OKIT, Kimberly Jean P.

October 27, 2022

MLS2B

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Analyze the interpret the data based on the research questions below: (Assume that the data us
normally distributed). Provide interpretation and implications based on the results of statistical
findings. (100 points)

Expected Output:
(1) Statistical Results
(2) Interpretation (descriptive and inferential)
(3) Implication of the result (inferential)

1. The data correspond to an experiment in which depression is studied. Patients have

been followed at two different times (pre-test and six (6) months follow-up). The
variable to be compared is a depression score. The higher the score the higher the
depression level. (20 points).

Six (6) Months

Pretest Follow-Up
296 175
376 329
309 238
222 60
150 271
316 291
321 364
447 402
220 70
375 335
310 300
310 245
282 186
317 31
362 104
338 132
263 94
138 38
329 62
292 139
275 94
150 48
319 68
300 138
 1.1. What is the mean level of the depression before and after 6 months follow up?

Descriptive Statistics
  Pretest Six (6) Months Follow-Up
Valid 24 24
Missing 0 0
Mean 292.375 175.583
Std. Deviation 73.868 116.213
Minimum 138.000 31.000
Maximum 447.000 402.000

Using descriptive statistics, the mean levels of depression of patients prior to the test and
after 6 months were gathered. The mean during pretest is 292.375 and during their follow-up test
after 6 months, the mean plummeted into 175.583. By the means alone, it already indicated that
their depression levels reduced after 6 months considering that in the data, the higher the score,
the higher the depression level. In addition, the means in the pretest is less dispersed, with a
value of 73.868, as compared to the data during the follow up which is 116.213, implying that
the values are more dispersed.

1.2. Is there a significant difference in the depression level of patients from pre-test and after
6 months follow-up?

Paired Samples T-Test

Measure 1   Measure 2 t df p
Pretest - Six (6) Months Follow-Up 5.672 23 < .001
Note.  Student's t-test.

Indeed, there is a significant difference in terms of depression levels of patients from

pretest and after 6 months follow-up. This conclusion used the p-value included in the table
above which is .001. This value is lesser than the critical value which is 0.05. Therefore, the
null hypothesis is rejected since results showed that there is a significant difference between
the two values.

1.3. Interpret and provide implications of the result.

The study on the depression levels of patients showed that there is a significant difference
in the depression levels of patients from pre-test and after 6 months follow-up. The statistical
test used in this scenario was T-test, particularly, the Paired Samples T-test. The t-value
obtained is 5.672 and the p-value is .001 which indicates that the alternative hypothesis is
accepted, and the data is statistically significant.
2. The following are analysis of cadmium concentration present in root vegetables with
four different storage times. Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the mean
cadmium content is not the same for the four different storage times? Test at 0.05
level. (30 points).

Observatio
Groups n
0 month 34.56
0 month 32.34
0 month 34.25
0 month 33.21
0 month 30.21
0 month 21.32
0 month 33.23
0 month 32.43
1 month 28.9
1 month 29.03
1 month 34.56
1 month 34.34
1 month 45.34
1 month 34.56
1 month 32.33
1 month 35.23
2 months 14.3
2 months 24.23
2 months 13.65
2 months 23.23
2 months 25.67
2 months 25.34
2 months 19.3
2 months 22.9
3 months 9.24
3 months 7.29
3 months 5.6
3 months 8.7
3 months 9.28
3 months 10.78
3 months 13.21
3 months 8.4

2.1. What is the mean level of the cadmium concentration on the following storage items?
i. 0 month = 31.444
ii. 1 month = 34.286
 iii. 2 months = 21.078
iv. 3 months = 9.063
Descriptive Statistics
Observation
  0 month 1 month 2 months 3 months
Valid 8 8 8 8
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 31.444 34.286 21.078 9.063
Std. Deviation 4.304 5.123 4.802 2.266
Minimum 21.320 28.900 13.650 5.600
Maximum 34.560 45.340 25.670 13.210

As shown in the table attached above, the means of cadmium concentration in root
vegetables with varying time also had varying values. Before storage reached a month, the mean
is 31.444. Moreover, after a month, it became 34.286. And after 2 months and 3 months, the
means were 21.078 and 9.063, respectively. Descriptive statistics was utilized to obtain these
values.
2.2. Is there a significant difference in the cadmium concentration across four different
storage times?

ANOVA - Observation
Cases Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Groups 3143.056 3 1047.685 57.438 < .001
Residuals 510.726 28 18.240  
Note.  Type III Sum of Squares

There is a significant difference in the cadmium concentration across four different

storages given the fact that the p-value obtained is 0.001 which is lesser than the critical value,
0.05.
2.3. Interpret and provide implication of the result.
This study aimed to find out whether there is a significant difference in the values of
cadmium concentration in root vegetables if they were stored at different timeframes. And with
0.001 as the p-value, it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant differences in the
amount of cadmium concentration in root vegetables if they were to be stored for days up to 3
months.
3. An investigation was carried out in several trials to determine the effectiveness of
Plant A in inhibiting bacterial growth. Is there a significant difference between the
mean growth of inhibition of Plant A and positive control (commercial antibiotic)?
The following are the data sets: (20 points)
 Growth of
Inhibition
Groups (GOI)
Plant A 2.3
Plant A 4.5
Plant A 5.5
Plant A 3.4
Plant A 5.6
Plant A 4.67
Plant A 4.56
Plant A 5.45
Plant A 7.8
Plant A 4.57
Plant A 5.6
Plant A 4.4
Plant A 4.44
Plant A 5.4
Plant A 6.4
Commercial
Antibiotic 4.5
Commercial
Antibiotic 6.7
Commercial
Antibiotic 6.5
Commercial
Antibiotic 7.6
Commercial
Antibiotic 5.67
Commercial
Antibiotic 4.3
Commercial
Antibiotic 5.6
Commercial
Antibiotic 6.56
Commercial
Antibiotic 4.67
Commercial
Antibiotic 5.68
Commercial
Antibiotic 6.7
Commercial
Antibiotic 4.4
Commercial 7.6
 Antibiotic
Commercial
Antibiotic 8.5
Commercial
Antibiotic 9.2

3.1. What is the mean inhibition level of the plant extract and commercial antibiotic? (20
points).
Descriptive Statistics
Treatment
  Commercial Antibiotic Plant A
Valid 15 15
Missing 0 0
Mean 6.279 4.973
Std. Deviation 1.508 1.264
Minimum 4.300 2.300
Maximum 9.200 7.800

According to the descriptive statistics performed, the mean inhibition level of the commercial
antibiotic is 6.279, whereas that of the plant A extract, is 4.973. Their standard deviations are
different although not to a greater degree. The SD of commercial antibiotic is 1.508 while the
plant extract’s is 1.264. Hence, the means of plant A extract are less dispersed and are closer
to the true value.
3.2. Is there a significant difference in the mean inhibition level of the plant extract and the
positive control (commercial antibiotic)?

Independent Samples T-Test

t df p
Treatment 2.570 28 0.016
Note.  Student's t-test.

Using independent samples t-test, the conclusion arrived is indeed there is a

significant difference in the values of inhibition level of plant extract and the commercial
antibiotic. The basis of this conclusion is the p-value obtained, 0.016 which happened to
be lesser than the critical value 0.05.

3.3. Interpret and provide implications of the result.

It can be interpreted that there is a significant difference in the values of inhibition level of plant
extract and the commercial antibiotic since the p-value obtained is 0.016 which is lesser than the
critical value 0.05.
Data Set:
Subject Systolic Blood Pressure Heart Rate (Beats per
s Age (mmHg) minute)
1 23 118 100
2 25 119 98
3 27 120 97
4 30 120 97
5 33 121 96
6 35 123 95
7 37 125 95
8 40 127 93
9 43 128 93
10 47 130 90
11 50 132 88
12 51 133 88
13 53 135 87
14 54 135 85
15 57 135 83
16 60 137 80
17 63 140 78
18 67 140 78
19 70 143 75
20 75 145 70

4. Is there a significant relationship between the following: (15 points).

4.1. Age and Heart rate

Pearson's Correlations
Variable   Age Heart Rate (Beats per minute)
1. Age Pearson's r —
p-value —  
2. Heart Rate (Beats per minute) Pearson's r -0.983 —
p-value < .001 —

There is a significant relationship between age and heart rate as shown in the p-value
obtained which is 0.001. In addition, the Pearson’s r obtained is -0.983 which implies that the
relationship is perfectly negative. This means when either one of them increases, be it age or
heart rate, the other one decreases. Since the value approaches -1 this implies that the strength of
the relationship is very strong.
 4.2. Systolic blood pressure and Heart rate
Pearson's Correlations
Systolic Blood Pressure Heart Rate (Beats per
Variable  
(mmHg) minute)
1. Systolic Blood Pressure Pearson's
—
(mmHg) r
p-value —  
2. Heart Rate (Beats per Pearson's
-0.978 —
minute) r
p-value < .001 —

There is a significant relationship between systolic blood pressure and heart rate as shown in
the p-value obtained which is 0.001. In addition, the Pearson’s r obtained is -0.978 which implies
that the relationship is perfectly negative. This means when either one of them increases, be it
systolic blood pressure or heart rate, the other one decreases. Since the value approaches -1, this
implies that the strength of the relationship is very strong.

4.3. Age and Systolic blood pressure

Pearson's Correlations
Variable   Age Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)
1. Age Pearson's r —
p-value —  
2. Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) Pearson's r 0.995 —
p-value < .001 —

There is a significant relationship between age and systolic blood pressure as shown in the p-
value obtained which is 0.001. In addition, the Pearson’s r obtained is 0.995 which implies that
the relationship is perfectly positive. This means when either one of them increases, be it blood
pressure or age, the other one increases as well. Since the value approaches 1, this implies that
the strength of the relationship is very strong.
5. Do age and systolic blood pressure significantly predict the heart rate? (15 points).

Linear Regression
Model Summary - Heart Rate (Beats per minute)
Model R R² Adjusted R² RMSE
H₀ 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.621
Model Summary - Heart Rate (Beats per minute)
Model R R² Adjusted R² RMSE
H₁ 0.983 0.966 0.962 1.673
 
The results in H1 show that the magnitude is 0.983, indicating that there is a very high
relationship between systolic blood pressure and heart rate. Additionally, the R² is 0.966.

ANOVA
Sum of
Model   df Mean Square F p
Squares
H₁ Regression 1364.635 2 682.318 243.866 < .001
  Residual 47.565 17 2.798  
  Total 1412.200 19  
Note.  The intercept model is omitted, as no meaningful information can be shown.
 

The value of ANOVA indicates that the probability is < .001 which is less than 0.05.
Therefore, there is a significant relationship between the systolic blood pressure and heart rate.
(F= 243.866; p = < .001).

Coefficients
Unstandardize Standard
Model   Standardized t p
d Error
H₀ (Intercept) 88.300 1.928 45.804 < .001
H₁ (Intercept) 112.184 49.088 2.285 0.035
  Age -0.553 0.255 -0.999 -2.173 0.044
Systolic Blood Pressure
  0.016 0.468 0.016 0.035 0.973
(mmHg)

Using the coefficients table, the following interpretations were obtained: For every one-
unit increase in age, the systolic blood pressure will decrease by 0.016 points (Systolic blood
pressure Unstandardized= 0.016). As for the standard coefficient, for every one-SD increase in
age, the systolic blood pressure will decrease by .255 SD (Standardized= .255). With this, the
regression equation of this problem (Y=A-BX) being Y= 112.184 – 0.016X.