 1.36959

Test Value = 30
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

age 3.213 19 .005 4.40000 1.5334 7.2666

 F. INTERPRETATION/ IMPLICATION/ CONCLUSION
The p-value .005 is less than the 0.05 significance level.Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. Higher rate
of abnormal male children occur in the older-than average mother.

5. The mean work week for employees in a certain company is believed to be about 55 hours. A new
employee hopes that it’s shorter. A survey was conducted to term employees in the company for the
lengths of their mean work weeks. Based on the results, would the employees mean work week to be
shorter than 55 hours?
Data (length of mean work week): 64; 55; 50; 60; 62; 58; 58; 62; 50; 55
A. VARIABLES
Independent variable-Term Employees
Dependent variable- Hours of Work in a Week
B. HYPOTHESIS
Ho : ≤ 55
Hi : > 55
C. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE: 0.05 level of significance
D. APPROPRIATE STATISTICS: One sample T-test
E. COMPUTATION

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

hours 10 57.400 4.8808 1.5434

Test Value = 55
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

hours 1.555 9 .154 2.4000 -1.092 5.892

F. INTERPRETATION/ IMPLICATION/ CONCLUSION

The p-value is .154 which is higher than the 0.05 significance level. The null hypothesis is rejected. The
employees mean work week were not shorter than 55 hours.
 PART II
A. BY GENDER
1. VARIABLES
a) IV - Gender (female, male) DV- motivation
b) IV- Gender (female, male) DV- score
2. HYPOTHESIS
a.) Null hypothesis- The gender of the respondents has no significant
effect on the their motivation.
Alternative hypothesis- The gender of the respondents has significant
effect on the their motivation.
b.) Null hypothesis- The gender of the respondents has no significant effect on the
their performance test score.
Alternative hypothesis- The gender of the respondents has significant effect on
the their performance test score
3. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE: 0.05 level of significance
4. APPROPRIATE STATISTICS: One sample T-Test
5. COMPUTATION/ ANALYSIS
MOTIVATION
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
MaleMotivation 90 4.3524 .52014 .05483
Test Value = 4.0
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
MaleMotivation 6.428 89 .000 .35244 .2435 .4614

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

FemaleMotivation 90 4.2038 .59275 .06248

Test Value = 4.0

95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
FemaleMotivation 3.261 89 .002 .20378 .0796 .3279
SCORE
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
MaleScore 90 56.0444 15.57289 1.64153
Test Value = 65
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
MaleScore -5.456 89 .000 -8.95556 -12.2172 -5.6939

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

FemaleScore 90 57.2444 16.59180 1.74893
Test Value = 65
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
FemaleScore -4.434 89 .000 -7.75556 -11.2306 -4.2805

6. INTERPRETATION/ IMPLICATION/ CONCLUSION

The p-values are lower than .05 which means the hypothesis is rejected. The gender of the respondents
has significant effects on their level of motivation and test score.

B. BY SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
1. VARIABLES
a) IV - respondents’ socio economic status DV- motivation
b) IV- respondents’ socio economic status DV- performance test score
2. HYPOTHESIS
a.) Null hypothesis- The socio-economic status of the respondents has
no significant effect on the their level of motivation.
Alternative hypothesis- The socio-economic status of the respondents has
significant effect on the their level of motivation.
b.) Null hypothesis- The socio-economic status of the respondents has no
significant effect on the their performance test score.
Alternative hypothesis- The socio-economic status of the respondents has
significant effect on the their performance test score
3. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE: 0.05 level of significance
4. APPROPRIATE STATISTICS: One sample T-Test
 5. COMPUTATION/ ANALYSIS

Motive By SES
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
SESLowMotiv 60 4.2727 .58412 .07541
SESAveMotiv 60 4.2670 .56822 .07336
SESHighMotiv 60 4.2947 .53895 .06958
Test Value = 4.0
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
SESLowMotiv 3.616 59 .001 .27267 .1218 .4236
SESAveMotiv 3.640 59 .001 .26700 .1202 .4138
SESHighMotiv 4.235 59 .000 .29467 .1554 .4339

Score By SES
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
SESLowScore 60 59.0000 18.33215 2.36667
SESAveScore 60 57.9333 16.00833 2.06667
SESHighScore 60 53.0000 13.00065 1.67838
Test Value = 65
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
SESLowScore -2.535 59 .014 -6.00000 -10.7357 -1.2643
SESAveScore -3.419 59 .001 -7.06667 -11.2021 -2.9313
SESHighScore -7.150 59 .000 -12.00000 -15.3584 -8.6416

6. INTERPRETATION/ IMPLICATION/ CONCLUSION

A. In the level of motivation, the p-values indicates that there is no significant difference in the
level of motivation in the low, average and high socioeconomic status of the respondents. This is in
comparison to the 0.05 level of significance.
B. The Low, Average and High SES has the p-value lower than 0.05 respectively which means that
there is no significant difference in their test score.
C. OVERALL SAMPLES
1. VARIABLES
A.) IV -180 random samples
DV- overall level of motivation
B.) IV -180 random samples
DV- proficiency test score
2. HYPOTHESIS
A. Null hypothesis- There is no significant difference between the level of motivation of the
participants and the given standard value.
Alternative hypothesis- There is significant difference between the level of motivation of the
participants and the given standard value.
B. Null hypothesis- There is no significant difference between the proficiency test score of the
participants and the given standard value.
Alternative hypothesis- There is significant difference between the proficiency test score of the
participants and the given standard value.
3. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE: 0.05 level of significance
4. APPROPRIATE STATISTICS: One sample T-test
5. COMPUTATION /ANALYSIS

Overall Motivation

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

OverallMotiv 180 4.2781 .56104 .04182

Test Value = 4.0

95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
OverallMotiv 6.651 179 .000 .27811 .1956 .3606

Overall Scores

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

OverallScore 180 56.6444 16.05668 1.19679
Test Value = 65
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
OverallScore -6.982 179 .000 -8.35556 -10.7172 -5.9939
6. INTERPRETATION/ IMPLICATION/ CONCLUSION
A. The p-value of .000 is lower than the established level of significance. Thus, there is
significant difference between the level of motivation of the participants and the given
standard value.
B. The p-value of .000 in the overall score of the 180 participants is lower than the 0.05
established level of significance. This means that the null hypothesis is rejected.