PART I: SAMPLE EXERCISES

INDEPENDENT T-TEST

1. The performance on an achievement test in a beginning computer science course was

administered to two groups. One group had a previous computer science course in high
school; the other group did not. The test results are below. Assuming test scores are normal,
is there a significance between the achievement test of the two groups at 0.05 level?
Group 1 35 34 38 27 33 34 41 28 26 34
(with )
26 35 27 36 37 39

Group 2 12 29 16 22 23 19 21 12 30 23
(without
) 25 19 26 24 25 27 17 20

A. DV: Performances in achievement test

IV: Availability of computer science course in high school

B. Ho: There is NO difference in the performance in achievement test given the availability of
computer science course in high school.

Ha: There is A difference in the performance in achievement test given the availability of
computer science course in high school.

C. LOS: 0.05

D. TEST STATISTICS: Independent T-test

E. COMPUTATION/ANALYSIS

Values X SD T- value P - VALUE

Group 1 33.12 4.86 6.60 0.000 **
Group 2 21.66 5.20 6.63 0.000**
**- HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT
 F. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION

The data shows that we will reject Ho and accept Ha meaning there is a significant
difference in the performance in achievement test given the availability of computer science
course in high school as it gained 0.000 P value highly significant in the standard 0.05 LOS ,
P<0.05. This indicates that the performance of the students in the achievement test has something
to do with the availability of computer science course in high school.

2. Two methods were used to study the latent heat of ice fusion. Both method A ( an electrical
method) and method B (a method of mixtures) were conducted with the specimens cooled to – 0.72 ○
C. The data in the following table present the change in total heat from – 0. 72 ○ C to water at 0○ C in
calories per gram of mass.

Method 71.97 72.84 71.82 72.84 77.81 71.01 77.04 79.17 73.05 71.03
A

Method 68.32 63.84 63.88 64.86 63.86 65.03 66.95 68.96 64.02 61.54
B

A. DV: Change in total heat of specimens

IV: Different methods used for latent heat measurement

B. Ho: There is NO difference in the change of total heat of specimens given the difference methods
use for latent heat measurement.

Ha: There is A difference in the change of total heat of specimens given the difference methods
use for latent heat measurement.

C. LOS: 0.05

D. TEST STATISTICS: Independent T-test

E. COMPUTATION/ANALYSIS

Values X SD T- value P - VALUE

Method 1 73.85 2.99 7.33 0.000**
Method 2 65.12 2.29 7.33 0.000**
**- HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT

F. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION
Therefore we will Reject Ho, and accept Ha.

Thus, the change in total heat of specimens differs depending on the method used to detect latent
heat. The P- value is 0.000 shows that the difference is highly significant meaning the mixes have an
effect on the change in temperature of the samples.

3. The following experiment was run to determine whether or not different flavors of ice cream melt
at different speeds. Two flavors (A and B) of ice cream were stored in the same freezer in similar
sized containers. For each observation, one teaspoonful of ice cream was taken from the freezer,
transferred to a plate, and the melting time at room temperature was observed to the nearest second.
Nine observations were taken on each flavor. Do melting time differ of the two flavors? Test at 0.05
level. These are shown in the following table below:

Flavor Time in seconds

A 1225 567 575 1254 554 1242 1437 999 1114

B 840 870 940 972 925 4434 833 817 1013

A. DV: Melting time of ice cream

IV: Flavors of ice cream

B. Ho: There is NO difference in the melting time of ice cream given the different flavors of it.
Ha: There is A difference in the melting time of ice cream given the different flavors of it.

C. LOS: 0.05

D. TEST STATISTICS: Independent T-test

E. COMPUTATION/ANALYSIS

Values X SD T- value P - VALUE

Flavor A 996.33 343.61 -0.726 0.478 ns
Flavor B 1293.77 1179.49 -0.726 0.485 ns
ns- not significant ; P> 0.05 LOS

F. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION

This means fail to reject Ho.

Thus, there is significant difference in the melting time of ice cream given the
different flavors of it as it gained a 0.478 and 0.485 not significant in 0.05 LOS. This
indicates that the flavor of ice cream has NOTHING to do with the melting time of the
ice cream.

4. Trace metals in drinking water affect the flavor and an unusually high concentration can
pose a health hazard. Ten pairs of data were taken measuring zinc concentration in bottom water and
surface water. Does the data suggest that the true average concentration in the bottom water exceeds
that of surface water?

Location

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Zinc .830 .266 .568 .531 .808 .816 .651 .589 .769 .723
concentration in
bottom water

Zinc .415 .228 .290 .410 .205 .209 .332 .523 .411 .312
concentration in
surface water

A. DV: Zinc concentration measurement of the water

IV: Bottom and Surface Water

B. Ho: There is NO difference in the zinc concentration measurement of the water given that it is
either bottom or surface water.
Ha: There is A difference in the zinc concentration measurement of the water given that it is
either bottom or surface water.

C. LOS: 0.05

D. TEST STATISTICS: Independent T-test

E. COMPUTATION/ANALYSIS

Values X SD T- value P - VALUE

CONCENTRATION ON 0.65 0.17 4.97 0.000**
BOTTOM WATER

CONCENTRATION ON 0.33 0.10 4.97 0.000**

SURFACE WATER
** - HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT P<0.5
F. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION

P VALUE =0.00 means P value< 0.05 LOS , reject HO and accept Ha.
 Thus, there is a highly significant difference in the zinc concentration measurement
of the water whether it is on the bottom or surface water respectively as P value is highly significant
on 0.05 level of significance. It also proves that the true average concentration in the bottom water
exceeds that of surface water : Concentration in bottom water mean = 0.65 ; Concentration on water
surface = 0.33.

PART II:

USE YOUR 180 GENERATED RANDOM SAMPLES IN PS1, PERFORM THE SUGGESTED

STEPS IN HYPOTHEIS TEST: 1. DO MOTIVE AND JOBPERF DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY

WHEN GROUPED BY GENDER?

A. DV: MOTIVATION and JOB PERFORMANCE

IV: GENDER

B. Ho: There is NO difference in the motivation and Job Performance base on GENDER.

Ha: There is A difference in the motivation and Job Performance base on GENDER.

C. LOS: 0.05

D. TEST STATISTICS: Independent T-test

E. COMPUTATION/ANALYSIS

MOTIVATION
 Values X SD T- value P - VALUE
GENDER 1 3.87 0.34 -0.84 0.398 ns
GENDER 2 3.92 0.28 -0.93 0.351 ns
ns- not significant at 0.05 LOS ; P Value> 0.05

JOB PERFORMANCE
Values X SD T- value P - VALUE
GENDER 1 4.23 0.40 0.93 0.352 ns
GENDER 2 4.17 0.33 1.05 0.297 ns
ns- not significant at 0.05 LOS ; P Value> 0.05

F. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION

Therefore, Accept Ho and Reject Ha. There is no significant difference in the Motivation and Job
Performance base on GENDER as P values on both dependent variables reveals 0.398, 0.351 , 0.352
and 0.297 respectively not significant on 0.05 LOS. Hence, Gender has nothing to do on job
performance and motivation.