Dependent or Independent

1) Dependent
2) Dependent
3) Independent
4) Independent
5) Independent
 Problem Solving 1

Step 1 Ho (Null hypothesis) There is no significant difference in the daily calcium intake of patience with normal bo
Ha (Alternative hypothesis) There is significant difference in the daily calcium intake of patience with normal bone

Step 2 Level of significance 0.05

Step 3 Dependent Variable Daily Calcium Intake

Independent Variables Bone Density (Normal Bone, Osteopenia and Osteoporosis)
Test Distribution Comparing the means of one independent variable that consist of two or more categor

Step 4 Normal Bone Osteopenia Osteoporosis

1200 1000 890
1000 1100 650
980 700 1100
900 800 900
750 500 400
800 700 350

F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Normal Bone Osteopenia

Mean 938.333333333 800
Variance 26016.6666667 48000
Observations 6 6
df 5 5
F 0.54201388889
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.25886484726
F Critical one-tail 0.19800689987

Result 0.05<0.26 failed to reject Ho

equal variances assumed

Step 5 Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Normal Bone 6 5630 938.333333333 26016.667
Osteopenia 6 4800 800 48000
Osteoporosis 6 4290 715 89950

ANOVA
 Source of Variation SS df MS F
Between Groups 152477.777777778 2 76238.8888889 1.3948973
Within Groups 819833.333333333 15 54655.5555556

Total 972311.111111111 17

Statistical Decision failed to reject Ho

Step 6 Conclusion
There is no sufficient evidence to support that there is significant difference between the daily calcium intake of patie

Indicator Bone Density Mean f-value p-value

Normal 938.33
Daily Calcium Intake Osteopenia 800 1.39 0.278
Osteoporosis 715
take of patience with normal bone density compared to patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis.
e of patience with normal bone density compared to patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis.

t consist of two or more categorical groups: One-Way ANOVA

Ho: Equal Variances Assumed

Ha: Equal Variances Not Assumed

F-Test Two-Sample for Variances F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Normal Bone Osteoporosis Osteopenia

Mean 938.333333333 715 Mean 800
Variance 26016.6666667 89950 Variance 48000
Observations 6 6 Observations 6
df 5 5 df 5
F 0.28923476005 F 0.53362979433
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.09978050292 P(F<=f) one-tail 0.253643063251
F Critical one-tail 0.19800689987 F Critical one-tail 0.198006899865

0.05<0.1 failed to reject Ho 0.05<0.25 failed to reject Ho

equal variances assumed equal variances assumed
 P-value F crit
0.278229020052208 3.68232034367

the daily calcium intake of patience and the bone density of adults.
Ho (Null hypothesis)
Decision Remarks Ha (Alternative hypothesis)

Failed to reject Ho Not significant

 Osteoporosis
715
89950
6
5

to reject Ho
variances assumed
 Problem Solving 2

Step 1 Ho (Null hypothesis) Men do not spend more than women buying gifts on Valentine's day in the Unite
Ha (Alternative hypothesis) Men spend more than women buying gifts on Valentine's day in the United State

Step 2 Level of significance 0.01

Step 3 Dependent Variable Amount of Purchases made for Valentine's Day

Independent Variables Sex (Men and Women)
Test Distribution Comparing the means of two independent groups: Independent Sample t-Test

Step 4 Men (in $) Women (in $)

107.48 125.98
143.61 45.53
90.19 56.35
125.53 80.62
70.7 46.37
83 44.34
129.63 75.21
154.22 68.48 Ho: Equal Variances Assum
93.8 85.82 Ha: Equal Variances Not As
126.11

F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Men (in $) Women (in $)

Mean 110.9066666667 75.481
Variance 829.85955 930.678454444
Observations 9 10
df 8 9
F 0.891671603696
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.441123382535
F Critical one-tail 0.169187021785

Result 0.01 < 0.44 failed to reject Ho

equal variances assumed

Step 5 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Men (in $) Women (in $)

Mean 110.90666666667 75.481
Variance 829.85955 930.6784544444
Observations 9 10
Pooled Variance 883.23426411765
 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 17
t Stat 2.5943259023357
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0094502533097
t Critical one-tail 2.5669339837247
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0189005066194
t Critical two-tail 2.8982305196774

Statistical Decision 0.01 < 0.02

failed to reject Ho

Step 6 Conclusion
There is no sufficient evidence to support that men spend more than women buying gifts on Valentine's day in the Un

Indicator Sex Mean t-value p-value

Amount of Purchases made for Men 110.91
2.59 0.02
Valentine's Day Women 75.48
Valentine's day in the United States.
ne's day in the United States.

dependent Sample t-Test

Ho: Equal Variances Assumed

Ha: Equal Variances Not Assumed
on Valentine's day in the United States.

Decision Remarks
Failed to Not
reject Ho Significant
 Problem Solving 3

Step 1 Ho (Null hypothesis) A teaching course does not increase the teaching performance of teachers.
Ha (Alternative hypothesis) A teaching course increases the teaching performance of teachers.

Step 2 Level of significance 0.1

Step 3 Dependent Variable Teaching Performance

Independent Variables Treatment (Before and After)
Test Distribution Comparing the means of two related groups: Dependent Sample t-Test

Step 4 Case Before After

1 85 95
2 84 98
3 86 97
4 87 92
5 89 96
6 82 93
7 80 94
8 84 95
9 86 90
10 82 82
11 89 97
12 87 98
13 82 95
14 81 95
15 86 92
16 89 91
17 89 94
18 84 95
19 85 96
20 88 97

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Before After
Mean 85.25 94.1
Variance 8.092105263 13.14737
Observations 20 20
Pearson Correlation 0.2219655
 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 19
t Stat -9.69647563
P(T<=t) one-tail 4.313402E-09
t Critical one-tail 1.327728209
P(T<=t) two-tail 8.626803E-09
t Critical two-tail 1.729132812

Step 5 Statistical Decision P value: < 4.31

Failed to reject Ho
Step 6 Conclusion
There is no sufficient evidence to prove that attending a teaching course increases the teaching performance of teach

Indicator Treatment Mean t-value p-value Decision

Before 85.25 Failed to
Teaching Performance of Teachers -9.696 4.31
After 94.1 reject Ho
g performance of teachers.
mance of teachers.

pendent Sample t-Test

e teaching performance of teachers.

Remarks
Not
Significant
 Problem Solving 4

Step 1 Ho (Null hypothesis) There is no significant relationship existing between a child's height and head circ
Ha (Alternative hypothesis) There is a significant relationship existing between a child's height and head circu

Step 2 Level of significance 0.05

Step 3 Dependent Variable Head Circumference

Independent Variable Height
Test Distribution Testing significant relationship betweet two variables: Pearson r

Head Circumference
Height ( inches)
(inches)
Step 4
27.75 17.5
24.5 17.1
25.5 17.1
26 17.3
25 16.9
27.75 17.6
26.5 17.3
27 17.5
26.75 17.3
26.75 17.5
27.5 17.5

Step 5 Statistical Decision Pearson r: 0.91 = Strong Direct Correlation

p-value: 0.025 < 0.05 = Reject Ho

Step 6 Conclusion
There is no evidence to prove that there is a significant relationship existing between a child's height and head circum

Height
Pearson r Description p-value
Head Circumference Strong Direct
0.91 0.025
Correlation
Step 5

Step 6
etween a child's height and head circumference.
ween a child's height and head circumference.

variables: Pearson r

Result
Pearson r 0.91107273
t-value 2.60412996
p-value 0.0245128

een a child's height and head circumference.

Decision Remarks
Reject Ho Significant
 Problem Solving 5

Step 1 Ho (Null hypothesis) Smoking status is independent to the level of education.

Ha (Alternative hypothesis) Smoking status is dependent to the level of education.

Step 2 Level of significance 0.05

Step 3 Categorical Variables Smoking Status

Level of Education
Test Distribution Testing the significant relationship of two categorical variables: Chi-Square Distri

Step 4 ACTUAL/OBSERVED No. Of Years of Smoking Status

Education Current Former Never
less than 12 178 88 208
12 137 69 143
13-15 44 25 44
16 or more 34 33 51
Column Total 393 215 446

EXPECTED (row x column / grand) Current Former Never

less than 12 176.73814041746 96.6888045541 200.573055028
12 130.12998102467 71.1907020873 147.679316888
13-15 42.133776091082 23.05028463 47.8159392789
16 or more 43.998102466793 24.0702087287 49.9316888046

p-value 0.2528955164468

Step 5 Statistical Decision p value: 0.25 > 0.05

Failed to reject Ho

Step 6 Conclusion
There is no evidence to prove that smoking status is dependent to the level of education.

Smoking Status
No. Of Years of Education Total
Current Former Never
less than 12 178 88 208 474
12 137 69 143 349
13-15 44 25 44 113
16 or more 34 33 51 118
Total 393 215 446 1054
p-value: 0.25
Decision: Failed to reject Ho
Remarks Not significant
ariables: Chi-Square Distribution

Row Total

474
349
113
118
1054
 Problem Solving 6

Step 1 Ho (Null hypothesis) There is no significant relationship existing between a child's height and head circ
Ha (Alternative hypothesis) There is a significant relationship existing between a child's height and head circu

Step 2 Level of significance 0.05

Step 3 Dependent Variable Head Circumference

Independent Variable Height
Test Distribution Testing significant relationship betweet two variables: Pearson r

Head Circumference
Height ( inches)
(inches)
Step 4
27.75 17.5
24.5 17.1
25.5 17.1
26 17.3
25 16.9
27.75 17.6
26.5 17.3
27 17.5
26.75 17.3
26.75 17.5
27.5 17.5

Step 5 Statistical Decision Pearson r: 0.91 = Strong Direct Correlation

p-value: 0.025 < 0.05 = Reject Ho

Step 6 Conclusion
There is no evidence to prove that there is a significant relationship existing between a child's height and head circum

Height
Pearson r Description p-value
Head Circumference Strong Direct
0.91 0.025
Correlation
etween a child's height and head circumference.
ween a child's height and head circumference.

variables: Pearson r

Result
Pearson r 0.91107273
t-value 2.60412996
p-value 0.0245128

een a child's height and head circumference.

Decision Remarks
Reject Ho Significant