/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 6 The time required for kindergart... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

The time required for kindergarten children to assemble a specific Lego creation was measured for children who had been instructed for four different lengths of time. Five children were randomly assigned to each instructional group. The length of time (in minutes) to assemble the Lego creation was recorded for each child in the experiment. $$ \begin{array}{rlll} \hline & {\text { Training Period (hours) }} \\ \hline .5 & 1.0 & 1.5 & 2.0 \\ \hline 8 & 9 & 4 & 4 \\ 14 & 7 & 6 & 7 \\ 9 & 5 & 7 & 5 \\ 12 & 8 & 8 & 5 \\ 10 & 9 & 6 & 4 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ Use the Kruskal-Wallis \(H\) -Test to determine whether there is a difference in the distribution of times for the four different lengths of instructional time. Use \(\alpha=01\).

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: No, there is no significant difference in the distribution of times required to assemble the Lego creation among the four groups at a significance level of 0.01, as the calculated H value (9.81) was less than the critical chi-squared value (11.3449).

Step by step solution

01

Compute the combined ranks for the data

First, we must rank all of the times, and then compute the combined ranks for each group. $$ \begin{array}{c||c|c|c|c} \hline \text{Training Period} & 0.5 & 1.0 & 1.5 & 2.0 \\ \hline\hline \text{Ranks} & 17 & 12 & 7.5 & 7.5 \\ \hline & 20.5 & 11 & 9.5 & 9.5 \\ \hline & 13 & 4 & 9.5 & 9.5 \\ \hline & 18 & 12 & 13 & 9.5 \\ \hline & 15 & 14 & 9.5 & 7.5 \\ \hline \end{array} $$
02

Calculate the sums of ranks for each group

Next, we will calculate the sums of ranks for each group and find the average rank for each group. $$ \begin{array}{c|rrrr|r} \hline \text{Group} & R_i & & & & \sum R_i \\ \hline 0.5 & 17 & 20.5 & 13 & 18 & 15 & 83.5\\ \hline 1.0 & 12 & 11 & 4 & 12 & 14 & 53\\ \hline 1.5 & 7.5 & 7.5 & 9.5 & 9.5 & 13 & 47.5\\ \hline 2.0 & 7.5 & 7.5 & 9.5 & 9.5 & 7.5 & 41.5\\ \hline \end{array} $$
03

Calculate the Kruskal-Wallis H statistic

Now, we will calculate the Kruskal-Wallis H statistic using the formula: $$ H = \frac{12}{N(N+1)}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\frac{T_{i}^{2}}{n_{i}} - 3(N+1) $$ Where: - \(k\) is the number of groups - \(T_i\) is the sum of the ranks of the \(i\)-th group - \(n_i\) is the number of observations in the \(i\)-th group - \(N\) is the total number of observations $$ H = \frac{12}{20(21)} \left[ \frac{83.5^2}{5} + \frac{53^2}{5} + \frac{47.5^2}{5} + \frac{41.5^2}{5} \right] - 3(21) $$ After performing the calculations, we get: $$ H = 9.81 $$
04

Find the critical chi-squared value

Following, we will find the critical chi-squared value, \(\chi^{2}_{0.01, k-1}\), to compare with the H statistic calculated above. Since the significance level, \(\alpha = 0.01\), and there are 4 groups (\(k = 4\)), the degrees of freedom will be \(k - 1 = 3\). Referring to a chi-square distribution table, we find that: $$ \chi^{2}_{0.01, 3} = 11.3449 $$
05

Compare the H statistic and the critical chi-squared value

Lastly, we will compare the Kruskal-Wallis H statistic (\(H = 9.81\)) to the critical chi-squared value (\(\chi^{2}_{0.01, 3} = 11.3449\)). Since H < \(\chi^{2}_{0.01, 3}\), $$ 9.81 < 11.3449 $$ we fail to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, at a significance level of 0.01, we cannot conclude that there is a difference in the distribution of times for the four different lengths of instructional time for kindergarten children assembling the Lego creation.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Nonparametric Statistics
When examining data, statisticians often have to decide whether to use parametric or nonparametric statistical methods. Nonparametric statistics come into play when the data does not adhere to the common assumptions associated with parametric tests, such as being normally distributed. Importantly, nonparametric tests do not rely on data coming from distributions with specific parameters.

This approach is particularly useful when you have ordinal data or when the sample size is small, making it hard to satisfy the requirements of parametric tests. Nonparametric methods, such as the Kruskal-Wallis H test, are less powerful than their parametric counterparts but have the significant advantage of requiring fewer assumptions about the data distribution. This makes the Kruskal-Wallis H test an attractive option when analyzing the distribution of times across different groups with varied sample sizes or non-normal distributions, as with our kindergarten Lego assembly task.
Statistical Significance
Statistical significance is a concept that enables researchers to determine whether the results of an experiment or study could be due to chance or whether they reflect a real effect. It is commonly associated with a p-value, which measures the probability that the observed data would occur by random chance if the null hypothesis were true.

In the context of the Kruskal-Wallis H test, statistical significance helps us decide whether any observed differences in assembly times are likely due to the varying training periods, or simply due to random variation. By setting a significance level (denoted by \( \alpha \)), researchers can control the rate of Type I errors – falsely claiming a result is significant when it's not. Common choices for \( \alpha \) are 0.05 or 0.01. If the computed H statistic is greater than the critical value from the chi-square distribution for the chosen \( \alpha \) level, it suggests that at least one of the groups differs significantly. However, if the H statistic is lower, as in our example with \( H = 9.81 \), we fail to reject the null hypothesis, implying that any observed differences could well be due to chance.
Chi-square Distribution
The chi-square distribution is an essential tool in nonparametric statistics, particularly when evaluating statistical significance. It's a family of distributions that take only positive values and are skewed to the right, with the skewness decreasing as the degrees of freedom increase.

In the Kruskal-Wallis H test, once the H statistic is calculated, it needs to be compared against a critical value from the chi-square distribution with the appropriate degrees of freedom, usually \( k - 1 \) where \( k \) is the number of groups being compared. The degrees of freedom partly reflect how 'flexible' the statistical model is. The chi-square distribution tables, or computational tools, provide these critical values, which determine the threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis. In the case of our Lego assembly study, we use the \( \chi^2 \) distribution with three degrees of freedom (since we have four groups) at an alpha level of 0.01 to obtain a critical value which is compared to our computed H statistic of 9.81 to determine statistical significance.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Calculate the p-value for the test. What is your conclusion with \(\alpha=.05 ?\) Independent random samples of size \(n_{1}=20\) and \(n_{2}=25\) are drawn from nonnormal populations 1 and 2 . The value of \(T_{1}=252\). You wish to determine whether there is a difference in the two population distributions.

The weights of turtles caught in two different lakes were measured to compare the effects of the two lake environments on turtle growth. All the turtles were the same age and were tagged before being released into the lakes. The weights for \(n_{1}=10\) tagged turtles caught in lake 1 and \(n_{2}=8\) caught in lake 2 are listed here: $$ \begin{array}{lllllllllll} \hline \text { Lake } & \multicolumn{7}{c} {\text { Weight (grams) }} \\ \hline 1 & 399 & 430 & 394 & 411 & 416 & 391 & 396 & 456 & 360 & 433 \\ 2 & 345 & 368 & 399 & 385 & 351 & 337 & 354 & 391 & & \\ \hline \end{array} $$ Do the data provide sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the distributions of weights for the tagged turtles exposed to the two lake environments? Use the Wilcoxon rank sum test with \(\alpha=.05 .\)

Decide whether the alternative hypothesis for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test is one- or two-tailed. Then give the null and alternative hypotheses for the test. You want to decide whether distribution 1 lies to the left of distribution 2 .

AIDS Research Scientists have shown that a newly developed vaccine can shield rhesus monkeys from infection by the SIV virus, a virus closely related to the HIV virus which affects humans. In their work, researchers gave each of \(n=6\) rhesus monkeys five inoculations with the SIV vaccine and one week after the last vaccination, each monkey received an injection of live SIV. Two of the six vaccinated monkeys showed no evidence of SIV infection for as long as a year and a half after the SIV injection. \({ }^{5}\) Scientists were able to isolate the SIV virus from the other four vaccinated monkeys, although these animals showed no sign of the disease. Does this information contain sufficient evidence to indicate that the vaccine is effective in protecting monkeys from SIV? Use \(\alpha=.10 .\)

Property Values In Chapter 10 , you compared the property evaluations of two tax assessors. \(A\) and \(B\), as shown in the table below. $$ \begin{array}{ccc} \hline \text { Property } & \text { Assessor } \mathrm{A} & \text { Assessor B } \\ \hline 1 & 276.3 & 275.1 \\ 2 & 288.4 & 286.8 \\ 3 & 280.2 & 277.3 \\ 4 & 294.7 & 290.6 \\ 5 & 268.7 & 269.1 \\ 6 & 282.8 & 281.0 \\ 7 & 276.1 & 275.3 \\ 8 & 279.0 & 279.1 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ a. Use the sign test to determine whether the data present sufficient evidence to indicate that assessor A tends to give higher assessments than assessor B; that is, \(P\left(x_{\mathrm{A}}\right.\) exceeds \(\left.x_{\mathrm{B}}\right)>1 / 2\). Test by using a value of \(\alpha\) near. \(05 .\) Find the \(p\) -value for the test and interpret its value. b. In Chapter 10 , we used the \(t\) statistic to test the null hypothesis that assessor A tends to give higher assessments than assessor \(\mathrm{B}\), resulting in a \(t\) -value of \(t=2.82\) with \(p\) -value \(=.013 .\) Do these test results agree with the results in part a? Explain why the answers are (or are not) consistent.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.