5 views

Uploaded by Cloie Chavez

k

- 1-s2.0-S2212017314000851-main
- Bill Miller investment strategy and theory of efficient market.
- diseño.docx
- The Nested Procedure Sas
- Chapter 14 Solutions
- Olajide3142014JSRR11662_12
- Acara 3 Anova
- SYNTHESIS AND BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 1, 5- BENZOTHIAZEPINES AS POTENTIAL ANTI INFLAMMATORY AND ANTICONVULSANT ACTIVITY
- ANOVA (1)
- Solutions
- Alpha Gluc Report-Wachichao
- lab 10
- Determination of the Effect of the Addition of Pumice on the Technological Properties of Wall Tile Using the Factorial Design Method
- homework solutions for chapter 13
- Ros
- A Study of Profitability and Liquidity of Chhimek Laghubitta Bikash Bank Limited, Everest Bank Limited and Janaki Finance
- GridDataReport-kontur
- Advanced Applied Statistics Project
- Appedix A
- Ini Regresi

You are on page 1of 9

3.3. A computer ANOVA output is shown below. Fill in the blanks. You may give bounds on the P-

value.

One-way ANOVA

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor ? ? 246.93 ? ?

Error 25 186.53 ?

Total 29 1174.24

One-way ANOVA

Source DF SS MS F P

<

Factor 4 987.71 246.93 33.09

0.0001

Error 25 186.53 7.46

Total 29 1174.24

3.5. A regional opera company has tried three approaches to solicit donations from 24 potential

sponsors. The 24 potential sponsors were randomly divided into three groups of eight, and one approach

was used for each group. The dollar amounts of the resulting contributions are shown in the following

table.

1 1000 1500 1200 1800 1600 1100 1000 1250

2 1500 1850 2000 1200 2000 1700 1800 1900

3 900 1000 1200 1500 1200 1550 1000 1100

(a) Do the data indicate that there is a difference in results obtained from the three different approaches?

Use = 0.05.

Minitab Output

One-way ANOVA: Contribution versus Approach

Source DF SS MS F P

Approach 2 1395833 697917 9.59 0.001

Error 21 1529063 72813

Total 23 2924896

There is a difference between the approaches. Tukey’s test will indicate which are different. Approach 2

is different than approach 1 and approach 3.

1

Minitab Output

Tukey 95% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals

All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Approach

2 97.9 437.5 777.1 (------*------)

3 -464.6 -125.0 214.6 (-----*------)

--------+---------+---------+---------+-

-500 0 500 1000

3 -902.1 -562.5 -222.9 (------*------)

--------+---------+---------+---------+-

-500 0 500 1000

(b) Analyze the residuals from this experiment and comment on the model adequacy.

2

There is nothing unusual about the residuals.

3.7. The tensile strength of Portland cement is being studied. Four different mixing techniques can be

used economically. A completely randomized experiment was conducted and the following data were

collected.

Mixing

Technique Tensile Strength (lb/in 2)

1 3129 3000 2865 2890

2 3200 3300 2975 3150

3 2800 2900 2985 3050

4 2600 2700 2600 2765

(a) Test the hypothesis that mixing techniques affect the strength of the cement. Use = 0.05.

Response: Tensile Strengthin lb/in^2

ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model

Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]

Sum of Mean F

Source Squares DF Square Value Prob > F

Model 4.897E+005 3 1.632E+005 12.73 0.0005 significant

A 4.897E+005 3 1.632E+005 12.73 0.0005

Residual 1.539E+005 12 12825.69

Lack of Fit 0.000 0

Pure Error 1.539E+005 12 12825.69

Cor Total 6.436E+005 15

The Model F-value of 12.73 implies the model is significant. There is only

a 0.05% chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.

Estimated Standard

Mean Error

1-1 2971.00 56.63

2-2 3156.25 56.63

3-3 2933.75 56.63

4-4 2666.25 56.63

3

Treatment Difference DF Error Coeff=0 Prob > |t|

1 vs 2 -185.25 1 80.08 -2.31 0.0392

1 vs 3 37.25 1 80.08 0.47 0.6501

1 vs 4 304.75 1 80.08 3.81 0.0025

2 vs 3 222.50 1 80.08 2.78 0.0167

2 vs 4 490.00 1 80.08 6.12 < 0.0001

3 vs 4 267.50 1 80.08 3.34 0.0059

The F-value is 12.73 with a corresponding P-value of .0005. Mixing technique has an effect.

(b) .

(c) Use the Fisher LSD method with =0.05 to make comparisons between pairs of means.

2 MS E

LSD t

2

,N a n

2( 12825.7 )

LSD t 0.025 ,16 4

4

LSD 2.179 6412.85 174.495

Treatment 2 vs. Treatment 3 = 3156.250 - 2933.750 = 222.500 > 174.495

Treatment 2 vs. Treatment 1 = 3156.250 - 2971.000 = 185.250 > 174.495

Treatment 1 vs. Treatment 4 = 2971.000 - 2666.250 = 304.750 > 174.495

Treatment 1 vs. Treatment 3 = 2971.000 - 2933.750 = 37.250 < 174.495

Treatment 3 vs. Treatment 4 = 2933.750 - 2666.250 = 267.500 > 174.495

The Fisher LSD method is also presented in the Design-Expert computer output above. The results agree

with the graphical method for this experiment.

(d) Construct a normal probability plot of the residuals. What conclusion would you draw about the

validity of the normality assumption?

99

95

90

Norm al % probability

80

70

50

30

20

10

5

Res idual

(e) Plot the residuals versus the predicted tensile strength. Comment on the plot.

4

Residuals vs. Predicted

158

73.1875

Residuals

-11.625

-96.4375

-181.25

Predicted

(f) Prepare a scatter plot of the results to aid the interpretation of the results of this experiment.

Design-Expert automatically generates the scatter plot. The plot below also shows the sample average for

each treatment and the 95 percent confidence interval on the treatment mean.

3300

3119.75

Tensile Strength

2939.51

2759.26

2

2579.01

1 2 3 4

Technique

3.19. A manufacturer of television sets is interested in the effect of tube conductivity of four different

types of coating for color picture tubes. A completely randomized experiment is conducted and the

following conductivity data are obtained:

1 143 141 150 146

2 152 149 137 143

3 134 136 132 127

4 129 127 132 129

5

Design Expert Output

ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model

Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]

Sum of Mean F

Source Squares DF Square Value Prob > F

Model 844.69 3 281.56 14.30 0.0003 significant

A 844.69 3 281.56 14.30 0.0003

Residual 236.25 12 19.69

Lack of Fit 0.000 0

Pure Error 236.25 12 19.69

Cor Total 1080.94 15

The Model F-value of 14.30 implies the model is significant. There is only

a 0.03% chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.

Estimated Standard

Mean Error

1-1 145.00 2.22

2-2 145.25 2.22

3-3 132.25 2.22

4-4 129.25 2.22

Treatment Difference DF Error Coeff=0 Prob > |t|

1 vs 2 -0.25 1 3.14 -0.080 0.9378

1 vs 3 12.75 1 3.14 4.06 0.0016

1 vs 4 15.75 1 3.14 5.02 0.0003

2 vs 3 13.00 1 3.14 4.14 0.0014

2 vs 4 16.00 1 3.14 5.10 0.0003

3 vs 4 3.00 1 3.14 0.96 0.3578

ˆ 2207 / 16 137.9375

ˆ 1 y1. y .. 145.00 137.9375 7.0625

ˆ 2 y 2. y .. 145.25 137.9375 7.3125

ˆ 3 y 3. y .. 132.25 137.9375 5.6875

ˆ 4 y 4. y .. 129.25 137.9375 8.6875

(c) Compute a 95 percent interval estimate of the mean of coating type 4. Compute a 99 percent interval

estimate of the mean difference between coating types 1 and 4.

19.69

Treatment 4: 129.25 2.179

4

124.4155 4 134.0845

219.69

4

6.164 1 4 25.336

(d) Test all pairs of means using the Fisher LSD method with =0.05.

Refer to the Design-Expert output above. The Fisher LSD procedure is automatically included in the

output.

The means of Coating Type 2 and Coating Type 1 are not different. The means of Coating Type 3 and

Coating Type 4 are not different. However, Coating Types 1 and 2 produce higher mean conductivity than

does Coating Types 3 and 4.

6

(e) .

(f) Assuming that coating type 4 is currently in use, what are your recommendations to the

manufacturer? We wish to minimize conductivity.

Since coatings 3 and 4 do not differ, and as they both produce the lowest mean values of conductivity, use

either coating 3 or 4. As type 4 is currently being used, there is probably no need to change.

3.21. The response time in milliseconds was determined for three different types of circuits that could be

used in an automatic valve shutoff mechanism. The results are shown in the following table.

1 9 12 10 8 15

2 20 21 23 17 30

3 6 5 8 16 7

(a) Test the hypothesis that the three circuit types have the same response time. Use = 0.01.

From the computer printout, F=16.08, so there is at least one circuit type that is different.

Response: Response Time in ms

ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model

Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]

Sum of Mean F

Source Squares DF Square Value Prob > F

Model 543.60 2 271.80 16.08 0.0004 significant

A 543.60 2 271.80 16.08 0.0004

Residual 202.80 12 16.90

Lack of Fit 0.000 0

Pure Error 202.80 12 16.90

Cor Total 746.40 14

The Model F-value of 16.08 implies the model is significant. There is only

a 0.04% chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.

Estimated Standard

Mean Error

1-1 10.80 1.84

2-2 22.20 1.84

3-3 8.40 1.84

Treatment Difference DF Error Coeff=0 Prob > |t|

1 vs 2 -11.40 1 2.60 -4.38 0.0009

1 vs 3 2.40 1 2.60 0.92 0.3742

2 vs 3 13.80 1 2.60 5.31 0.0002

(b) Use Tukey’s test to compare pairs of treatment means. Use = 0.01.

MS E 16.90

S yi . 1.8385

n 5

q0.01, 3,12 5.04

t0 1.8385 5.04 9.266

1 vs. 2: 10.8-22.2=11.4 > 9.266

1 vs. 3: 10.8-8.4=2.4 < 9.266

2 vs. 3: 22.2-8.4=13.8 > 9.266

7

1 and 2 are different. 2 and 3 are different.

Notice that the results indicate that the mean of treatment 2 differs from the means of both treatments 1

and 3, and that the means for treatments 1 and 3 are the same. Notice also that the Fisher LSD procedure

(see the computer output) gives the same results.

(c) .

(d) Construct a set of orthogonal contrasts, assuming that at the outset of the experiment you suspected

the response time of circuit type 2 to be different from the other two.

H 0 1 2 2 3 0

H1 1 2 2 3 0

C1 y1. 2 y2. y3.

C1 54 2 111 42 126

126

2

SSC1 529.2

5 6

529.2

FC1 31.31

16.9

(e) If you were a design engineer and you wished to minimize the response time, which circuit type

would you select?

Either type 1 or type 3 as they are not different from each other and have the lowest response time.

(f) Analyze the residuals from this experiment. Are the basic analysis of variance assumptions satisfied?

The normal probability plot has some points that do not lie along the line in the upper region. This may

indicate potential outliers in the data.

7.8

99

95

4.55

90

Norm al % probability

80

Res iduals

70

50 1.3

30

20

10

-1.95

5

-5.2

-5.2 -1.95 1.3 4.55 7.8 8.40 11.85 15.30 18.75 22.20

Residual Predicted

8

Residuals vs. Circuit Type

7.8

4.55

Residuals

1.3

-1.95

-5.2

1 2 3

Circuit Type

- 1-s2.0-S2212017314000851-mainUploaded bymanpreet
- Bill Miller investment strategy and theory of efficient market.Uploaded byXun Yang
- diseño.docxUploaded byMarco
- The Nested Procedure SasUploaded bydeddeb17
- Chapter 14 SolutionsUploaded byDonna Stamps
- Olajide3142014JSRR11662_12Uploaded byKoikkoik Koikkoik
- Acara 3 AnovaUploaded byUmro Meina
- SYNTHESIS AND BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 1, 5- BENZOTHIAZEPINES AS POTENTIAL ANTI INFLAMMATORY AND ANTICONVULSANT ACTIVITYUploaded byiajps
- ANOVA (1)Uploaded byshilpeekumari
- SolutionsUploaded byAdnan Ali Raza
- Alpha Gluc Report-WachichaoUploaded byYadzklyde
- lab 10Uploaded byapi-456370120
- Determination of the Effect of the Addition of Pumice on the Technological Properties of Wall Tile Using the Factorial Design MethodUploaded bySEP-Publisher
- homework solutions for chapter 13Uploaded byapi-234237296
- RosUploaded bySang Penggila Hujan
- A Study of Profitability and Liquidity of Chhimek Laghubitta Bikash Bank Limited, Everest Bank Limited and Janaki FinanceUploaded byDipesh Raj Pandey
- GridDataReport-konturUploaded byFarlan Nag Bgf
- Advanced Applied Statistics ProjectUploaded byIshtiaq Ishaq
- Appedix AUploaded byCiv Nortub
- Ini RegresiUploaded byKarlina Oktaviani
- AnovaUploaded byArun Beniwal
- Traffic Rates Implementaion in RUploaded byNiassoh Kalhka
- Introduction to BiostatisticsUploaded byOrindia Suarmin
- statistik T0Uploaded byradjez
- Intermediate R - Analysis of Count and Proportion DataUploaded byVivay Salazar
- Homework FourUploaded byKristin Deel
- Aggregated vs. Disaggregated Data in RegressionUploaded byEpsonminces
- SBE_SM13.docUploaded byWilson Quispe Condori
- Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists - Quinn & Keough - Cambridge 2002Uploaded byDan Zach
- Stat1520 2015 Sem-1 CrawleyUploaded byDoonkie

- Dried MangoUploaded byCloie Chavez
- ENGN.2060 Assignment 02 SolutionUploaded byCloie Chavez
- ENGN.2060 Assignment 02 SolutionUploaded byCloie Chavez
- Extra-Curricular.docxUploaded byCloie Chavez
- Bouldering 101.pdfUploaded byCloie Chavez
- 405Uploaded byCloie Chavez
- Extra-Curricular.docxUploaded byCloie Chavez
- Module 8. the Future SelfUploaded byCloie Chavez
- 157_50425_EA321_2012_1__3_1_Chapter 2Uploaded byCloie Chavez
- To Write Me150p-1Uploaded byCloie Chavez
- 1305659724_531170Uploaded byCloie Chavez
- Module 7. Unfolding the Emerging Facets of the SelfUploaded byCloie Chavez
- Thomas HobbesUploaded byCloie Chavez
- PHY10Uploaded byCloie Chavez
- 2Q1617-MATH23-1-FE copyUploaded byCloie Chavez
- 2Q1617-MATH23-1-FE copyUploaded byCloie Chavez
- phy.pptxUploaded byCloie Chavez
- biodataUploaded byOmar Khalif Amad Pendatun
- kulturangpopular-160907194100Uploaded byCloie Chavez
- Sitwasyong-PangwikaUploaded byCloie Chavez
- Scoresheet_Math10-4Uploaded byCloie Chavez

- Extensive Form GamesUploaded byLeon Ashley
- Liu and Jordan 1963Uploaded byjankahorvath2000
- human behavior at workUploaded byDeepak Kumar
- Cement Bond LoggingUploaded byWael Farag
- Shift and RotateUploaded byAdrian Ramos
- Verbal Reasoning Shortcuts - Direction SenceUploaded bySai Sree Charan
- CIV-STE-114Uploaded byAngel Lisette Lao
- Statistics TestUploaded byAfshan Zehgeer
- Acquisitions Versus Greenfield Investments - International Strategy and Management of Entry ModesUploaded byLuciano Rivera Lopez
- EXTRACTION OF HUMAN BODIES FROM AN.docUploaded byRaghavendra Shetty
- data mining paperUploaded byMeenakshi Mukhriya
- Visual Basic 6+_ExcelUploaded byHimanshu Verma
- Fundamentals of Computational Fluid Dynamics - Lomax, PulliamUploaded byJorge Chavez Quinto
- cv ofUploaded byaakash
- LaserUploaded byEmre Uysal
- Management 101Uploaded byNidhi
- optimal placement of capacitor using fuzzy reasoning and genetic algorithm in distribution systemUploaded bygaurav
- A Practical Flow-Sensitive and Context-Sensitive C and C++ Memory Leak DetectorUploaded byStewart Henderson
- FP 1 Objective QuestionsUploaded bybachayadav
- Napoleons_TheoremUploaded bylandburender
- sa-ad-02.pdfUploaded byap44us
- ME218 ManualUploaded byKethan Chauhan
- DataRobot Entry DocumentationUploaded byUtkarsh Shrivatava
- Practical AssignmentUploaded bynishankyadav
- 2 1 packetUploaded byapi-327561261
- ibm spss guide v 22Uploaded byapi-261191844
- Investigation of Solar Photo Voltaic Simulation SoftwaresUploaded bypriyanshi12
- DCT Model Question PaperUploaded bysafu_117
- Expectation Value (Statisitic Formulae)Uploaded bycorporateboy36596
- Ecor 2606 lab 8Uploaded byMike Rocque