Republic of the Philippines

Bulacan Agricultural State College

San Ildefonso, Bulacan
Tel. No. (044) 677-2518 Telefax (044) 901-1427

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, ARTS &

SCIENCES

ADVANCE STATISTICS

INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T -
TEST

MARK CHRISTOPHER B. INTERVALO

LORNA E. BOJANGIN
MICHELLE A. MANUEL
JOHN EDWARD Y. CRUZ

MARINELLA GARCIA SY, PH. D.

Independent samples t-test problems

 X1 X2 Solution:
15.1 12.1
11.2 10.2 1. H0 : x1 = x2
10.3 13.6 HA : x1 > x2
10.8 8.1
Instruction:
2. T = ?
16.6 13.5
x1 = 11.4128
8.3 7.8 For the x2given problems, carry out the steps in hypothesis
= 10.65125
9.1 11.8 testing atsx1 == 0.05.
2.08 Interpret your results.
12.3 7.7 sx2 = 3.027
9.1 8.1 1. Agriculture,
nx1 = 72Water Content of Soil
14.3 9.2 nx2 = 80
10.7 14.1 The following data represent soil water content (% water by
16.1 8.9 volume) for independent = 0.05random samples of soil from
10.2 13.9 two experimental fields growing bell peppers.
15.2 7.5
8.9 12.6 2. Height of Football Players vs. Basketball Players
9.5 7.3
9.6 14.9 The following data represent heights in feet of 45
11.3 12.2 randomly selected pro football players, and 40 randomly
14 7.6 selected pro basketball players. t = (xx1 xx2)
11.3 8.9
sx12 + sx22
15.6 13.9 nx12 + nx2
HtFt
11.2 HtBk
8.4
6.33
13.8 6.08
13.4 Solution: Htft = x Htbk = y
96.5 6.58
7.1
6.5 6.25 1. H0 : x = y t = (11.41 10.65)
8.4 12.4
6.25 6.58 HA : x > y 2.082 + 3.0272
8.2 7.6
6.5 6.25 722 + 80
12 9.9 2. The formula is
6.33
13.9 5.92
26 nx = 45
t = (xx ;nxy y=) 40
6.25
11.6 7.37 xx = 6.19 2; xy =2 6.45
sx + sy t =
6.17
16 6.41
7.4 3. Level of Significance = s0.05 x = 0.37 ; sy = 0.31 0.76
nx2 + ny 4.33 + 9.12
6.42
9.6 6.75
14.3
6.33 6.25 722 + 80
11.4 8.4 4. From the soil water content t distribution table at = 0.05 and
6.42
8.4 13.26 df = 80+72-2=150 tcritical is 1.976
t = ( 6.19 6.45 )
6.58
8 6.92
7.3 2 2
6.08 6.83 5. Since the tcalculated = 180 is lower than0.37
tcritical += 1.976,
0.31
t = 0.76it is within
14.1 11.3 2
45 +the H 400. There is no
the acceptance region, so we do not reject 0.17
6.58
10.9 6.58
7.5 significant difference between soil water content in the two
6.5
13.2 6.41
9.7 experimental fields growing bell peppers.
6.42
13.8 6.67
12.3 t= - 0.26
6.25 6.67 t = 0.76
14.6 6.9
0.42
6.67
10.2 5.75
7.6 0.14 + 0.096
5.91
11.5 6.25
13.8 452 + t = 1.8040
13.16 6.25
7.5
5.83
14.7 6.5
13.3 t = - 0.26
12.56 86 0.0054
10.2 11.3
11.8 6.8 t = - 0.26
11 7.4 0.0735
12.7 11.7
10.3 11.8 t = - 3.537
 5.83 6.92
5.08 6.25
6.75 6.42
5.83 6.58
6.17 6.58
5.75 6.08
6 6.75
5.75 6.5
6.5 6.83 3. Level of Significance = 0.05
5.83 6.08
5.91 6.92 4. From the heights of the players t distribution table at = 0.05
5.67 6 and df = 35+40-2=83 tcritical is 1.9897
6 6.33
5. Since tcalculated = 3.537 is higher than tcritical = 1.9687, it is within
6.08 6.5 the rejection region. The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore,
6.17 6.58 there is a significant difference between the heights of the
6.58 6.83 football players and basketball players.
6.5 6.5
6.25 6.58
6.33
5.25
6.67
6.5
5.83

3. Archaeology, Ceramics

The following data represent independent random samples

t = -of shred counts of painted
0.26
ceramics found at the Wind Mountain archaeological site. 0.0054

X1 X2
52 61 Solution:
10 21 1. H0 : x1 = x2
8 78 HA : x1 > x2
71 9
2. The formula is
7 14 nx1 = 62 ; nx2 = 44 t = (xx1 xx2)
31 12 xx = 22.44 ; xx2 = 27.77
24 34 sx1 = 17.33 ; sx2 = 22.28 sx12 + sx22
2
20 54 t = (nx1
22.4+ nx2 27.77 )
17 10 17.332 + 20.282
5 15 622 + 44
16 43
75 9
25 7 t= - 5.33
17 67 4.84 + 9.35
14 18
33 18
13 24
t = - 5.33
17 54 14.19
12 8
19 10 t = - 0.376
67 16
13 6
35 17 3. Level of Significance = 0.05
14 14
3 25 4. From the shred counts of painted ceramics found t
7 22 distribution table at = 0.05 and df = 102 tcritical is 1.9897
9 25
19 13 5. Since the tcalculated = 0.376 is lower than tcritical = 1.984, it is
within the acceptance region, so we do not reject the null
16 23 hypothesis. There is no significant difference between the
22 12 shred counts of painted ceramics.
7 36
10 10
9 56
49 35
6 79
13 69
24 41
45 36
14 18
20 25
3 27
6 27
30 11
41 13
26
32
14
33
1
48
44
 14
16
15
13
8
61
11
12
16
20
39

4. Rabies

The following data represents number of cases of red fox rabies for a random
sample of 16 areas in each of two different regions of southern Germany.

REGION REGION
1 2 Solution:
10 1 1. H0 : r1 = r2
2 1 HA : r1 > r2
2 2
2. The formula is
5 1 nr1 = 16 ; nr2 = 16
3 3 xr1 = 4.1875 ; xr2 = 2.5 t = (xr1 xr2)
4 9 sr1 = 2.54 ; sr2 = 2.22
3 2 sr12 + sr22
nr12 + nr2
3 2
4 4 t = (4.1875 2.5 )
0 5
2.542 + 2.222
2 4 162 + 16
6 2
t= 1.6875
4 2
0.40 + 0.31
8 0
7 0 t = 1.6875
4 2 0.84

3. Level of Significance = 0.05 t = 2.003

4. From the cases of red fox rabies t distribution table at =

0.05 and df = 30 tcritical is 2.042

5. Since the tcalculated = 2.003 is lower than tcritical = 2.042, it is

within the acceptance region, so we do not reject the null
hypothesis. Therefore, there is no significant difference
between the cases of the red fox rabies from the 16 areas in
each of two different regions of Southern Germany.