Chapman, Landini, McCoy 1

Reaching for Glory

Ian McCoy, Jake Landini, & Keaton

Chapman

Introduction:
 Chapman, Landini, McCoy 2

Within this project we will be determining the correlation between a swimmer’s arm

length versus the speed of their 25 yard time. We predict that if the length of the swimmer’s arm

increases then the time it takes them to swim a 25 yard length of the pool will decrease with

moderate negative correlation of -.555. We will be using an observational study to gather our

information. An observational study is defined as observing individuals and measuring variables

of interest but not attempting to influence responses. We will be measuring arm length and 25

yard swim times without influencing any of the results.

Data Set:

A population is the entire group of individuals being studied. In our project the

population is all swimmers. A sample is a part of the population that we collect the data from.

For our project the sample is the twenty five swimmers that we collect data from. A variable is

any characteristic of an individual. Our project’s explanatory variable is the length of your arm,

while the response variable is amount of time is takes to swim a 25 yard length of a pool. We

chose the variables as the way they are and not the other way around because we believe that

your arm length will explain your time in the pool not that your time in the pool will explain

your arm length.

Analyze data using Microsoft Excel/Data collection:

Arm to 25 Yard Time Correlation

 Chapman, Landini, McCoy 3

Arm Length(cm) Time (s)

76 13.35

68 14.95

65 15.40

64 13.57

67 14.75

68 14.29

68 14.99

77 12.22

82 12.45

74 13.45

70 12.66

65 12.84

79 12.09

69 13.04

81 11.93

65 13.82

73 14.43

78 11.04

74 12.59

72 12.32

74 12.49

72 13.42

76 12.57

77 11.90

72 13.57

Graph data using Excel:

 Chapman, Landini, McCoy 4

There are no significant outliers in our graphed data.

Interpret r & r2:

Correlation describes the direction and strength of a straight line relationship between

two quantitative variables. Correlation is written as ‘r’. There is a negative relationship between

arm length and amount of time it takes to swim a 25 yard freestyle which means that as arm

length increases, the amount of time it takes to swim a 25 yard freestyle decreases. And the

correlation of -0.702 means that the relationship is strong, meaning the relationship between the

variables is strongly valid.

Coefficient of determination is the fraction of the variation in the values of y that is

explained by the least squares regression of y on x. Since r=-0.702, then r2=0.492 meaning any

prediction has 49.2% variation.

Prediction:
 Chapman, Landini, McCoy 5

A least squares regression line is the line that makes the sum of the squares of the vertical

distance as small as possible. The equation of our least squares regression line is y= -0.150x +

24.077.

Prediction for a person with an arm length of 76 cm:

y= -0.150x + 24.077

y= -0.150(76) + 24.077

y= -11.2 + 24.077

y= 12.677

If a person has an arm length of 76 cm, then I predict that the person will swim a 25

freestyle in 12.677 seconds with a percent variation of 49.2%. An actual person with this arm

length had a 25 freestyle time of 13.35 seconds so the prediction is relatively accurate.

Lurking Variables:

A lurking variable is a variable that has an important effect on the relationship among the

variables in a study but is not one of the explanatory variables. Two lurking variables that could

have effect on our experiment is the amount of experience a swimmer has and the amount of

muscle a swimmer has. Both of these would be confounding causation because they would only

affect the response variable and not the explanatory variable. If a swimmer has more experience

then they will be faster and if a swimmer has more muscle then they will be faster than if they

had less.

Conclusion:

We predicted that if the length of the swimmer’s arm increases then the time it takes them

to swim a 25 yard length of the pool will decrease with moderate negative correlation of -.555.
 Chapman, Landini, McCoy 6

Our hypothesis was incorrect. The value of the correlation for our experiment was -0.702. We

had that the correlation would be negative which was correct, but we had that it would be of

moderate value but it was actually strong.

Works Cited

Andrulonis, Ally. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Brittain, Paul. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Canter, Drew. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Carnesali, Cassie. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

 Chapman, Landini, McCoy 7

Cornelius, Alayna. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Deemer, Tino. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Fleming, Garrett. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Gregory, Tori. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Hoffer, Kelly. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Landini, Jacob. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Marchioni, Julie. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

McCoy, Ian. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

McMahon, Elle. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Meterko, Ian. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Pearce, Kiersten. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Shaffer-Doan, Austin. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Singler, Josh. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Smith, Mason. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Sprague, Natalie. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Stainbrook, Melody. Personal interview. 20 Dec. 2016.

Stainbrook, Trulee. Personal interview. 16 Dec. 2016.

Stevens, Kaleb. Personal interview. 16 Dec. 2016.

Usaitis, Lauren. Personal interview. 16 Dec. 2016.

Wayne, Gabi. Personal interview. 16 Dec. 2016.

Wolfgang, Gaven. Personal interview. 16 Dec. 2016.