Batangas State University

COLLEGE OF ACCOUNTANCY, BUSINESS, ECONOMICS

& INTERNATIONAL HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
BATANGAS CITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL

ADVANCE STATICTICS (BA 502)

CASE ANALYSIS NO. 4 – CORRELATION

Submitted To: Prof. Rogelio Antenor

Submitted By: Florence M. De Castro
 1. Test of Normality

Table 1
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statis d Sig. Statistic df Sig.
tic f
average cigarettes a day .140 25 .200* .886 25 .009
years of smoking .199 25 .012 .830 25 .001
lung function .163 25 .086 .936 25 .122
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
Table 1 illustrates that test of normality for each variable and that the average cigarettes a day has a p
value of .009 and .001for the years of smoking. The table shows that it is not normally distributed using
Shapiro-Wilk Test while Lung function displays a normal score of p=.122 which is above the .05
significance level.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Figures 1 and 2 show that relationships between variables are consistent and continuous, and that
the linearity and homoscedasticity requirements are met. The related pair assumptions have been
met since variables X (lung function) and Y (years of smoking and average cigarettes per day)
exhibit a significant and consistent relationship.

Table 2. Lung Function and Average Cigarette Consumption per Day

Table 2
Correlations
lung function average cigarettes a day
lung function Pearson Correlation 1 -.825**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 25 25
average cigarettes a day Pearson Correlation -.825** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 25 25
**. Correlation is
significant at the 0.01
level (2-tailed).

Table 2 illustrates the relationship between lung function and average daily cigarettes smoked,
with a p value of .000, which is less than the.05 significance level which means that the
correlation is significant. The Pearson's coefficient is also shown, which is r = -.825 and this
shows that lung function and average daily cigarette intake have a significant negative
relationship. As a result, the number of cigarette consumption increases, the lung function rating
decreases.
Table 3. Lung Function and years of smoking

Table 3
Correlations
lung function years of smoking
lung function Pearson Correlation 1 -.793**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 25 25
years of smoking Pearson Correlation -.793 **
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 25 25
**. Correlation is
significant at the
0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3 illustrates the significance value of p = .000 which shows a significant correlation of
the two variables: lung function and years of smoking. The Pearson's R indicates the
coefficient and years of smoking, r = -7.93, indicating that the lung function rating falls as
the number of years of smoking cigarettes increases.

Figure 3. Lung function and average cigarette consumption per day

Figure 3 shows a line falling from left to right. Since the slope of the line is negative, the
scatter plot shows negative correlation between the two sets of variable which are the lung
function and average cigarettes a day. The graph also shows that as daily cigarette use
increases, lung function falls, and as daily cigarette consumption reduces, lung function
increases, implying that the smaller the x-value (average cigarettes per day) corresponds to
high y-values (lung function).

Figure 4. Lung function and years of smoking

Figure 4 shows a negative relationship between the two variables of lung function and years of smoking.
This means that the lesser the number of years spent smoking, the better the lung function.

Table 4. Partial Correlation

Table 4
Correlations
Control Variables average lung function
cigarettes a day
years of smoking average cigarettes a day Correlation 1.000 -.378
Significance (2- . .069
tailed)
df 0 22
lung function Correlation -.378 1.000
Significance (2- .069 .
tailed)
df 22 0

Table 4 shows the relationship between average cigarettes a day and lung function while controlling for
"Years of smoking” that measures the length of time in smoking habit. In this table, the Pearson
correlation coefficient is r = -3.78, indicating a moderate negative correlation. The relationship between
the variables is not significant, p =.069, which is higher than the 0.5 significance level.