/*! 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 63 A sample of \(n=500(x, y)\) pair... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

A sample of \(n=500(x, y)\) pairs was collected and a test of \(H_{0}: \rho=0\) versus \(H_{\mathrm{a}}: \rho \neq 0\) was carried out. The resulting \(P\)-value was computed to be \(.00032\). a. What conclusion would be appropriate at level of significance .001? b. Does this small \(P\)-value indicate that there is a very strong relationship between \(x\) and \(y\) (a value of \(\rho\) that differs considerably from 0\()\) ? Explain. c. Now suppose a sample of \(n=10,000(x, y)\) pairs resulted in \(r=.022\). Test \(H_{0}: \rho=0\) versus \(H_{\mathrm{a}}: \rho \neq 0\) at level .05. Is the result statistically significant? Comment on the practical significance of your analysis.

Short Answer

Expert verified
a. Reject \(H_0\) at level .001. b. Small \(P\)-value shows statistical significance, not relationship strength. c. Yes, it's statistically significant, but it's not practically significant.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding Significance Level for Part a

The significance level is a threshold set to determine whether to reject the null hypothesis \(H_0\). In part a, we want to decide whether to accept or reject \(H_0: \rho = 0\) given a \(P\)-value of .00032 and a significance level of .001.
02

Comparing P-Value and Significance Level (Part a)

Compare the \(P\)-value (.00032) to the significance level (.001). Since .00032 < .001, we reject the null hypothesis \(H_0\). The data provides sufficient evidence to conclude that \(\rho eq 0\).
03

Evaluating Relationship Strength for Part b

Although the \(P\)-value is small, this does not indicate the strength of the relationship. A small \(P\)-value suggests statistical significance but doesn't measure effect size. A test finding \(\rho eq 0\) doesn't imply the relationship's strength; it only indicates that \(\rho\) is likely not zero.
04

Calculating Critical r-value for Part c

For a sample size of \(n=10,000\) with a significance level \(\alpha = 0.05\), the critical \(r\)-value can be approximated using the formula for the t-distribution. However, with large n, the critical \(r\) is approximately zero. Therefore, we can directly assess if \(r=.022\) is statistically significant using a p-value approach.
05

Determine Statistical Significance for Part c

A correlation of \(r = .022\) with \(n = 10,000\) is statistically significant if it results in a \(P\)-value less than the significance level of 0.05. Even very small correlation coefficients can be significant with large sample sizes. Given \(n = 10,000\), such a small \(r\) likely results in a \(P\)-value < 0.05, indicating statistical significance.
06

Assessing Practical Significance for Part c

Even if \(r = .022\) is statistically significant, its practical significance is minor. \(r\) is very close to zero, implying the effect size is negligible. While statistically significant due to the large sample size, it doesn't imply a meaningful or strong relationship between \(x\) and \(y\).

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.

Correlation Coefficient
The correlation coefficient, often represented by the symbol \( r \), is a statistic that quantifies the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables. It ranges from -1 to 1:
The value \( r = 1 \) indicates a perfect positive linear relationship, where as \( r = -1 \) signifies a perfect negative linear relationship.
If \( r = 0 \), it means there is no linear relationship between the variables.
In the context of hypothesis testing, a calculated correlation coefficient helps determine if there is a statistically significant relationship between variables, although it doesn't provide practical significance by itself.
Importance of Sample Size:
  • Small correlation coefficients in large samples might achieve statistical significance due to the power of large sample sizes, as seen when \( n = 10,000 \) resulted in \( r = 0.022 \).
  • In smaller samples, similar coefficients may not reach statistical significance.
Remember, while a correlation coefficient indicates the degree of association, it doesn't mean causation. Observational data can show correlation, but further investigation is needed to uncover causal relationships.
Statistical Significance
Statistical significance helps us determine if a result is likely due to chance or an actual effect in a population.
It is usually established through hypothesis tests, involving a significance level denoted by \( \alpha \). Commonly used \( \alpha \) is 0.05, but this exercise also uses 0.001, indicating a stricter criterion for significance.
  • A result is statistically significant if the \( P\)-value, derived from the test statistic, is less than the predefined \( \alpha \).
  • In the exercise, \( P \)-value of 0.00032 was compared with \( \alpha = 0.001 \), leading to rejection of the null hypothesis, suggesting a non-zero correlation coefficient \( \rho \).
Statistical significance doesn't equate to practical significance. A result might be significant statistically due to a large sample size or small variability in data but have little practical importance otherwise.
P-value
The \( P\)-value is a metric used to determine the significance of results in hypothesis testing.
It represents the probability of obtaining an effect as extreme as the observed one, assuming that the null hypothesis is true.
  • A small \( P\)-value, such as 0.00032, suggests that the observed data is unlikely under the null hypothesis of no effect or no association.
  • If the \( P\)-value is less than the chosen significance level \( \alpha \), we reject the null hypothesis, indicating statistical significance.
Beware a common misconception: a small \( P\)-value does not indicate the effect size or the strength of an association. Instead, it simply signals the rarity of the data occurring by chance.
The practical significance and real-world impact must be evaluated separately.
Null Hypothesis
In hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis \( H_0 \) assumes there is no effect or no relationship between variables in the population.
For correlations, \( H_0: \rho = 0 \) implies no linear correlation exists. It's the baseline default assumption in tests.
If evidence suggests otherwise, as with a small \( P\)-value, we may reject \( H_0 \) in favor of the alternative hypothesis \( H_a \), which in this case posits that \( \rho eq 0 \).
Important aspects in hypothesis testing:
  • Consistency in interpreting \( H_0 \) ensures conclusions are drawn based on statistical evidence.
  • Rejection of \( H_0 \) supports statistical but not necessarily practical or meaningful significance.
Maintaining rigor in hypothesis testing ensures conclusions are not only statistically valid but also reliable for informing further scientific inquiry or real-world decision-making.

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

The \(x\) values and standardized residuals for the chlorine flow/etch rate data of Exercise 51 (Section 12.4) are displayed in the accompanying table. Construct a standardized residual plot and comment on its appearance. $$ \begin{aligned} &\begin{array}{l|rrrrr} x & 1.50 & 1.50 & 2.00 & 2.50 & 2.50 \\ \hline e^{*} & .31 & 1.02 & -1.15 & -1.23 & .23 \end{array}\\\ &\begin{array}{l|rrrr} x & 3.00 & 3.50 & 3.50 & 4.00 \\ \hline e^{*} & .73 & -1.36 & 1.53 & .07 \end{array} \end{aligned} $$

As the air temperature drops, river water becomes supercooled and ice crystals form. Such ice can significantly affect the hydraulics of a river. The article "Laboratory Study of Anchor Ice Growth" (J. Cold Regions Engrg., 2001: 60-66) described an experiment in which ice thickness \((\mathrm{mm})\) was studied as a function of elapsed time ( \(\mathrm{hr}\) ) under specified conditions. The following data was read from a graph in the article: \(n=33 ; x=.17, .33, .50, .67, \ldots, 5.50\); \(y=.50,1.25,1.50,2.75,3.50,4.75,5.75,5.60\), \(7.00,8.00,8.25,9.50,10.50,11.00,10.75,12.50\), \(12.25,13.25,15.50,15.00,15.25,16.25,17.25\), \(18.00,18.25,18.15,20.25,19.50,20.00,20.50\), \(20.60,20.50,19.80\). a. The \(r^{2}\) value resulting from a least squares fit is \(.977\). Given the high \(r^{2}\), does it seem appropriate to assume an approximate linear relationship? b. The residuals, listed in the same order as the \(x\) values, are $$ \begin{array}{rrrrrrr} -1.03 & -0.92 & -1.35 & -0.78 & -0.68 & -0.11 & 0.21 \\ -0.59 & 0.13 & 0.45 & 0.06 & 0.62 & 0.94 & 0.80 \\ -0.14 & 0.93 & 0.04 & 0.36 & 1.92 & 0.78 & 0.35 \\ 0.67 & 1.02 & 1.09 & 0.66 & -0.09 & 1.33 & -0.10 \\ -0.24 & -0.43 & -1.01 & -1.75 & -3.14 & & \end{array} $$ Plot the residuals against \(x\), and reconsider the question in (a). What does the plot suggest?

Suppose that in a certain chemical process the reaction time \(y\) (hr) is related to the temperature \(\left({ }^{\circ} \mathrm{F}\right)\) in the chamber in which the reaction takes place according to the simple linear regression model with equation \(y=5.00-.01 x\) and \(\sigma=.075\). a. What is the expected change in reaction time for a \(1^{\circ} \mathrm{F}\) increase in temperature? For a \(10^{\circ} \mathrm{F}\) increase in temperature? b. What is the expected reaction time when temperature is \(200^{\circ} \mathrm{F}\) ? When temperature is \(250^{\circ} \mathrm{F}\) ? c. Suppose five observations are made independently on reaction time, each one for a temperature of \(250^{\circ} \mathrm{F}\). What is the probability that all five times are between \(2.4\) and \(2.6 \mathrm{~h}\) ? d. What is the probability that two independently observed reaction times for temperatures \(1^{\circ}\) apart are such that the time at the higher temperature exceeds the time at the lower temperature?

How does lateral acceleration-side forces experienced in turns that are largely under driver control-affect nausea as perceived by bus passengers? The article "Motion Sickness in Public Road Transport: The Effect of Driver, Route, and Vehicle" (Ergonomics, 1999: 1646-1664) reported data on \(x=\) motion sickness dose (calculated in accordance with a British standard for evaluating similar motion at sea) and \(y=\) reported nausea \((\%)\). Relevant summary quantities are $$ \begin{aligned} &n=17, \quad \sum x_{i}=222.1, \quad \sum y_{i}=193 \\ &\sum x_{i}^{2}=3056.69, \quad \sum x_{i} y_{i}=2759.6 \\ &\sum y_{i}^{2}=2975 \end{aligned} $$ Values of dose in the sample ranged from \(6.0\) to \(17.6\). a. Assuming that the simple linear regression model is valid for relating these two variables (this is supported by the raw data), calculate and interpret an estimate of the slope parameter that conveys information about the precision and reliability of estimation. b. Does it appear that there is a useful linear relationship between these two variables? Answer the question by employing the \(P\) value approach. c. Would it be sensible to use the simple linear regression model as a basis for predicting \% nausea when dose \(=5.0 ?\) Explain your reasoning. d. When MINITAB was used to fit the simple linear regression model to the raw data, the observation \((6.0,2.50)\) was flagged as possibly having a substantial impact on the fit. Eliminate this observation from the sample and recalculate the estimate of part (a). Based on this, does the observation appear to be exerting an undue influence?

Torsion during hip external rotation and extension may explain why acetabular labral tears occur in professional athletes. The article "Hip Rotational Velocities During the Full Golf Swing" \((J\). Sport Sci. Med., 2009: 296 - 299) reported on an investigation in which lead hip internal peak rotational velocity \((x)\) and trailing hip peak external rotational velocity \((y)\) were determined for a sample of 15 golfers. Data provided by the article's authors was used to calculate the following summary quantities: $$ \begin{aligned} &S_{x x}=64,732.83, \quad S_{y y}=130,566.96, \\ &S_{x y}=44,185.87 \end{aligned} $$ Separate normal probability plots showed very substantial linear patterns. a. Calculate a point estimate for the population correlation coefficient. b. If the simple linear regression model were fit to the data, what proportion of variation in external velocity could be attributed to the model relationship? What would happen to this proportion if the roles of \(x\) and \(y\) were reversed? Explain. c. Carry out a test at significance level .01 to decide whether there is a linear relationship between the two velocities in the sampled population; your conclusion should be based on a \(P\)-value. d. Would the conclusion of (c) have changed if you had tested appropriate hypotheses to decide whether there is a positive linear association in the population? What if a significance level of \(.05\) rather than \(.01\) had been used?

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.