Advanced Biostatistics and Quantitative Techniques

Testing Hypothesis
(z-Test)

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Associate Professor DR. Christopher Delino
Testing Hypothesis
 1. Formulate the Null (Ho) hypothesis
and Alternative (Ha) hypothesis.
 2. Select the level of Significance (α).
 3. Determine the test statistic to be used.
 4. Define the Area of Rejection.
 5. Compute for the values of the
Statistical Test.
 6. Draw conclusion.
1. Formulate the Null (Ho) hypothesis
and Alternative (Ha) hypothesis.
 Title: Alternative Method and
Traditional Method in Finding Blood
Pressure. A Comparative Study.
 Ho: There is no significant difference
between the results from using In symbols
alternative method and traditional Ho: µ1 = µ2
method in finding blood pressure.
 Ha: There is a significant difference
between the results from using In symbols
alternative method and traditional Ha: µ1 ≠ µ2
method in finding blood pressure.
 Directional – If Ha is >, <, ≥, or ≤.
(One-tailed test)
If Ha then Ho
Non-directional – If Ha is ≠. (Two-
≠ = tailed test)
> ≤
Examples:
If Ha : µ ≠ 234; then it is
< ≥
nondirectional

If Ha: µ1 > µ2 ; then it is directional

Other Example
 Ho: Alternative Method is not better In symbols
than the traditional method…. Ho: µ1 < µ2
 Ha: Alternative Method is better than In symbols
the traditional method…. Ha: µ1 > µ2

 Ho: Temperature in locale A is not In symbols

less than locale B…. Ho: µ1 >µ2
 Ha: Temperature in locale A is less In symbols
than locale B…. Ha: µ1 < µ2
2. Select the level of Significance (α).

 Critical/Tabular Values of z

α One-tailed Two-tailed
test test
0.10 ±1.28 ±1.645
0.05 ±1.645 ±1.96
0.01 ±2.33 ±2.58
3. Determine the test statistic to be used.
Parametric and Nonparametric Tests
 Parametric Test – Rely on
assumptions about the shape of
the distribution, assume Normal Normal
Distribution in the underlying Distribution
population and about the form of means being
parameters (mean, sd) of SYMMETRIC
assumed distribution. and
 Nonparametric Tests – Rely on MESOKURTIC
no or few assumptions about the at the same time
shape or parameters of the
population distribution from which
the sample was drawn.
4. Define the Area of Rejection.
5. Compute for the values of the
Statistical Test.
6. Draw conclusion.

 Either you ACCEPT or REJECT the null (Ho)

hypothesis.

 Note: If you Accept Ho – REJECT Ha

 If you Reject Ho – ACCEPT Ha
Example.
 Protoporphyrin levels were measured in two
sample subjects. Sample 1 consisted of 35
adult male alcoholics with ring sideroblast in
the bone marrow. Sample 2 consisted of 40
apparently healthy adult non-alcoholic males.
 Is there a significant difference between the
protoporphyrin levels in the alcoholic
population and non-alcholic population? Given
the gathered data? Using 1% level of
significance. (Assuming Normal Distribution)
Given:
50 43 33 54 55 30 36 43 33 56
34 42 35 45 46 45 39 34 34 33
35 35 34 35 32
36 45 35 43 48
45 45 33 31 30
43 34 36 34 43
33 56 33 35 30
49 45 45 30 34
36 54 35 37 31
31 30 38 35 33
37 44 37 47 34
35 40 36 50 36 34 46 38 45 35
Alcoholics Non-Alcoholics
 Solutions: There is no significant difference
between the protoporphyrin levels in
 Ho: the alcoholic population and non-
alcholic population.
 Ha: There is a significant difference
between the protoporphyrin levels in
 Alpha: 1%
the alcoholic population and non-
 Tail: 2 tailed test
alcholic population.
 Test Statistic: z-Test
 Critical Value: +2.58
 Area of Rejection

-2.58 2.58
Click DATA and look for DATA ANALYSIS
 Click Excel Icon

Click Add-Ins

Choose Analysis Tool Pak, then click

ok

Click Excel Option

Choose Analysis Tool Pak, then click
Go
Solutions:
 Ho: Ha:

 Alpha: 1%
 Tail: 2 tailed test
 Test Statistic: z-Test
 Critical Value: +2.58
 Area of Rejection 1.36

Decision:
ACCEPT Ho
-2.58 2.58
Analysis:
Table 2. Comparison of Protoporphyrin Level between
Alcoholics and Non-Alcoholics Population
Variable Mean Diff
CV Comp Decision Remark
α=1% z
Alcoholic 40.03 2.15 2.58 1.36 Accept Not
Non- 37.88 Ho Significant
Alcoholic
Table 2 presents the comparison of protoporphyrin level between
alcoholics and non-alcoholics population . Based on the table, a
difference of 2.15 between the average protoporphyrin level of
alcoholics (x=40.03) and Non-Alcoholics (x=37.88), is proven
statistically not significant since, the computed z of 1.36 is within the
critical value of +2.58 at 1% level of significance. Thus, There is no
significant difference between the protoporphyrin levels in the
alcoholics population and non-alcoholics population. The results may
imply that alcohol consumptions has no effect on the increase or
decrease of protoporphyrin levels, thus………..
Advanced Biostatistics and Quantitative Techniques

Testing Hypothesis
(t-test)

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Associate Professor DR. Christopher Delino
T-test - It is a parametric test used to test significant
difference of small sample size.

 Paired t-Test  Independent t-Test

 Determine whether the  A t-test asks whether a
mean of the differences
between two paired
samples differs from 0 (or
a target value)
 The paired t-test
calculates the difference
within each before-and-
after pair of
measurements,
determines the mean of
these changes, and
reports whether this
mean of the differences
is statistically significant
difference between two
groups’ averages is unlikely to
have occurred because of
random chance in sample
selection. A difference is more
likely to be meaningful and
“real” if
(1) the difference between the
averages is large,
(2) the sample size is large,
and
(3) responses are consistently
close to the average values
and not widely spread out
Example.

Using 5% alpha
 Solutions: The use of the module does not
 Ho: leads to improvement.

The use of the module leads to

 Ha: improvement.
 Alpha: 5%
 Tail: 1 tailed test 3.231
 Test Statistic: t-Test
 Critical Value: +1.729
 Area of Rejection
Decision:
REJECT Ho

1.729
Analysis:
Table 1. Comparison of Achievement Score of Using
Modules
Test Mean Diff CV Comp Decision Remark
(α=5%) t
Pre 18.40 2.05 1.729 3.231 Reject Significant
Post 20.45 Ho
Table 1 presents the comparison of the pretest and posttest
result in using a module. Based on the table, a difference
of 2.05 between the average achievement score of pretest
(x=18.40) and posttest (x=20.45), is proven statistically
significant since, the computed t of 3.231 is greater than
the critical value of 1.729 at 5% level of significance. Thus,
there is strong evidenced that on average, the module leads
to the improvement of achievement. With the results it is
implied that the use of Module……….. Moreover, it
supports the study of Ruiz (2015), he claimed
Example.
 A course in Mathematics is taught to 12
students by a usual strategy. A second group
of 10 students was given the same course by
means of strategy x. At the end of the
semester the same examination was given to
each group, below were the results. Test the
hypothesis using 0.01 level of significance.
Usual 82 83 80 81 82 80 82 81 83 82 80 83

Strategy 83 83 84 80 85 87 86 85 83 82
x
 Solutions: There is no significant difference… .
 Ho: There is a significant difference
between the achievements of
using usual strategy and strategy
 Ha: x.
 Alpha: 1%
 Tail: 2 tailed test
 Test Statistic: t-Test
 Critical Value: +2.845
 Area of Rejection
-3.19

-2.845
2.845 Decision:
REJECT Ho
Analysis: Table 2. Comparison of Mean Scores of Using
Usual and Strategy X
Method Mean Diff CV Comp Decision Remark
(α=5%) t
Usual 81.58 2.22 +2.84 -3.19 Reject Significant
Strategy 5 Ho
Strategy 83.80
X

Table 2 presents the comparison of mean scores of using usual

and strategy x. Based on the table, a difference of 2.22 between
the average mean score of usual (x=81.58) and strategy X
(x=83.80), is proven statistically significant since, the computed t
of -3.19 is less than the critical value of -2.845 at 1% level of
significance. Thus, there is a significant difference between the
achievements of using usual strategy and strategy x. The results
show a strong evidenced that teaching strategy used has an
effect towards the achievements of students. With the results it
is implied that ……………….
Advanced Biostatistics and Quantitative Techniques

Testing Hypothesis
(Analysis of Variance)

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Associate Professor DR. Christopher Delino
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
 It is a parametric test used to test the
significant difference of three or more
groups.
 a method of testing the equality of three or
more population means by analyzing
sample variations
 Case 1 – Equal no. of respondents in each group
 Case 2 – Unequal no. of respondents in each
group
 Example.
 Twelve (12) overweight subjects participated in a study to
compare the weight reducing regiments. Subjects are grouped
according to initial weight and each of the subjects was randomly
assigned to one of the three reducing regiments. At the end of
the experimental period the following weight losses, in pounds
were recorded.
 After eliminating differences due to initial weight, do these data
provide sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in regiment
effects? Use 1% level of significance.
Regiment A Regiment B Regiment C
12 14 15
13 14 14
15 11 12
12 10 19
CLICK DATA

INPUT DATA
 CLICK
DATA
ANALYSIS
 CLICK
ANOVA
SINGLE
FACTOR,
THEN OK
 CLICK
REGIMENT A
 DATA WILL
APPEAR

HOLD SHIFT KEY AND ARROWKEYS

GOING TO THE RIGHT AND DOWN TO
COVER ALL THE DATA
 DATA WILL
APPEAR
CLICK
LABELS
EDIT TO 1%
CLICK
OUTPUT CLICK
RANGE WINDOW
 CLICK
OK

DATA WILL
APPEAR
DECISION: ACCEPT
NULL HYPOTHESIS
 Solutions: There is no significant difference
in the regiment effect.
 Ho: µ1=µ2=µ3
 Ha: µ1≠µ ≠µ 2 3
There is a significant difference
in the regiment effect.
 Alpha: 1%
 Tail: 1 tailed test
 Test Statistic: ANOVA
 Critical Value: 8.022
 Area of Rejection
1.626

Decision:
ACCEPT Ho
8.022
Analysis:
Table 1. Comparison of the Effects of the Regiments
Regiments Mean CV Comp Decision Remark
(α=1%) f
A 13.00 8.022 1.626 Accept Not
B 12.25 Ho Significant
C 15.00
Table 1 presents the comparison of the effects of the three
regiments in losing weights. Based on the table, the
average weight lose of regiment A (x=13.00), Regiment B
(x=12.25) and regiment C (x=15.00), is proven statistically
not significant since, the computed f of 1.626 is less than
the critical value of 8.022 at 1% level of significance. Thus,
there is strong evidenced that the three (3) reducing
regiment have the same effect in the body. With the
results it is implied that……….. Moreover, it supports
the study of Ruiz (2015), he claimed
that………………………
 Example.
 Consider a 10-year study in which a sample of 15 people
has been observed while using toothpaste #1, #2, and #3,
respectively. Let us assume that the following participants
have been randomly assigned to each of the statement and
that the study has provided the data given in the table
below:

 Test at 0.01 level of significance, whether the difference

among the number of cavities are significant. (Assuming
Normal Distribution)
Solution:
 Solutions: There is no significant difference
in the number of cavities produce.
 Ho: µ1=µ2=µ3
 Ha: µ1≠µ ≠µ 2 3
There is a significant difference in
the number of cavities produce.
 Alpha: 1%
 Tail: 1 tailed test
 Test Statistic: ANOVA
 Critical Value: 6.927
 Area of Rejection 22.558

Decision:
REJECT Ho
6.927
Analysis:
Table 1. Comparison of the Acquired Number of Cavities
Toothpaste Mean CV Comp Decision Remark
(α=1%) f
#1 31 6.927 22.558 Reject Ho Significant
#2 18
#3 16
Table 1 presents the comparison of the acquired number of
cavities. Based on the table, the average acquired number
of cavities in using toothpaste #1 (x=31), #2 (x=18) and #3
(x=16), is proven statistically significant since, the
computed f of 22.558 is greater than the critical value of
6.927 at 1% level of significance. Thus, there is strong
evidenced that there is a variation in the effect of the three
(3) toothpaste in preventing cavities. With the results it is
implied that ……….. Moreover, it supports the study of
Ruiz (2015), he claimed that………………………
POSTHOC
 Scheffe’s Test - (Posthoc) –This is
used to find out where the differences
lie.
 𝒙𝟏 − 𝒙𝟐 𝟐
𝑭′ = = 𝟐𝟔. 𝟎𝟒
Computation 𝒔𝟐𝟐 (𝒏𝟏+ 𝒏𝟐 ൯
𝒏𝟏 𝒏𝟐
n Mean #1 vs #2, Reject Ho,
SIGNIFICANT, thus toothpaste #2
is better than #1
Toothpaste # 1 6 30.33333 𝑥1 − 𝑥3 2
𝐹′ = 2
= 37.53
𝑠2 (𝑛1 + 𝑛3 ሻ
Toothpaste # 2 4 17.25 𝑛1 𝑛3
#1 vs #3, Reject Ho,
SIGNIFICANT, thus #3 is better
Toothpaste # 3 5 15.6 than #1

𝑥2 − 𝑥3 2
𝐹′ = = 0.38
F’critical = (F Crit)(n-1) 𝑠22 (𝑛2 + 𝑛3 ሻ
= (6.927)(2) 𝑛2 𝑛3
= 13.854
#2 vs #3, Accept Ho, NOT
SIGNIFICANT, thus #2 and #3
have the same effect
Advanced Biostatistics and Quantitative Techniques

Pearson Product Moment

Correlation Coefficient
(Pearson r)

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Associate Professor DR. Christopher Delino
Pearson r (Bivariate - 2 Variables)
 - it is a parametric test used in determining
relationship between two set of data.
 Qualitative Description of Coefficient of Correlation
r Description
±1.00 Perfect Relationship
±0.91 - ±0.99 Very High Relationship
±0.71 - ±0.90 High Relationship
±0.41 - ±0.70 Moderate Relationship
±0.21 - ±0.40 Low Relationship
±0.01 - ±0.20 Negligible Relationship
0 No Relationship
 Remark: -1 ≤ r ≤ 1
Linear Model – Scatter Plot

 Positive Negative

 No Relationship
Formula

n xy    x  y 
r
n x   x n y   y 
2 2 2 2

 df = n - 2
 Example.
 A study recorded Hours on Letters in Last
the hours per week Cellphone Name
on a cellphone (X) 6 13
and number of 6 5
letters in the last 3 11
name (Y). In the 17 7
right are the data. 19 11
Find if there is a 14 4
correlation between 15 4
the 2 variables at 3 4
5% alpha. 13 8
7 9
 Solutions: There is no significant
 Ho: ρ = 0 relationship…
 Ha: ρ ≠ 0 There is a significant
relationship….
 Alpha: 5%
 Tail: 2 tailed test
 Test Statistic: Pearson r Hours on Letters in Last
Cellphone Name
 DF : 8 -0.105 Hours on
 Critical Value: +0.632 Cellphone 1
 Area of Rejection Letters in Last
Name -0.105198406 1

Decision:
ACCEPT Ho
-0.632 0.632
Analysis:
Table 3. Correlation Between the Hours Spent in Using CP
and Letters in Last Name
Hours Spent
Pearson CV QD Decision Remark
r (α=5%)
Letters in Last
Name -0.105 +0.632 NegR Accept Ho Not Significant

Table 3 presents the correlation between the hours spent in

using CP and letters in last name. Based on the table, the
computed Pearson r of -0.105 with a qualitative description of
negligible relationship, is within the critical value of +0.632 at
5% level of significance, thus, the Ho is accepted. Therefore, the
hours spent in using cellphone is independent from the number
of letters in last name. With the results it is implied that the
use of …..……….. Moreover, it supports the study of Capili
(2016), she claimed that………………………
Scatter Plot
14

12

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Advanced Biostatistics and Quantitative Techniques

Spearman Rank
Correlation

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Associate Professor DR. Christopher Delino
Spearman Rank (rs)
 - it is a NONPARAMETRIC TEST used to find
out if there is a significant relationship between
two variables

 D = difference (In terms of rank)

 DF = n-1
 Example.
 The ff. are number X Y
of hours which 12 5 50
students spent in 6 60
studying for a 11 79
midterm 20 90
examination (X) 19 85
and the grades 20 92
they obtained in 10 80
English (Y). 12 82
Calculate rs at 8 65
0.05 level of 15 85
significance. 18 94
10 70
Solution
X Y Rx Ry D D^2
5 50 12 12 0 0
6 60 11 11 0 0
11 79 7 8 -1 1
20 90 1.5 3 -1.5 2.25
19 85 3 4.5 -1.5 2.25
20 92 1.5 2 -0.5 0.25
10 80 8.5 7 1.5 2.25
12 82 6 6 0 0
8 65 10 10 0 0
15 85 5 4.5 0.5 0.25
18 94 4 1 3 9
10 70 8.5 9 -0.5 0.25
Sum 17.5
 Solutions: There is no significant
 Ho: ρ = 0 relationship…
 Ha: ρ ≠ 0 There is a significant
relationship….
 Alpha: 5%
 Tail: 2 tailed test
 Test Statistic: Spearman
 DF : 11
 Critical Value:+0.618 0.94
 Area of Rejection

Decision:
REJECT Ho
-0.618 0.618
Analysis:
Table 4. Correlation Between the Hours Spent in Studying
and the Grades in English
Hours Spent
rs CV QD Decision Remark
(α=5%)
Grades in Very High
English +0.618 Positive Reject Ho Significant
0.94 Relationship

Table 4 presents the correlation between the hours spent in

Studying and the Grades in English. Based on the table, the
computed Pearson r of 0.94 with a qualitative description of very
high relationship, is greater than the critical value of +0.618 at
5% level of significance, thus, the Ho is rejected. Therefore, there
is a significant positive relationship between the number of
hours spent in studying for a midterm examination and the
grades they obtained in English. With the results it is implied
that …..……….. Moreover, it supports the study of Roco
(2016), she claimed that………………………
Advanced Biostatistics and Quantitative Techniques

Testing Hypothesis
(Kruskal Wallis Test)

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Associate Professor DR. Christopher Delino
Kruskal Wallis Test (H Test)
 A nonparametric test that uses ranks of sample
data from three or more independent populations;
it is to test the significant difference among 3 or
more groups. It is the counterpart of ANOVA.
(Normality of the distribution is not required)
 Assumptions
○ 1. We have at least three independent samples, all
of which are randomly selected.
○ 2. Each sample has at least 5 observations.

○ 3. There is no requirement that the populations have a

normal distribution or any other particular distribution.
Formula

12 𝑹𝟐𝒊
𝐻= ෍ − 𝟑(𝒏 + 𝟏ሻ
𝑛(𝑛 + 1ሻ 𝒏𝒊

 where: n == no. of respondents

 ni = no. of observations per group,
 Ri = Sum of ranks per column,
 df = K-1, K is the no. of groups
 Example.
 Consider the examination Method Method Method
scores of samples of high A B C
school students who are taught
in English using three different 94 85 89
methods: Method A
(Classroom instruction and 88 88 78
language laboratory), Method
B (Classroom Instruction 90 90 75
Only), and Method C (Oneself 95 80 65
study in language laboratory).
Use the H-test at 0.05 level of 92 79 80
significance to test the
hypothesis that their means 90 85
are not equal. Consider the 80
following data.
 Solutions: There is no significant difference in
the examination scores of students in
 Ho: µA=µB=µC the 3 methods of teaching.
 Ha: µA≠µ ≠µ B C
There is a significant difference
in the examination …
 Alpha: 5%
 Tail: 1 tailed test
 Test Statistic: Kruskal Wallis
 Critical Value: 5.991
 Area of Rejection

5.991
 Data Rank

To find H 65
75
1
2
 1. Temporarily combine all samples 78 3
into one big sample and assign a 79 4
rank to each sample value. (Sort 80 6
from lowest to highest, and in cases 80 6
of ties, assign each observation the 80 6
mean of the ranks involved.) 85 8.5
85 8.5
 2. For each sample, find the sum 88 10.5
of the ranks and find the sample 88 10.5
size. 89 12
 3. Calculate H by using results of 90 14
Step 2 and the following: 90 14
90 14
92 16
94 17
95 18
Method A R1 Method B R2 Method C R3

94 17 85 8.5 89 12
88 10.5 88 10.5 78 3
90 14 90 14 75 2
95 18 80 6 65 1
92 16 79 4 80 6
90 14 85 8.5
80 6

෍ 𝑅1 = 89.5 ෍ 𝑅2 = 57.5 ෍ 𝑅3 = 24
n1=6 n2=7 n3=5

12 89.52 57.52 242

𝐻= + + − 3 19 = 10.46
18(19ሻ 6 7 5
 Solutions: There is no significant difference in
the examination scores of students in
 Ho: µA=µB=µC the 3 methods of teaching.
 Ha: µA≠µ ≠µ B C
There is a significant difference
in the examination …
 Alpha: 5%
𝐻
 Tail: 1 tailed test 12 89.52 57.52 242
= + + − 3 19
 Test Statistic: Kruskal Wallis 18(19ሻ 6 7 5
= 10.46
 Critical Value: 5.991
 Area of Rejection 10.46

Decision:
REJECT Ho
5.991
Analysis:
Table 1. Comparison of the Examination Scores
of Students in the 3 Methods of Teaching
Method Mean CV Comp Decision Remark
(α=5%) f
A 91.50 5.991 10.46 Reject Ho Significant
B 83.86
C 77.40
Table 1 presents the comparison of the examination scores of
students in the 3 methods of teaching. Based on the table, the
average performance of students in Method A (x=91.50), Method
B (x=83.86) and Method C (x=77.40), is proven statistically
significant, since, the computed H of 10.46 is greater than the
critical value of 5.991 at 5% level of significance. Thus, the null
hypothesis is rejected, therefore, there is a significant difference
in the performance of the students exposed in the different
methods of teaching. Hence, it may be inferred that the method
of teaching used has an effect on the performance of the
students. Moreover, it supports the study of Cruz (2016), she
Advanced Biostatistics and Quantitative Techniques

Chi-Square Test
(Independence and
Homogeneity)

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Associate Professor DR. Christopher Delino
Chi-Square Test of Independence
 A nonparametric test that test the association
between two variables. (Normality of the
distribution is not required)

 Where: O – Observed Data

 E – Expected Data
 DF = (c-1)(r-1)
 Example.
 Is the type of crime independent of whether the
criminal is a stranger or acquainted to relative? Test
with 95 confidence.
OBSERVED Type of Crime
DATA

Victim Homicide Robbery Assault

Stranger 12 379 727

Acquaintance or 39 106 642

Relative
 SOLUTION:
OBSERVED Type of Crime Row
DATA Total

Victim Homicide Robbery Assault

Stranger 12 379 727 1118
Acquaintance 39 106 642 787
or Relative

Column Total 51 485 1369 1905

Calculate Row, Column and Grand Total

SOLUTION:
Data Type of Crime Row
Total
Victim Homicide Robbery Assault
Stranger (O) 12 379 727 1118
(E) 29.93 284.64 803.43
Acquaintance (O) 39 106 642 787
or Relative (E) 21.07 200.36 565.57
Column Total (O) 51 485 1369 1905
𝑟𝑜𝑤 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙ሻ(𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝐸=
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟖ሻ(𝟓𝟏 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟖ሻ(𝟒𝟖𝟓 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟖ሻ(𝟏𝟑𝟔𝟗
𝐸= =29.93 𝐸= =284.64 𝐸= =803.43
𝟏𝟗𝟎𝟓 𝟏𝟗𝟎𝟓 𝟏𝟗𝟎𝟓

𝟕𝟖𝟕ሻ(𝟓𝟏 𝟕𝟖𝟕ሻ(𝟒𝟖𝟓 𝟕𝟖𝟕ሻ(𝟏𝟑𝟔𝟗

𝐸= =21.07 𝐸= =200.36 𝐸= =565.57
𝟏𝟗𝟎𝟓 𝟏𝟗𝟎𝟓 𝟏𝟗𝟎𝟓
SOLUTION:
Data Type of Crime Row
Total
Victim Homicide Robbery Assault
Stranger (O) 12 379 727 1118
(E) 29.93 284.64 803.43
Acquaintance (O) 39 106 642 787
or Relative (E) 21.07 200.36 565.57
Column Total (O) 51 485 1369 1905
2
൫𝑂 − 𝐸ሻ
𝑥2 = ෍
𝐸

ቀ12−29.93ሻ2 ቀ379−284.64ሻ2 ቀ642−565.57ሻ2

= + + ⋯+ =119.32
29.93 284.64 565.57
 Solutions: The type of crime committed is not
dependent (independent) ...
 Ho: ρ=0
 Ha: ρ≠0
The type of crime committed is
dependent whether the victim is
 Alpha: 5% stranger or acquainted to relative.
 Tail: 1 tailed test
 Test Statistic: Chi-Square
 Critical Value: 5.991
119.32
 Area of Rejection

Decision:
REJECT Ho
5.991
Analysis: Table 2. Test of Association Between
Type of Crime and Type of Victim

Type of Victim
Chi-Square CV
Type of Value (α=5%) Decision Remark
Crime

119.32 5.991 Reject Ho Significant

Table 2 presents the test of association between type of crime and
type of victim. Based on the table, since, the computed x2 of
119.32 is greater than the critical value of 5.991 at 5% level of
significance. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected, therefore, the
type of crime committed is dependent whether the victim is
stranger or acquainted to relative. Hence, it can be deduce that
there is a greater probability of occurring crime when the victim
and the criminal are strangers from one another. It can be
further infer that…….. Moreover, Bato (2016), he claimed
that………………………
Chi-Square Test of Homogeneity
 A nonparametric test that test the difference
between two or more groups.. (Normality of the
distribution is not required)

 Where: O – Observed Data

 E – Expected Data
 DF = (c-1)(r-1)
READING p-VALUES

 ACCEPT Ho (Not Significant)

 If P-Value > Alpha (Level of Significance)

 REJECT Ho (Significant)
 If P-Value < Alpha (Level of Significance)
z-Test: Two Sample for Means DECISION: ACCEPT
(1% Alpha) NULL HYPOTHESIS

ALCOHOLICS NON-ALCOHOLICS
Mean 40.02857143 37.875
Known Variance 46.6563265 47.559375
Observations 35 40
Hypothesized Mean Ho: There is no
significant …
Difference 0
z 1.356078473 Ha: There is a significant
difference between the
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.087537101 protoporphyrin levels in
the alcoholic population
z Critical one-tail 2.326347874 and non-alcoholic
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.175074201 population.

z Critical two-tail 2.575829304

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for DECISION: REJECT
Means NULL HYPOTHESIS

(5% Alpha)
Post-Module Pre-Module
Score Score
Mean 20.45 18.4
Variance 16.47105263 9.936842105
Observations 20 20
Pearson Correlation 0.71747704 Ho: The use of
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 the module does
not…
df 19
Ha: The use of
t Stat 3.231252666
the module leads
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002197483 to improvement.
t Critical one-tail 1.729132812
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.004394966
t Critical two-tail 2.093024054
Ho: There is no significant difference
in the regiment effect. At 1% alpha
Ha: There is a significant difference
in the regiment effect. At 1% alpha

DECISION: ACCEPT
NULL HYPOTHESIS
Advanced Biostatistics and Quantitative Techniques

Cronbach Alpha
(Reliability Testing)

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Associate Professor DR. Christopher Delino
Cronbach Alpha (α)
 Is use to test the Reliability, target
coefficient is 0.72 or higher.

𝒌 σ 𝒔𝟐
𝜶= 𝟏−
𝒌−𝟏 𝒔𝟐𝑻

K – no. of items
σ 𝒔𝟐 - sum of all variance

𝒔𝟐𝑻 - variance of the total