1) PAIRED t-TEST

A clinic provides a program to help their clients lose weight and asks a consumer agency to
investigate the effectiveness of the program. The agency takes a sample of 15 people, weighing
each person in the sample before the program begins and 3 months after the program.
Determine whether the program is effective.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Befor 21 20 19 18 25 23 16 19 22 21 18 17 18 24 24
e 0 5 3 2 9 9 4 7 2 1 7 5 6 3 6
After 19 19 19 17 23 22 15 19 20 19 18 16 18 22 23
7 5 1 4 6 6 7 6 1 6 7 4 1 9 1

HYPOTHESIS
Null hypothesis: The difference in weight is due to chance
Alternative hypothesis: The difference in weight before and after the program is not due solely to
chance.

CALCULATIONS

Paired t test.xlsx

CONCLUSION: Since tobs > tcrit we reject the null hypothesis and conclude with 95% confidence
that the difference in weight before and after the program is not due solely to chance.

2) INDEPENDENT PAIRED t TEST

To investigate the effect of a new hay fever drug on driving skills, a researcher studies 24
individuals with hay fever: 12 who have been taking the drug and 12 who have not. All
participants then entered a simulator and were given a driving test which assigned a score to
each driver

CONTROL 23 15 16 25 20 17 18 14 12 19 21 22
DRUG 16 21 16 11 24 21 18 15 19 22 13 24

HYPOTHESIS

For testing equality of variances

F-test
Null Hypothesis: σ¹=σ ²
Alternative Hypothesis: σ¹≠σ ²
t-test
Null Hypothesis: μcontrol = μdrug
Alternative hypothesis: μcontrol ≠μdrug

CALCULATIONS

independent t
test.xlsx

CONCLUSION

Since Fobs > Fcrit we we reject the null hypothesis and conclude with 95% confidence that there
is no significant difference between the two variances

Since tobs = .10 < 2.07 = tcrit (or p-value = .921 > .05 = α) we retain the null hypothesis; i.e.
we are 95% confident that any difference between the two groups is due to chance.

3) ANOVA-ONE WAY

A marketing research firm tests the effectiveness of three new flavorings for a leading beverage
using a sample of 30 people, divided randomly into three groups of 10 people each. Group 1
tastes flavor 1, group 2 tastes flavor 2 and group 3 tastes flavor 3. Each person is then given a
questionnaire which evaluates how enjoyable the beverage was. The scores are as in table
Determine whether there is a perceived significant difference between the three flavorings.

Flavor 1 13 17 19 11 20 15 18 9 12 16
Flavor 2 12 8 6 16 12 14 10 18 4 11
Flavor 3 7 19 15 14 10 16 18 11 14 11

HYPOTHESIS
Null hypothesis: μ1 = μ2 = μ3
Alternative hypothesis: μ1 ≠ μ2 ≠μ3

CALCULATIONS

ANOVA ONE
WAY.xlsx

CONCLUSION: : Since Fobs < Fcrit we do not reject the null hypothesis and conclude with 95%
confidence that there is no significant difference in between the three flavorings.
4) ANOVA- 2 WAY WITHOUT REPLICATION

A new fertilizer has been developed to increase the yield on crops, and the makers of the
fertilizer want to better understand which of the three formulations (blends) of this fertilizer are
most effective for wheat, corn, soy beans and rice (crops). They test each of the three blends on
one sample of each of the four types of crops. The crop yields for the 12 combinations are as
shown .

Wheat Corn Soy Rice

Blend X 123 138 110 151
Blend Y 145 165 140 167
Blend Z 156 176 185 175

HYPOTHESIS I
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in yield between the (population) means of
the blends.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference in yield between the (population) means
of the blends.

HYPOTHESIS II

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in yield between the (population) means for
the crop types.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference in yield between the (population) means
for the crop types.

CALCULATIONS

ANOVA 2 WAY
WITHOUT REPLICATION.xlsx

CONCLISION I : Since F -stat= 12.83 > 5.14 = F-cri) we reject the null hypothesis, and so at
the 95% level of confidence we conclude there is significant difference in the yields produced by
the three blends.
CONCLISION II: Since the F-stat = 2.63 < 4.76 = F-cri we can’t reject the null hypothesis, and
so at 95% level of confidence we conclude there is no significant difference in the yields for the
four crops studied.

5) ANOVA 2 WAY WITH REPLICATION

A new fertilizer has been developed to increase the yield on crops, and the makers of the
fertilizer want to better understand which of the three formulations (blends) of this fertilizer are
most effective for wheat, corn, soy beans and rice (crops). They test each of the three blends on
5 samples of each crop

HYPOTHESIS
HYPOTHESIS I
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in yield between the (population) means of
the blends.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference in yield between the (population) means
of the blends.

HYPOTHESIS II
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in yield between the (population) means for
the crop types.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference in yield between the (population) means
for the crop types.
HYPOTHESIS III
Null Hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the interaction between crop and blend
Alternative Hypothesis: There are significant differences in the interaction between crop and
blend

CALCULATIONS
ANOVA 2 WAY WITH
REPLICATION.xlsx

CONCLUSION I: Since F -stat= 9.88 > 3.19 = F-cri) we reject the null hypothesis, and so at the
95% level of confidence we conclude there is significant difference in the yields produced by the
three blends.

CONCLUSION II : Since F -stat= 2.58 < 2.79 = F-cri) we do not reject the null hypothesis, and
so at the 95% level of confidence we conclude there is no significant difference in the yields for
the four crops studied.

CONCLUSION III : Since F -stat= 2.35 > 2.39 = F-cri) we reject the null hypothesis, and so at
the 95% level of confidence we conclude there are significant differences in the interaction
between crop and blend. .

6) CORRELATION

A researcher wants to know whether a person's height is related to how well they perform in a
long jump. The researcher recruited untrained individuals from the general population,
measured their height and had them perform a long jump. Determine whether there was an
association between height and long jump performance by running a Pearson's correlation.

HEIGHT 1.63 1.80 1.75 1.86 1.73 1.71 1.75 1.96. 1.60 1.68 1.80 1.87 1.74 1.67
JUMP 2.34 2.48 2.29 2.62 2.64. 2.30 2.44 2.67 2.39 2.47 2.60 2.75 2.40 2.46

CORRELATION.xlsx

CONCLUSION: There is a positive correlation between height and jump distance.

LINEAR REGRESSION

Recently, research efforts have focused on the problem of predicting a manufacturer’s market
share by using information on the quality of its product. Suppose that the following data are
available on market share, in percentage(Y), and the product quality, on a scale of 0 to 100,
determined by an objective evaluation procedure(X).
Estimate the simple linear regression relationship between market share and product quality
rating.

X 27 39 73 66 33 43 47 55 60 68 70 75 82
Y 2 3 10 9 4 6 5 8 7 9 10 13 12

CALCULATIONS

REGRESSION 1.xlsx

CONCLUSION; Regression equation: Y= (-3.056+0.186X)