EXERCISE 4.4 (Small Sample) Piggot et.al* paired 10 psychotic and 10 normal children on the age and gender.

They then compared subjects for different in respiratory sinus arrhythmia under conditions of spontaneous and 5-, 10- and 15- second interval breathing. They recorded cardiac rate and respiratory changes simultaneously. Table 4.8 shows the differences in duration of the cardiac respiratory phase following the beginning of aspiratory (psychotics compared to the controls for the respiration). Do these data provide sufficient evidence to indicate a difference between psychotic and normal children? Let What is the P-value for this test?

*Source: Leonard R. Piggot, Albert F.Ax, Jaccqueline L.Bamford and Joanne M.Fetzer, Respiration Sinus Arrhythmia in Psychotic Children, Psychophysiology, 10(1973), 401-414; copyright 1973, The society for psycho physiological Research; reprinted with permission of the publisher.

Duration of cardiac acceleration, seconds, timed respiration means for 15-second interval breathing Table 4.8 Pair Control (Y) 1 2.46 2 1.44 1.88 3 2.12 2.38 4 1.80 1.94 5 2.00 2.14 6 2.70 1.60 7 1.96 1.96 8 1.46 1.82 9 1.82 1.80 10 1.40 1.84

Psychotic (X) 1.74

Solution:
1)

( claim) 2) Test statistics

Psychotic (X) 1.74 1.44 2.12 1.80 2.00 2.70 1.96 1.46 1.82 1.40

Control (Y) 2.46 1.88 2.38 1.94 2.14 1.60 1.96 1.82 1.80 1.84 0.72 0.44 0.26 0.14 0.14 -1.10 0 0.36 -0.02 0.44

Rank of 8 6.6 4 2.5 2.5 9 Omit 5 1 6.5

Signed Rank of +ve -ve +8.0 +6.5 +4.0 +2.5 +2.5 -9.0 +5.0 -1.0 +6.5

3) Since

is less than

, the test statistic is

, n = 9, From table A.3, P-value, 2(0.0820) = 0.164 Since P-value, 0.164 > 0.05

4) Do not reject
5) Do not enough evidence to support the claim that provide sufficient evidence to indicate a

difference between psychotic and normal children

Exercise 4.16 (Large Sample)

Heiman et al* randomly placed one member of each of thirty two matched pairs of students reading below grade level in a supplementary reading program. Subjects were matched nearly as possible on the discrepancy between their reading level and their current grade level. The supplementary program consisted of a point system to reward attention to and identification of letter and word combinations. Table 4.25 derived from authors results, shows the differences between the scores made by the subjects on a reading test after and before the program. Use the procedure based on the Wilcoxon test to construct a 95% confidence interval for the median difference.
Source: Julia R. Heiman, Mark J. Fisher, and Alan O. Ross, A Supplementary Behavioral Program to Improve Deficient reading Performance, J. Abnormal Child Psychol. 1(1973), 390-399; published by Plenum Publishing Corporation New York.

Difference in reading test score made by thirty two matched pairs of subject, one member of which was assigned to an experimental program and the other to a control group (before score subtracted from the score) Pair Experimental (X) Control (Y) 1 0.5 0.8 2 1.0 1.1 3 0.6 -0.1 4 0. 1 0. 3 5 1. 3 0. 2 6 0. 1 1. 5 7 1. 0 1. 3 8 0. 2 0. 6 9 0. 4 1. 2 10 0. 6 0. 3 11 0. 7 0. 8 12 0. 9 1. 0 13 1. 2 0. 5 14 0. 8 1. 6 15 0. 5 0. 1 16 1.4 0.5

Pair Experimental (X) Control (Y)

17 0.2 1.2

18 1. 3 0. 2

19 0.6 0.8

20 0.4 1.1

21 0.3 1.1

22 23 0.7 1.0 1.6 0.4

24 1.1 1.1 6

25 1.3 0.5

26 1.2 0.5

27 0.2 0.8

28 0.4 0.9

29 0.7 1.1

30 0.8 1.1

31 0.1 0.3

32 1.0 0.9

Solution:
1)

2) Test statistics

Experimental (X) 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 1.4 0.2 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8

Control (Y) 0.8 1.1 -0.1 0.3 0.2 1.5 1.3 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.5 1.6 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.4 1.16 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.1 -0.8 0.2 -1.1 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.0 -0.7 0.8 -0.4 -0.9 1.0 -1.1 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 -0.6 0.06 -0.8 -0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

Rank of 7.5 2.5 22.5 4.5 30.5 32 7.5 11 13.5 16 28 28 19 22.5 11 25.5 28 30.5 7.5 19 22.5 25.5 16 1 22.5 19 16 13.5 11 7.5

Signed Rank of +ve -ve +7.5 +2.5 -22.5 +4.5 -30.5 +32 +7.5 +11 +13.5 +16 +28 +28 -19 +22.5 -11 -25.5 +28 -30.5 +7.5 +19 +22.5 +25.5 -16 +1 -22.5 -19 +16 +13.5 +11 +7.5

0.1 1.0

0.3 0.9

0.2 0.1

4.5 25

+4.5 +25

3)

Since

less than

, the test statistic is

= = - 0.0236
P-value, P( Z< -0.0236) = 2(0.49059) = 0.98118 Since P-value = 0.98118 > 0.05

4) Do not reject.
5) Do not enough evidence to support the claim that the differences between the scores

made by the subjects on a reading test after and before the program.

EXERCISE 4.5 (Small Sample) Bhatia et al.* reported the data shown in table 4.9. Can we conclude on the basis of these data that treatment lowers the stroke index in patients of this type? Let = 0.05 Stroke index (ml/beat/ chronic severe anaemia Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ) in pre and post-treatment studies of coronary circulation in

Before treatment (X) After treatment: (Y)

109 56

57 44

53 55

57 40

68 62

72 46

51 49

65 41

*Source: M.L.Bhatia,S.C.Manchanda, and Sujoy B.Roy, coronary Haemodynamic Studies in Chronic Severe Anaemia,Br.Herat.J.,31 (1969),365-374. Reprinted by permission of the authors and the editor.

Solution: 1) Hypotheses = = ( claim)

2) Test statistic The calculation of the test statistic is shown in the table below: Before treatment (X) 109 57 53 57 68 72 51 65 After treatment ( Y) 56 44 55 40 62 46 49 41 -53 -13 +2 -17 -6 -26 -2 -24 8 4 1.5 5 3 7 1.5 6 -8 -4 + 1.5 -5 -3 -7 -1.5 -6 Rank of Signed rank of

Since the test statistic is T = 1.5

3) n = 8 , = 0.05

since 1.5 between 1 and 2 From the table A.3 p value = 0.0078 and 0.0117 therefore p value < 0.05

4) Reject 5) Enough evidence to support the claim that treatment lower stroke index in patient.

EXAMPLE (Large Sample) Thirty two healthy high school students participated in an encounter-group experience in which half the participants were handicapped persons about the same age. Before and after the group experience, the 32 handicapped students took a test designed to measure their understanding of handicapped persons. Table 4.28 show results of the test. Can one conclude from the data that such an experience increases students understanding (as indicated by a higher score) of handicapped persons? Let = 0.05, and determine the p value.

Score made by 32 high school students on a test to measure understanding of handicapped person before and after an encounter group experience. Student Before (X) After (Y) 1 55 60 2 63 68 3 54 69 4 61 64 5 63 67 6 60 61 7 59 63 8 67 62 9 55 58 10 64 62 11 68 70 12 57 56 13 81 89 14 84 88 15 90 94 16 97 96

Student Before (X) After (Y)

17 80 80

18 72 65

19 64 74

20 55 70

21 54 52

22 60 42

23 70 40

24 35 20

25 58 42

26 70 52

27 80 71

28 55 51

29 49 30

30 42 41

31 53 52

32 60 53

Solution: 1) Hypotheses

( claim)

2) Test statistic:

Student 1

Before ( X) 55

After (Y) 60

+5

Rank of 17

Signed rank of +17

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

63 54 61 63 60 59 67 55 64 68 57 81 84 90 97 80 72 64 55 54 60 70 35 58 70 80 55 49 42 53 60

68 69 64 67 61 63 62 58 62 70 56 89 88 94 96 80 65 74 70 52 42 40 20 42 52 71 51 30 41 52 53

+5 +15 +3 +4 +1 +4 -5 +3 -2 +2 -1 +8 +4 +4 -1 0 -7 +10 +15 -2 -18 -30 -15 -16 -18 -9 -4 -19 -1 -1 -7

17 2 9.5 13 3 13 17 9.5 7 7 3 21 13 13 3 19.5 23 25 7 28.5 31 25 27 28.5 22 13 30 3 3 19.5

+17 +25 +9.5 +13 +3 +13 -17 + 9.5 -7 +7 -3 +21 +13 +13 -3 Omit -19.5 +23 +25 -7 -28.5 -31 -25 -27 -28.5 -22 -13 -30 -3 -3 -19.5

3) The test statistic is T= 287 So, When n = 31 ,T=287 , = 0.05

=
= 0.764265 So, p value = p (z > 0.764265) p- value is 0.22235>0.05
4) Do not reject 5) Not enough evidence to support the claim that such an experience increases students

understanding (as indicated by a higher score) of handicapped persons.