Alcoholics Non-Alcoholics

50 30 z-Test: Two Sample for Means

34 45
35 35 Variable 1 Variable 2
43 45 Mean 40 37.875
49 33 Known Variance 48.29412 48.77885
31 36 Observations 35 40
35 37 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
43 34 z 1.318045672
42 36 P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.09374418
45 39 z Critical one-tail 2.326347874
34 35 P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.187488359
45 45 z Critical two-tail 2.575829304
30 56
40 54 Variance of alcoholic group 40 46.91
33 44 Variance of non- alcoholic group 37.875 47.56
35 46 Alpha
35 43
36 34
45 34 z-Test: Two Sample for Means
38 33
36 33 Variable 1 Variable 2
54 35 Mean 40 37.875
45 37 Known Variance 48.29 48.78
43 38 Observations 35 40
34 33 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
30 34 z 1.32
35 35 P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.093740404
50 31 z Critical one-tail 1.28
55 35 P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.187480809
46 37 z Critical two-tail 1.64
48 47
43 45
34 56
33 33
36 32
40 30
30
31
34
35
37.875
At a local high school, students were randomly assigned to one of two Math teachers - Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones. After the assignment, Mrs. Smith had 30 students,
and Mrs. Jones had 25 students.

Test the hypothesis that Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones are equally effective teachers. Use a 0.10 level of significance.

Mrs. Smith Mrs. Jones

89 99 Null Hypothesis The variances of the test scores for Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones are equal
92 98 Alternative Hypothesis The varinaces of the test scores for Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones are not equal. This is a two-tailed test
92 93 Tail Two tailed test

90 89 Critical Value Upper: 1.90 Lower: 0.53 Decision:

97 100 Alpha 0.10 *Our calculated F-statistic (1.0049) falls between the lower and
97 93 upper critical values (0.41 and 2.45).
93 97 *We fail to reject the null hypothesis.
92 94 VAR of Mrs. Smith 10.67 Interpretation:
93 95 VAR of Mrs. Jones 10.69 *The is not enough evidence at the 0.10 level of significance to
91 96 conclude that there is a difference in the variances of test scores
100 90 between Mrs. Smith's and Mrs. Jones classes. The observed
92 97 difference in variances could be due to random chance.
93 92 z-Test: Two Sample for Means
96 99
92 93 Variable 1 Variable 2
95 96 Mean 93.76666667 95.24
94 92 Known Variance 10.67 10.69
91 95 Observations 30 25
99 95 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
92 99 z -1.66
100 90 P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.047982405
98 93 z Critical one-tail 1.28
90 99 P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.095964809
94 97 z Critical two-tail 1.64
97 100
93
92
99
91
89
Pre Test Post Test
18 22 t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
21 25
16 17 Post Test Pre Test
22 24 Mean 20.45 18.4
19 16 Variance 16.47105263 9.936842105
24 29 Observations 20 20
17 20 Pearson Correlation 0.71747704
21 23 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
23 19 df 19
18 20 t Stat 3.23
14 15 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002197483
16 15 t Critical one-tail 1.73
16 18 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.004394966
19 26 t Critical two-tail 2.09
18 18
20 24
12 18 t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
22 25
15 19 Post Test Pre Test
17 16 Mean 20.45 18.4
Variance 16.47105263 9.936842105
Observations 20 20
Pearson Correlation 0.71747704
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 19
t Stat 3.23
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002197483
t Critical one-tail 1.73
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.004394966
t Critical two-tail 2.09
 group with new
group with usual
strategy
82 83 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
83 83
group with new
80 84 group with usual strategy
81 80 Mean 81.58333333 75.9
82 85 Variance 1.356060606 572.1
80 87 Observations 12 10
82 86 Pooled Variance 258.1908333
81 85 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
83 83 df 20
82 82 t Stat 0.826060777
80 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.20925768
83 t Critical one-tail 2.527977003
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.418515359
t Critical two-tail 2.84533971

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 81.58333333 83.8
Variance 1.356060606 4.177777778
Observations 12 10
Pooled Variance 2.625833333
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 20
t Stat -3.19
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002274851
t Critical one-tail 2.53
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.004549701
t Critical two-tail 2.85
Forty-four sixth graders were divided into 22 matched pairs, each pair having equal IQ's. One member of each pair was randomly selected to receive special
training. Then, all of the students were given an IQ test. Test results are summarized below. Alpha is 0.01

Pair With Training Without Training t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
1 79 83
2 92 86 Variable 1 Variable 2
3 87 60 Mean 80.06666667 75.33333333
4 63 69 Variance 98.4952381 161.5238095
5 70 71 Observations 15 15
6 86 95 Pooled Variance 130.0095238
7 92 90 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
8 83 95 df 28
9 79 58 t Stat 1.14
10 73 82 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1326148
11 78 75 t Critical one-tail 2.47
12 84 72 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.2652296
13 84 62 t Critical two-tail 2.76
14 60 73
15 91 59 Null Hypothesis There is no significant difference between the means of the groups. In other words, the training has no effect on the outcome

Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant difference between the means of the two groups. In other words, the training does have an
effect on the outcome.
Tail Two-tailed

Critical Value ±2.160

Alpha 0.1/1%

Decision The calculated t-statistic (1.14) is within the range of -2.76 to 2.76, we fail to reject the hypothesis

Interpretation There is no significant difference between the means of the IQ scores for those with and without training at the 1% significance level.
A public opinion poll surveyed a simple random sample of 15 people about their age. Respondents were classified by gender
(male or female). Alpha is 0.05

Male Female t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

89 56
56 63 Male Female
75 87 Mean 71.875 78
49 85 Variance 252.4107143 164.6666667
86 86 Observations 8 7
78 84 Pooled Variance 211.9134615
56 85 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
86 df 13
t Stat -0.81
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.215436071
t Critical one-tail 1.77
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.430872143
t Critical two-tail 2.16