STATISTICS
KHAREN B. PLAZA
MAED-EM
1. A. Formulate the hypotheses.
Null Hypothesis (H₀):
There is no significant difference between the readings of Scale A and
Scale B.
Alternative Hypothesis (H₁):
There is a significant difference between the readings of Scale A and
Scale B.
B. Decision if p-value > 0.05
If the p-value > 0.05, the researcher fails to reject the null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference between the readings
of Scale A and Scale B.
C. Decision if p-value < 0.05
If the p-value < 0.05, the researcher rejects the null hypothesis.
Conclusion: There is a significant difference between the readings of
Scale A and Scale B.
Paired Samples T-Test
statistic df p
SCALE A SCALE B Student's t 0.552 7.00 0.598
Note. Hₐ μMeasure 1 - Measure 2 ≠ 0
p-value 0.081> 0.05, the researcher fails to reject the
null hypothesis.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference between the
readings of Scale A and Scale B.
D. Create a scatter plot and interpret the relationship.
Interpretation:
Since the points are in a straight line, it suggests a high
correlation between the two scales.
2. A. Null and Alternative Hypotheses
H₀: The R&D expense as a percentage of income has not significantly
declined from 2000 to 2001.
H₁: The R&D expense as a percentage of income has significantly
declined from 2000 to 2001.
B. Difference between R&D percentages
Company 2000 2001 Difference (2000 - 2001)
Savoth Glass 20 16 4
Ruisi Glass 14 13 1
Rubin Inc. 23 20 3
Vaught 24 17 7
Lambert Glass 31 22 9
Pimental 22 20 2
Olso Glass 14 20 -6
Flynn Glass 18 11 7
C.
Paired Samples T-Test
statistic df p
2000 2001 Student's t 2.04 7.00 0.081
Note. Hₐ μMeasure 1 - Measure 2 ≠ 0
Interpretation: Since p = 0.081 > 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis
D. Company with Largest and Smallest Change in R&D Percentage
Largest Decrease: Lambert Glass with a decline of 9% (31 - 22).
Smallest Decrease: Ruisi Glass with a decline of 1% (14 - 13).
Note: Olso Glass had an increase, not a decrease, so it is not
included in the smallest decline.
E. Conclusion at 0.05 Significance Level
Since p = 0.081 > 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
✅ Conclusion: There is no significant decline in R&D expenses
between 2000 and 2001.
3.
A. Null and Alternative Hypotheses
H₀: There is no significant difference between the repair costs of
Ford and Chevy.
H₁: There is a significant difference between the repair costs of Ford
and Chevy.
Paired Samples T-Test
statistic df p
B. Mean and Standard Deviation of Repair Costs
Descriptives
N Mean Median SD SE
FORD 8 68.1 69.7 33.4 11.8
CHEVY 8 50.5 51.3 29.4 10.4
C. Which Vehicle Has Higher Costs and Variability?
Higher Average Repair Cost: Ford has a higher average repair
cost ($68.35) than Chevy ($62.00).
Greater Variability: Ford shows greater variability, indicating
higher inconsistency in repair costs.
D. Perform Chosen Statistical Test
Paired t-test at 0.05 significance level.
Paired Samples T-Test
statistic df p
FORD CHEVY Student's t 5.17 7.00 0.001
Note. Hₐ μMeasure 1 - Measure 2 ≠ 0
Interpretation: Since 0.001 is much smaller than 0.05, you reject the null
hypothesis.
Paired Samples T-Test
statistic df p
Conclusion: There is a significant difference between the repair
costs of Ford and Chevy.
4.
A. Null and Alternative Hypotheses:
Null Hypothesis (H₀): There is no significant difference in the percent
salary increases among the four manufacturing plants.
Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): There is a significant difference in the
percent salary increases among the four manufacturing plants.
B. Appropriate Statistical Test:
Kruskal-Wallis Test should be used because:
o The data involves comparing the median percent salary
increases across more than two independent groups (four
plants).
o The data is ranked, suggesting a non-parametric test like
Kruskal-Wallis is appropriate.
C. Plant with the Highest and Lowest Average Increase:
Highest Average Increase: Vineland (Total rank = 74, highest rank
sum).
Lowest Average Increase: Camden (Total rank = 35, lowest rank
sum).
D. Conclusion at 5% Significance Level:
To determine if there is a significant difference, Keely should compare
the p-value obtained from the Kruskal-Wallis Test with 0.05.
o If p ≤ 0.05, reject H₀ and conclude that there is a significant
difference.
o If p > 0.05, fail to reject H₀, indicating no significant difference.
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p
Percent Increase 6.22 3 0.101
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in the percent salary
increases among the four manufacturing plants. Any differences observed in
the data are likely due to random chance.
E. Plant with Highest and Lowest Average Percent Increase:
Highest Average Percent Increase: Vineland.
Lowest Average Percent Increase: Camden.
5.
A. Null and Alternative Hypotheses:
Null Hypothesis (H₀): There is no significant difference in students'
performance across Math, Science, and English.
Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): There is a significant difference in
students' performance across Math, Science, and English.
B.
Descriptives
Math Science English
N 8 8 8
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 82.6 84.8 85.0
Median 82.0 85.5 84.5
Standard deviation 4.98 2.92 4.96
Minimum 76 80 79
Maximum 90 89 93
C. Which Subject Has the Highest and Lowest Average
Performance?
Highest Average Performance: English (Mean = 85.00)
Lowest Average Performance: Math (Mean = 82.63)
D. Which Subject Shows the Greatest Variability in Student
Performance?
Math has the highest standard deviation (4.98), indicating the
greatest variability in student performance.
E. Hypothesis Test at 0.05 Significance Level
Friedman
χ² df p
0.250 2 0.882
Interpretation 0.882 > 0.05, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (H₀) at the
5% significance level.
F. Most Consistent Student Across Subjects
Student 4 and Student 7 have the lowest standard deviation of 2.65, making
them the most consistent performers across Math, Science, and English.
