Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Homework 9 Solutions 1. Note that we have the following summary statistics: 19.8 a) It is important that the loggers were unaware of the effects of logging were being assessed. The reason is that loggers may change the amount of logging if they knew that they were being studied. It is also important that the plots were randomly assigned to make sure that we are can rule out soil and nutrients as confounders and just see the effect of logging on the average number of species in a plot. b) Ho: µl = µu Ho: µl < µu µl - µu = 0 µl - µu < 0 µdiff = 0 µdiff < 0 There are 8 degrees of freedom (using the conservative procedure recommended by the book). The pvalue (one-sided) is P(T < -2.185). We reject the null hypothesis since we have .025 < pvalue < .05. The p-value is small and conclude that there is an effect of logging on the average number of species in a plot. 19.10 Below is a 90% confidence interval for the true difference in the average number of species between unlogged and logged plots using t with 8 d.f. We are 90% confident that on average the logged plots have between .57 and 7.09 less species compared to the unlogged plots. 2. a) Below is the stem and leaf plot for group a. We note that group a has 24 observations. The mean score for group a is 24.42 and the standard deviation is 6.31. From the plot we see that the distribution is skewed right. 1 2* 2. 3* 3. 4* | | | | | | | 567 0011112334444 78889 1 5 4 Below is a table of the summary statistics for group a: Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max -------------+-------------------------------------------------------score | 24 24.41667 6.310217 15 44 Below is the stem and leaf plot for group p. We note that group p also has 24 observations. The mean score for group p is 17.88 and the standard deviation is 4.03. From the plot we see that the distribution is also skewed right. 1t 1f 1s 1. 2* 2t 2f 2s | | | | | | | | 223 45555 66777 889 00111 5 66 Below is a table of the summary statistics for group p: Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max -------------+-------------------------------------------------------score | 24 17.875 4.025057 12 26 b) Below is a table of output for the two-sample t test with unequal variances. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Group | Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval] ---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------a | 24 24.41667 1.288068 6.310217 21.7521 27.08124 p | 24 17.875 .8216114 4.025057 16.17537 19.57463 ---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------combined | 48 21.14583 .8937279 6.191929 19.34788 22.94378 ---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------diff | 6.541667 1.527797 3.451552 9.631782 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------diff = mean(a) - mean(p) t = 4.2818 Ho: diff = 0 Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom = 39.0578 Ha: diff < 0 Pr(T < t) = 0.9999 i. ii. iii. iv. v. Ha: diff != 0 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0001 Ha: diff > 0 Pr(T > t) = 0.0001 The 95% confidence interval for the mean number of symbols learned for the passive group is (16.17, 19.57). The 95% confidence interval for the mean number of symbols learned for the active group is (21.75, 27.08). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in the mean number of symbols of the active group compared to the passive group is (3.45, 9.63). The pvalue for the two sided test is Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0001. The alternative hypothesis is Ha: µdiff not= 0. The conservative d.f. recommended by the text is 23 for this problem. Stata tells us that the more precise approximation has 39.06 degrees of freedom. The conservative procedure would have a higher (but still very significant) p-value. 3. Below is the summary information for the results of the first and second tries on the verbal section of the SAT. n mean s.d. Attempt 1 427 500 92 Attempt 2 427 529 97 a) The two samples have the same people in them, so the test scores will be related for the two samples. Some people tend to do better on tests compared to others. We have a matched pairs situation. b) Ho: µ2 = µ1 Ho: µ2 > µ1 µ2 - µ1 = 0 µ2 - µ1 > 0 µdiff = 0. Mean score on both attempts is equal. µdiff > 0. Population mean on attempt 2 is greater population mean on attempt 1 Compute the one-sample t-statistic as The pvalue is P(t > 10.16). We should use the t-distribution with 100 d.f. in our table. All we learn there is that P < .0005 but that is small enough! Since the p-value is small, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the two attempts have different means. c) This study only shows that people who have coaching tend to do better on their second attempt than their first attempt. However these data don’t provide any thing to compare this finding to ... e.g., how would people do on their second attempt without any coaching? (In fact it turns out that people generally do better on their 2nd attempt, with or without coaching, because they have learned something about how to do the test.) Since we do not have a control group we do not know if the improvement is due to the coaching or due to the fact that the students have learned from taking the SAT before. 4. Below is a table for the mean change (test 2 – test 1) in verbal SAT scores and the standard deviation of the changes for the coached and uncoached students. n mean s.d. Group C: Coached 427 29 59 Group U: Uncoached 1233 21 52 Ho: µc = µu µc - µu = 0 µdiff = 0 The mean improvement in verbal SAT scores is the same for the populations of coached and uncoached students. Ha: µc > µu µc - µu > 0 µdiff > 0 The mean improvement in verbal SAT scores is larger for the population of coached students compared to the population of uncoached students. Compute the two-sample t-statistic as The pvalue is P(t > 2.49) = 1- P(t < 2.49) (with 426 d.f.) = .0066 (from a calculator). Since the pvalue is small, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the mean improvement in verbal SAT scores is larger for the coached students compared to the uncoached students. The results of our sample suggest a statistically significant difference in population means. b) Using two one-sample confidence intervals is not as appropriate as a two-sample method. In this case the fact that the very upper limit of one one-sample CI overlaps with the very lower limit of the other does not mean it’s plausible the two means are the same. It takes two implausible happenings – the first population mean needs to be near the tippy-top of its interval and the second population mean needs to be near the bottom of its interval. The two-sample method gives precise inference for the difference in the two means and correctly tells us that it is not very likely that the two means are the same. c) The test in (a) indicates the difference between coached/uncoached students is statistically significant. This question asks whether the difference – 8 points – is important in practice. Admissions officers would tell you that it would be better to spend your time on an extracurricular activity rather than spend time on a coaching course that will raise your score 8 points! (I’m not sure they are telling the truth but that’s what they would tell you.) d) This is an observational study. It was a survey of students who took the SAT twice and then recorded whether they had coaching or not. Because it is observational, we still can’t conclude that the significant difference is due to coaching (though this analysis is much better than the one in question 3). There may be remaining confounders that explain the difference – students who got coaching may be wealthier, have higher HS grades, be more dedicated, etc. 5. a) The treatments are the different seat belt laws (more specifically the fact that enforcement is different). The response is whether or not the driver is wearing their seatbelt. This is an observational study since the seatbelt laws already existed in the two cities. b) Only Hispanic females are used to control for possible confounders. For example, suppose females are more likely to wear seatbelts. In addition, suppose Boston has more females than New York. Then it would be possible to see a higher proportion of people not wearing their seatbelts in New York compared to Boston. This may be due to the fact that New York has less females and not due to the seatbelt laws. So we concentrate on only one group, female Hispanics, in order to control for the effect of gender and race. c) A 95% confidence interval for the true proportion of female Hispanic drivers who wear their seatbelts in NYC is between: d) A 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportion of female Hispanic drivers who wear their seatbelts in NYC compared to Boston is given by: e) Since 0 is not in the confidence interval calculated in part d, we would conclude that the proportion of female Hispanic drivers who wear their seatbelts is different in NYC and Boston; it is about .25 less in Boston. Because it is an observational study we can’t be sure that it is due to the difference in laws. One possible remaining confounder (remember it can’t be gender or race) is the age distribution of people in the cities.