Quantitative Techniques – II

Assignment

081- Manav Somaiya

082- Medha Singh
083- Naman Gulati
084- Nikita Pant
Objective of the study:
We have taken two data sets; one is about Soil Moisture & Average Temperature, and another is about
Salary, Occupation and Education Years.

Data Set 1:
(i) Perform Karl Pearson Statistical Technique to check if there's any association between Soil Moisture
and Average Temperature.
(ii) Perform an Impact study of Regression to check the impact of Average Temperature on Soil Moisture.

Data Set 2:
Perform two impact studies namely Two-Way ANOVA and Post Hoc Statistical Techniques to check if
no. of years of education and occupation has any impact on Salary or not.

Data and data sources: https://www.kaggle.com/

Statistical analysis output:

Data Set 1
(i) Association Study- Karl Pearson

H 0: There is no association between Soil Moisture and Average Temperature

H 1: There is association between Soil Moisture and Average Temperature

After running Karl Pearson Study on SPSS we get the output as shown in the picture.

As the sig value is less than 0.01 we reject H 0. This means that there exists an association between Soil
Moisture and Average Temperature.

(ii) Impact Study- Regression

Model Summary:

R^2 is equal to 0.539

Moisture

It indicates that 53% of variation in Average Temperature is explained by the variation in Independent
Variable I.e. Soil Moisture

Adjusted R^2 = 0.528 is close to R^2 = 0.532

This confirms model is a good model and has good predictive power.

ANOVA:

We need to validate whether the regression model is a good model.

HO: The regression model is not a good model

H 1: The regression model is a good model

Pval= 0.001< Alpha= 0.050

Reject H 0

Hence, we can conclude that the regression model is a good model

Coefficient Table:

Coefficient Table confirms us about factors' impact.

Average Temperature:

HO: Average Temperature has no impact

H 1: Average Temperature has impact

P value= 0.001 < Alpha= 0.05

We reject H 0. This means that Average Temperature has impact on Soil Moisture.

Precipitation:

HO: Precipitation has no impact

H 1: Precipitation has impact

P val= 0.001 < Alpha= 0.05

We reject H 0. This means that Precipitation has impact on Soil Moisture.

Working Days:

HO: Working Days has no impact

H 1: Working Days has impact

P val= .285> Alpha= 0.05

We accept H 0. This means that Working Days has no impact on Soil Moisture.

Coefficient Table provides the regression equation.

The regression equation is defined as;

Y^= 1751.735- 44.649Average Temperature+0.267Precipitation-3.057Working Days

We can observe that Average Temperature and Working Days have negative correlation with Soil
Moisture, and Precipitation has a positive correlation with Soil Moisture

Interpretation of Y intercept (b0)

If X1, X2, and X3= 0, Y^= 17151.735

It indicates if Average Temperature, Precipitation and Working Days are not considered, still Soil
Moisture will be 1751.735 units

Interpretation of Slope (b1, b2, b3)

One unit increase in Average Temperature, Precipitation and Working Days, Soil Moisture will be
decreased by 44.649, increased 0.267 and decreased 3.057 units respectively

Data Set 2:
1) Education
Ho : Education has no impact on Salary
H1 : Education has an impact on salary
P-value= 0.001 < α = 0.005
Hence, we reject the null hypothesis
Education has an impact on salary.

2) Occupation
Ho : Occupation has no impact on Salary
H1 : Occupation has an impact on salary
P-value= 0.001 < α = 0.005
Hence, we reject the null hypothesis
Occupation has an impact on salary.

3) Interaction effect
H0: Interaction effect does not exists
H1: Interaction effect exists
P-value= 0.001 < α = 0.005
Hence, we reject the null hypothesis
Interaction effect exists.
The Anova results conclude that Education has an effect on Salary. Now, we need to find out where the
difference lies.

Education categories: (Post 12th Std)

1: upto 3 years

2: 3-5 years

3: More than 3 years

Comparison of (1) and (2)

Ho: µ1 = µ2

H1: µ1 ≠ µ2

P-value= 0.001 < α = 0.005

Hence, we reject the null hypothesis

We can conclude that the salary differs for education 1 and education 2
When analyzed for education (1) and education (3)

And education (2) and Education (2)

We found the same conclusion. Rejecting the null hypothesis.

Overall, we conclude that Salary differed for all 3 categories of no. of years of education.
Comparison of (1) and (2)

Ho: µ1 = µ2

H1: µ1 ≠ µ2

P-value= 0.001 < α = 0.005

Hence, we reject the null hypothesis

We can conclude that the salary differs for occupation 1 and occupation 2

Repeating the same comparisons with all combinations of 1, 2 , 3 and 4

We get that Salary differs for all types of occupations.