Loam Soil Sand Clay

11 8 9 Ruki would like to know whether there exists a significant

Problem plant. He then experimented three common types of soil in
20 12 13 height (in cm.) of the plants in one w
32 19 20
41 22 29
56 28 35 Pearson r value:
69 30 42 Interpretation Very High Pos
80 35 50 H
Hypothesis:
H
Loam Soil Sand Statistical Test: two-tailed test, non-direction
Loam Soil 1 Decision/Rejection
Rule: Reject Ho if the computed p value is less than
Sand 0.990017 1

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.990017295329258
Standard Error 1.510161801973
Observations 7
Coefficients Standard Error
Intercept 5.19713024282561 1.21255929558915
Loam Soil 0.380647534952171 0.024235265109828

Variables Mn SD
Loam Soil 44.14 9.61
Sand 22 3.69

Interpretation:

The table showed that Loam Soil has a mean of 44.14, higher than the mean of th
Sand at 22. Their standard deviation tells that Sand is more consistent with SD of
3.69 since it was lower than the SD of Loam Soil at 9.61.

Interpretation:

The relationship that exists between the Loam Soil and Sand
was 0.99 interpreted as very high positive relationship.
Interpretation:

The relationship was significant since the computed p value of ±0.00019 was lowe
and higher than ±0.05, respectively that led the researcher to reject the null
hypothesis using 0.05 level of significance.
 ther there exists a significant relationship between a certain types of soil on the growth of a
three common types of soil in his surrounding namely, clay, loam, and sand. He recorded the
t (in cm.) of the plants in one week as shown below for each soil type.

0.99
Very High Positive Relationship
Ho: p=0
Ha: p≠0
two-tailed test, non-directional test, t test for significance of r

e computed p value is less than 0.05 or greater than -0.05 otherwise accept Ho

t Stat P-value
4.28608337895795 0.0078181286752
15.7063491250115 1.90216365517E-05

r value Int p value Decision

Very High Positive
0.99 ±0.00019 Reject the Ho
Relationship

14, higher than the mean of the

d is more consistent with SD of
Loam Soil at 9.61.
 p value of ±0.00019 was lower
researcher to reject the null
gnificance.
 Loam Soil Sand
Mean 44.1428571428571 Mean 22
Standard Error 9.61503924026505 Standard Error 3.69684550213647
Median 41 Median 22
Mode #N/A Mode #N/A
Standard Deviation 25.4390026758687 Standard Deviation 9.78093383408081
Sample Variance 647.142857142857 Sample Variance 95.6666666666667
Kurtosis -1.36304298544411 Kurtosis -1.19586980538795
Skewness 0.153483185284289 Skewness -0.210962947827799
Range 69 Range 27
Minimum 11 Minimum 8
Maximum 80 Maximum 35
Sum 309 Sum 154
Count 7 Count 7
Loam Soil Clay

11 9 Ruki would like to know whether there exists a significant r

Problem then experimented three common types of soil in his surrou
20 13 the plants in one week
32 20
41 29
56 35 Pearson r value:
69 42 Interpretation Very High
80 50
Hypothesis:

Loam Soil Clay Statistical Test: two-tailed test, non-direc

Loam Soil 1 Decision/Rejection
Reject Ho if the computed p value is less
Clay 0.996277 1 Rule:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.996277163585
Standard Error 1.431897735814
Observations 7
Coefficients Standard Error
Intercept 2.072847682119 1.149718465681
Loam Soil 0.593818984547 0.022979273606

Variables Mn SD
Loam Soil 44.14 9.61
Clay 28.28 5.73

Interpretation:

The table showed that Loam Soil has a mean of 44.14, higher than the mean
of the Clay at 28.28. Their standard deviation tells that Clay is more
consistent with SD of 5.73 since it was lower than the SD of Loam Soil at
9.61.

Interpretation:

The relationship that exists between the Loam Soil and

Clay was 0.99 interpreted as very high positive
relationship.
Interpretation:

The relationship was significant since the computed p value of ±0.00016 was
lower and higher than ±0.05, respectively that led the researcher to reject
the null hypothesis using 0.05 level of significance.
whether there exists a significant relationship between a certain types of soil on the growth of a plant. He
e common types of soil in his surrounding namely, clay, loam, and sand. He recorded the height (in cm.) of
the plants in one week as shown below for each soil type.

0.99
Very High Positive Relationship
Ho: p=0
Ha: p≠0
two-tailed test, non-directional test, t test for significance of r

t Ho if the computed p value is less than 0.05 or greater than -0.05 otherwise accept Ho

t Stat P-value
1.802917622004 0.131263624114724
25.84150372707 1.620958984252E-06

r value Int p value Decision

Very High Positive
0.99 Relationship ±0.000016 Reject the Ho

44.14, higher than the mean

on tells that Clay is more
than the SD of Loam Soil at
uted p value of ±0.00016 was
led the researcher to reject
l of significance.
 Loam Soil Clay
Mean 44.1428571428571 Mean 28.2857142857143
Standard Error 9.61503924026505 Standard Error 5.73092814603062
Median 41 Median 29
Mode #N/A Mode #N/A
Standard Deviation 25.4390026758687 Standard Deviation 15.1626106559775
Sample Variance 647.142857142857 Sample Variance 229.904761904762
Kurtosis -1.36304298544411 Kurtosis -1.36184556532626
Skewness 0.153483185284289 Skewness 0.120983400143492
Range 69 Range 41
Minimum 11 Minimum 9
Maximum 80 Maximum 50
Sum 309 Sum 198
Count 7 Count 7
Performance in the WATER Performance in the
condition ALCOHOL condition
16 13
Problem
15 13
11 10
20 18
19 17 Variables:
14 11 Null Hypothesis (Ho)
13 10 Alternative Hypothesis (Ha):
15 15 Statistical Tool to be used:
14 11 Rejection Rules:
16 16

Interpretation:

The mean of Water Condition is 15.3 was higher than Al

alcohol since the standard deviation of the effect of alco
failed to reject Ho since the computed t value of 1.50
hypothesis means that the experiment conducted
 A hypothetical experiment is conducted on the effect of alcohol on perceptual motor ability. Ten subjects are each tested twic
of the subjects were given alcohol first and half were given water first and vice versa on the second day. The scor

µ wat = water condition perf

one-tailed (R
Reject Ho if the com

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Performance in the WATER condition

Mean 15.3
Variance 7.12222222222221
Observations 10
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 18
t Stat 1.50996688705415
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0742033518428226
t Critical one-tail 1.73406360661754
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.148406703685645
t Critical two-tail 2.10092204024104

on is 15.3 was higher than Alcohol Condition which is 13.4. The effect of drinking water was better than drinking
eviation of the effect of alcohol which is 2.95 was higher than water which is 2.67. Furthermore, the researcher
the computed t value of 1.5099 was lower than the t critical value of 1.7340. Hence, failure to reject the null
at the experiment conducted is significantly lower than Alcohol Condition using 0.05 level of significance.
lity. Ten subjects are each tested twice, once after having two drinks and once after having two glasses of water. The two tests were on tw
ice versa on the second day. The scores of the 10 subjects are shown below. Test to see of alcohol had a significant effect on their perform

µ wat = water condition performance µ alc = alcohol condition performance

µ wat < µ alc
µ wat > µ alc
one-tailed (RIGHT TAILED), directional test, two-sample T test
Reject Ho if the computed t value is higher than 1.7340 otherwise accept Ho

Performance in the ALCOHOL condition

13.4
8.71111111111112
10

Variables Mn
Water Condition 15.3
Alcohol Condition 13.4
o glasses of water. The two tests were on two different days to give the alcohol a chance to wear off. Half
ohol had a significant effect on their performance. Higher score reflects better performance.

rmance

SD t value t critical Decision

2.67
1.5099 1.7340 Failed to reject Ho
2.95
 Tournament
Non-players Beginners
players
Problem
22.1 32.5 40.1
22.3 37.1 45.6
26.2 39.1 51.2
29.6 40.5 56.4 Variables:
31.7 45.5 58.1

Hypothesis:

Statistical Test:

Decision/Rejection Rule:

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups
Non-players
Beginners
Tournament players

ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups

Total

Variables
Ability of Np
Ability of B
Ability of Tp

POST HOC TEST

Groups
Np vs B
B vs Tp
Np vs Tp

BONFERRONI CORRECTION (ALPHA)

 Test
ANOVA
Post-hoc test (Bonferroni
Correction)
 An experiment compared the ability of three groups of subjects to remember briefly-presented chess positions. Referring to t
is a significant difference between the means of the three groups and establish which group/s are significantly different fro

µNp = ability of Non-players

µB = ability of Beginners
µTp = ability of Tournament players
Ho : µNp = µB = µTp
Ha : µNp ≠ µB ≠ µTp
two-tailed test, non-directional test, F test

Reject Ho if the F value is greater than the F critical value of or less than otherwise acc

Count Sum Average Variance

5 131.9 26.38 18.417
5 194.7 38.94 22.5880000000002
5 251.4 50.28 56.2469999999999

SS df MS F
1429.26533333333 2 714.632666666667 22.0447702875005
389.008 12 32.4173333333333

1818.27333333333 14

Mn SD Compound F F Critical Value

26.38 4.29
38.94 4.75 ±22.0447 ±3.8852
50.28 7.50

P-value (t-test) Significant?

0.00233037952848621 No
0.0212860786341903 Yes
0.00026375774029201 No

ORRECTION (ALPHA)
 Alpha
0.05

0.0166666666666667
-presented chess positions. Referring to the data shown below, determine whether there
hich group/s are significantly different from each other using 0.05 level of significance.

n-directional test, F test

critical value of or less than otherwise accept Ho.

P-value F crit
9.5895047756592E-05 3.885294

Decision

Reject Ho
Interpretation:

The table reveals that the group of tournament players got the highest presented chess position
of 50.28 with a SD of 7.50. Moreover, the group of non-players got the lowest presented chess
positions of 26.38 with SD of 4.29. The researcher rejected the null hypothesis since the
computed F value of ± 22.0447 was higher than and lower than the critical F value of ±3.3541,
respectively. Hence, after performing the one way ANOVA test, the null hypothesis was rejected
which means that the ability of three groups has a significant difference using 0.05 significance
of level. Furthermore, Post-hoc analyses revealed that the group of tournament players were
significantly skilled compared with the other two groups.