Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Note
LI = Logistics and international shipping program
AC = Accounting program
BA = Business administration program
(i) Highlight the sample means with yellow colour and interpret its meanings.
Interpretation- mean:
The average spends on travelling to Japan by 10 logistics and international shipping
program students is RM6350.
The average spends on travelling to Japan by 10 accounting program students is RM6600.
The average spends on travelling to Japan by 10 business administration program students
is RM8650.
1
The amount spent by the students from accounting program is in between RM5825.40 and
RM7374.60.
The standard deviation for business administration program is the lowest among the three
programs which is RM 449.69. This means that the values in the sample set for business
administration program are the closest to the mean, which is RM8650. The amount spent by
the students from business administration program is in between RM8200.31 and RM9099.69.
(iii) Graphically present the data (histogram) and compare among the programs.
6
4
2
0
4000-5000 5000-6000 6000-7000 7000-8000 8000-9000 9000-10000
Annual Travel Expenses (RM)
LI AC BA
10000 8650
8000
6350 6600
6000
(RM)
4000
2000
0
LI AC BA
Course
From the histogram generated above, we can conclude that the business administration
students will spend the most to travel to Japan. Accounting students are the second while
logistics and international shipping program will spend the least to travel to Japan. The
difference between the highest and the lowest average annual travel expenses is RM 2300.
2
2(b) Based on the results obtained from EXCEL output, perform the hypothesis using the
different approaches at 𝜶 = 0.05.
(i) Run an ANOVA analysis to verify the statistical difference in the mean of the annual
spending among the 3 chosen programs.
ANOVA
Total 53595000 29
Step 1 H0: μ1 = μ2 = μ3
H1: At least one of μi is not equal; where i = 1, 2, 3 (1=LI, 2=AC, 3=BA)
Step 2 α = 0.05
Step 3 Decision rule: Reject H0 if F statistic > Fc, otherwise do not reject H0.
Step 4 Critical value, Fc = 3.354131
Step 5 F statistic = 19.77351
Step 6 Decision Making: Reject H0 at α = 0.05, since F statistics = 19.77351 > 3.354131.
3
Step 7 Conclusion: Sufficient evidence to conclude that there are differences in the annual
expenses on travelling to Japan among Logistics and International
Shipping, Accounting, and Business Administration students whereby at
least one of the UTAR population mean by programs µi differs from the
rest at α = 0.05.
2. P-value Approach
Step 1 H0: μ1 = μ2 = μ3
H1: At least one of μi is different, where i = 1, 2, 3 (1=LI, 2=AC, 3=BA)
Step 2 α = 0.05
Step 3 Decision rule: Reject H0 if p-value < α, otherwise do not reject H0.
Step 4 F statistic = 19.77351
Step 5 From the excel data, p-value = 0.0000051425 when F = 19.77351
Step 6 Decision Making: Reject H0 since the p-value = 0.0000051425 < significance level,
α = 0.05.
Step 7 Conclusion: Sufficient evidence to conclude that there are differences in the annual
expenses on travelling to Japan among Logistics and International
Shipping, Accounting, and Business Administration students whereby at
least one of the UTAR population mean by programs µi differs from the
rest at α = 0.05.
4
(ii) Run two independent samples mean t-test with unequal variances to verify the
comparison in the performance of the variable between 2 programs.
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
i) LI & AC
LI AC
Mean 6350 6600
Variance 1613888.889 600000
Observations 10 10
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 15
t Stat -0.53132726
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.301485935
t Critical one-tail 1.753050356
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.602971871
t Critical two-tail 2.131449546
Decision Rule: Reject H0 when the test statistic value is lower than lower bound critical value
or greater than upper bound critical value. Otherwise, do not reject H0.
Critical value, t: ± 2.1314
Degree of freedom: 15
(𝑋̅1 −𝑋̅2 )−(𝜇1 −𝜇2 )
Test statistic: t =
𝑆 2
𝑆 2
√ 1+ 2
𝑛1 𝑛2
(6350−6600)−(0−0)
= 1613888.889 600000
√ +
10 10
= -0.5313
5
Decision Making: Do not reject H0 since the test statistic -0.5313 is greater than the lower
critical value -2.1314 and lower than upper critical value 2.1314.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average
annual expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and AC students at α
= 0.05.
P-value Approach
Let µ1 = LI students and µ2 = AC students
H0: µ1- µ2 = 0
H1: µ1- µ2 ≠ 0
Decision Rule: Reject H0 if P-value is less than 𝛼 (0.05). Otherwise, do not reject H0.
P-Value: 0.6030
Decision Making: Do not reject H0 because the P-value is 0.6030 which is greater than 𝛼=0.05.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average
annual expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and AC students at α
= 0.05.
1613888.889 600000
= (6350-6600)± 2.1314√( + )
10 10
= (-1252.8659, 752.8659)
6
95%
-1252.8659 752.8659
Decision Making: Do not reject H0 because the hypothesized average annual expenses
difference is within the confidence interval (-1252.8659, 752.8659).
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average
annual expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and AC students.
Interpretation: We are 95% confident to conclude that the difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and AC students is
between -1252.8659 and 752.8659.
ii) LI & BA
LI BA
Mean 6350 8650
Variance 1613888.889 202222.2222
Observations 10 10
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 11
t Stat -5.397052321
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000108816
t Critical one-tail 1.795884819
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000217633
t Critical two-tail 2.20098516
Decision Rule: Reject H0 when the test statistic value is lower than lower bound critical value
or greater than upper bound critical value. Otherwise, do not reject H0.
Critical value, t: ± 2.2010
Degree of freedom: 11
7
(𝑋̅1 −𝑋̅2 )−(𝜇1 −𝜇2 )
Test statistic: t =
𝑆 2
𝑆 2
√ 1+ 2
𝑛1 𝑛2
(6350−8650)−(0−0)
= 1613888.889 202222.2222
√ +
10 10
= -5.3971
-2.2010 2.2010
-5.3971
Decision Making: Reject H0 since the test statistic -5.3971 is smaller than the lower critical
value -2.2010.
Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and BA students at α = 0.05.
P-value Approach
Let µ1 = LI students and µ2 = BA students
H0: µ1- µ2 = 0
H1: µ1- µ2 ≠ 0
Decision Rule: Reject H0 if P-value is less than 𝛼 (0.05). Otherwise, do not reject H0.
P-Value: 0.0002176
Decision Making: Reject H0 because the P-value is 0.0002176 which is smaller than 𝛼=0.05.
Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and BA students at α = 0.05.
8
Decision Rule: Reject H0 if the hypothesized average annual expenses difference is not
included in the confidence interval. Otherwise, do not reject H0.
Critical Value = ±2.2010
95% of Confidence Interval
𝑆2 𝑆2
CI = (𝑋̅1 − 𝑋̅2 ) ± 𝑡𝛼,𝑣 √(𝑛1 + 𝑛2 )
2 1 2
1613888.889 202222.2222
= (6350-8650)± 2.2010√( + )
10 10
= (-3237.9750, -1362.0250)
95%
-3237.9750 -1362.0250
Decision Making: Reject H0 because the hypothesized average annual expenses difference is
out of the confidence interval (-3237.9750, -1362.0250).
Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and BA students.
Interpretation: We are 95% confident to conclude that the difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and BA students is not
between -3237.9750 and -1362.0250.
iii) AC & BA
AC BA
Mean 6600 8650
Variance 600000 202222.2222
Observations 10 10
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 14
t Stat -7.23779898
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000002152
t Critical one-tail 1.761310136
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000004305
t Critical two-tail 2.144786688
9
Critical value approach
Let µ1 = AC students and µ2 = BA students
H0: µ1- µ2 = 0
H1: µ1- µ2 ≠ 0
Decision Rule: Reject H0 when the test statistic value is lower than lower bound critical value
or greater than upper bound critical value. Otherwise, do not reject H0.
Critical value, t: ± 2.1448
Degree of freedom: 14
(𝑋̅1 −𝑋̅2 )−(𝜇1 −𝜇2 )
Test statistic: t =
𝑆 2
𝑆 2
√ 1+ 2
𝑛1 𝑛2
(6600−8650)−(0−0)
= 600000 202222.2222
√ +
10 10
= -7.2378
-2.1448 2.1448
-7.2378
Decision Making: Reject H0 since the test statistic -7.2378 is smaller than the lower critical
value -2.1448.
Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between AC students and BA students at α = 0.05.
P-value Approach
Let µ1 = AC students and µ2 = BA students
H0: µ1- µ2 = 0
H1: µ1- µ2 ≠ 0
Decision Rule: Reject H0 if P-value is less than 𝛼 (0.05). Otherwise, do not reject H0.
10
P-Value: 0.000004305
Decision Making: Reject H0 because the P-value is 0.000004305 which is smaller than 𝛼=0.05.
Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between AC students and BA students at α = 0.05.
600000 202222.2222
= (6600-8650)± 2.1448√( + )
10 10
= (-2657.4830, -1442.5170)
95%
-2657.4830 -1442.5170
Decision Making: Reject H0 because the hypothesized average annual expenses difference is
out of the confidence interval (-2657.4830, -1442.5170).
Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between AC students and BA students.
Interpretation: We are 95% confident to conclude that the difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between AC students and BA students is not
between -2657.4830 and -1442.5170.
11
(iii) Based on part 5(b)(i) & 5(b)(ii), draw an overall conclusion.
To analyze the average travel expenses among three different programs which are Business
Administration (BA), Accounting (AC) and Logistics and International Shipping (LI), we have
used ANOVA test, and T-test with 3 approaches including critical value approach, P-value
approach and confidence interval approach.
First of all, the result of ANOVA analysis and P-value approach have sufficient evidence
to reject H0. It is because the test statistic value (19.77351) is greater than the upper critical
value of 3.354131. Then the P-value approach also shows that the P-value (0.0000051425) is
less than the significance value 0.05. Therefore, we can conclude that the mean of Business
Administration, Accounting and Logistics and International Shipping have significance
difference in the average travel expenses to Japan at the significance level of 5%.
Next, according to T-test, for the comparison of Accounting with Logistics and
International Shipping, we have insufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in
average annual expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and AC students at α =
0.05. This is resulted in the three approaches: Critical value, the test statistics (-0.5313) is
greater than the lower critical value -2.1314 and lower than upper critical value 2.1314; P-value,
p-value (0.6030) is greater than 5% significant level; Confidence interval, the hypothesized
mean difference (0) falls between the confidence interval (-1252.8659, 752.8659).
Secondly, for the comparison of Business Administration with Logistic and International
Shipping, we have sufficient evidence to conclude that there is difference in average annual
expenses on travelling to Japan between LI students and BA students at 5% significance level.
This is resulted in the three approaches: Critical value, the test statistics (-5.3971) is smaller
than the lower critical value of -2.2010; P-value, p-value (0.0002176) is smaller than alpha
(0.05); Confidence interval, the hypothesized mean difference (0) falls out of the confidence
interval (-3237.9750, -1362.0250).
Lastly, for the comparison of Business Administration with Accounting, we have sufficient
evidence to conclude that there is difference in average annual expenses on travelling to Japan
between AC students and BA students at 0.05 significant level. This is resulted in the three
approaches: Critical value, the test statistics (-7.2378) is in smaller than the lower critical value
-2.1448; P-value, p-value (0.000004305) is smaller than alpha (0.05); Confidence interval, the
hypothesized mean difference (0) falls out of the confidence interval (-2657.4830, -1442.5170).
As a result, we can conclude that there is no difference in the average travel expenses to
Japan between Accounting with Logistics and International Shipping students while there is a
difference in that of between Business Administration with Accounting students, and Business
Administration with Logistic and International Shipping students at 95% significance level.
12