Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

# Math 1040 Group Project

By: John Richards, Eric Guymon, Sean Guymon, Gerald "Jerry" Carson, and Brad Jencks
May 03, 2016

## Shoe Print and Height

Introduction/Hypothesis
Our statistical question will ask, is there a correlation between shoe print size in
centimeters and a persons height? Our hypothesis is that the larger the shoe print, the taller
the person will be.

Data
This data was obtained from StatCrunch. There are many datasets there, but we
thought this one seemed linearly correlated and in turn would fit the assignment requirements.
We were also genuinely interested in our above stated hypothesis. Below is the dataset.
Shoe Print Size

Height

31.3

180.3

29.7

175.3

31.3

184.8

31.8

177.8

31.4

182.3

31.9

185.4

31.8

180.3

31

175.3

29.7

177.8

31.4

185.4

31.4

190.5

31.6

195

31.8

175.3

32.4

180.3

27.6

172.7

31.8

182.9

31.3

189.2

31.3

185.4

34.5

193.7

Shoe
Print Size
Height

n
19

X-Bar
31.32

Min
27.6

Q1
31.3

Med
31.4

Q3
31.8

Max
34.5

19

182.62

172.7

177.8

182.3

185.4

195

## Plot x vs. y and calculate linear correlation coefficient, r.

Correlation coefficient "r":
0.593579

## Plotting the residual vs. x.

Predicted y was found by using the following equation and plugging shoe print in for x:
Y = 2.845(shoe print) + 93.501
The result of this is Column C. Then we took that value calculated and subtracted it
from the actual y. Once that was done, our group graphed the results.
Shoe Print (in cm)

Predicted y

Residual y

31.3

180.3

182.550

2.249

29.7

175.3

177.998

2.697

31.3

184.8

182.550

-2.251

31.8

177.8

183.972

6.172

31.4

182.3

182.834

0.534

31.9

185.4

184.257

-1.144

31.8

180.3

183.972

3.672

31.0

175.3

181.696

6.396

29.7

177.8

177.998

0.197

31.4

185.4

182.834

-2.566

31.4

190.5

182.834

-7.666

31.6

195.0

183.403

-11.597

31.8

175.3

183.972

8.672

32.4

180.3

185.679

5.379

27.6

172.7

172.023

-0.677

31.8

182.9

183.972

1.072

31.3

189.2

182.550

-6.650

31.3

185.4

182.550

-2.851

34.5

193.7

191.654

-2.046

## The above values were calculated assuming the following:

Slope=2.845
Y-intercept=93.501

For the chart below, we know that if we calculate shoe print vs. residual y, we
SHOULDN'T see any linear relationship. If we did, then our data isn't linear (I know it sounds
backwards from what it is).

## Checking to see if the linear model assumption is valid

Seeing that all 3 criteria in Steps 5 and 6 are met, then we can safely assume that the
conditions to qualify our data as having a linear relationship are met! This means that we can
use the best fit line as a model to our data to make further predictions.
My final conclusion of our data in terms of correlation is that (statistically speaking)
there IS a linear relation between shoe print size and height for me. This leads us to share the
best fit line equation which is:
Y = 2.845x + 93.501
Also our r = 0.5935788

Initially I didn't think that there was any correlation between shoe print size and height
for men. The data didn't look like they were related. But knowing that the r correlation
coefficient fits the requirements as well as the requirements we just met, there is definitely a
linear correlation evident.

Making Predictions
After realizing there was a direct correlation between shoe size and height we predict
that there is a direct correlation between height and shoe size. We predict that as a person's
height increases so does their shoe print size. So as our X-value increase so will our Y-value. See
example (i). Smaller shoe size would mean a shorter person according to the correlation.
(i) y= 2.845(25) + 93.501
We predict that if someone's shoe print size is 25 their height will be about 164.626.

Afterthought
Our data was collected from a voluntary response. The people provided height and shoe
print size. Our data is collected from a representation of 19 randomly selected people. This
sample would be better if we were to increase our sample size. Our analysis and conclusion
made sense based off of the collected data. Our hypothesis was correct.