/*! 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} Q71 SE The article "Quantitative MRI an... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

The article "Quantitative MRI and Electrophysiology of Preoperative Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in a Female Population" (Ergonomics, 1997: 642-649) reported that (-473.13,1691.9) was a large-sample 95 % confidence interval for the difference between true average thenar muscle volume \(\left( {m{m^3}} \right.)\) for sufferers of carpal tunnel syndrome and true average volume for nonsufferers. Calculate and interpret a 90 % confidence interval for this difference.

Short Answer

Expert verified

\(( - 299.3,1517.9)\)

Step by step solution

01

To Calculate and interpret a 90 % confidence interval for this difference.

For m, n large enough, confidence interval for\({\mu _1} - {\mu _2}\) with confidence level of approximately\(100(1 - \alpha )\% \) is

\(\bar x - \bar y \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} \)

where + and - give the adequate upper/lower limit of the interval. By replacing\({z_{\alpha /2}} by {z_\alpha }\) and pm with only + and - an upper/lower bound is obtained.

Value\(\bar x - \bar y\) is in the middle of the interval (the center), thus

\(\bar x - \bar y = \frac{{ - 473.3 + 1691.9}}{2} = 609.3\)

Value for

\(\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} \)

can be obtained from

\({z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} = \frac{w}{2}\)

where\(w\)is the width of interval

\(w = 1691.9 - ( - 473.3) = 2165.2\)

02

Step 2: Calculate and interpret a 90 % confidence interval for this difference.

Also, \({z_{\alpha /2}} for 95\% is {z_{\alpha /2}} = {z_{0.025}} = 1.96,\) which was obtained using the table in the appendix. Therefore,

\(\begin{array}{l}{z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} = \frac{w}{2}\\1.96 \times \sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} = 1082.6 \\\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} = 552.35\end{array}\)

The only missing value to compute 90 % confidence interval is \({z_{\alpha /2}} = {z_{0.1/2}} = 1.645\) which was obtained using the table in the appendix. Thus, the 90% \(Cl\ ) for this difference is

\(\bar x - \bar y \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} = 609.3 \pm 1.645 \times 552.35\ )

\( = ( - 299.3,1517.9)\)

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 91影视!

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

Refer to Example 9.7. Does the data suggest that the standard deviation of the strength distribution for fused specimens is smaller than that for not-fused specimens? Carry out a test at significance level .01.

Reconsider the data of Example \(9.6\), and calculate a \(95\% \)upper confidence bound for the ratio of the standard deviation of the triacetate porosity distribution to that of the cotton porosity distribution.

Scientists and engineers frequently wish to compare two different techniques for measuring or determining the value of a variable. In such situations, interest centers on testing whether the mean difference in measurements is zero. The article "Evaluation of the Deuterium Dilution Technique Against the Test Weighing Procedure for the Determination of Breast Milk Intake" (Amer: J. of Clinical Nutr., \(1983: 996 - 1003\)) reports the accompanying data on amount of milk ingested by each of\(14\)randomly selected infants.

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;Infant\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;}\\{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;1\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;2\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;3\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;4\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;5}\\{D method\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;1509\;\;\;\;\;1418\;\;\;\;\;1561\;\;\;\;\;1556\;\;\;\;\;2169}\\{W method\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;1498\;\;\;\;\;1254\;\;\;\;\;1336\;\;\;\;\;1565\;\;\;\;\;2000}\\{jifference\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;11\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;164\;\;\;\;\;\;\;225\;\;\;\;\;\;\; - 9\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;169}\end{array}\)

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{}&{Infant}&{}&{}&{}&{}\\{}&6&7&8&9&{10}\\{DD method}&{1760}&{1098}&{1198}&{1479}&{1281}\\{TW method}&{1318}&{1410}&{1129}&{1342}&{1124}\\{Difference}&{442}&{ - 312}&{69}&{137}&{157}\end{array}\)

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{}&{Infant}&{}&{}&{}\\{}&{11}&{12}&{13}&{14}\\{DD method}&{1414}&{1954}&{2174}&{2058}\\{TW method}&{1468}&{1604}&{1722}&{1518}\\{Difference}&{ - 54}&{350}&{452}&{540}\end{array}\)

a. Is it plausible that the population distribution of differences is normal?

b. Does it appear that the true average difference between intake values measured by the two methods is something other than zero? Determine the\(P\)-value of the test, and use it to reach a conclusion at significance level . \(05\).

The accompanying summary data on total cholesterol level (mmol/l) was obtained from a sample of Asian postmenopausal women who were vegans and another sample of such women who were omnivores (鈥淰egetarianism, Bone Loss, and Vitamin D: A Longitudinal Study in Asian Vegans and Non-Vegans,鈥 European J. of Clinical Nutr., 2012: 75鈥82)

Diet sample sample sample

Size mean SD

\(\overline {\underline {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{ Vegan }&{88}&{5.10}&{1.07}\\{ Omnivore }&{93}&{5.55}&{1.10}\\{}&{}&{}&{}\end{array}} } \)

Calculate and interpret a \(99\% \) \(CI\) for the difference between population mean total cholesterol level for vegans and population mean total cholesterol level for omnivores (the cited article included a \(95\% \)\(CI\)). (Note: The article described a more sophisticated statistical analysis for investigating bone density loss taking into account other characteristics (鈥渃ovariates鈥) such as age, body weight, and various nutritional factors; the resulting CI included 0, suggesting no diet effect.

Which way of dispensing champagne, the traditional vertical method or a tilted beer-like pour,preserves more of the tiny gas bubbles that improve flavor and aroma? The following data was reported in the article 鈥淥n the Losses of Dissolved \(C{O_2}\) during Champagne Serving鈥 (J. Agr. Food Chem., 2010: 8768鈥8775)

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{ Temp \left( {^^\circ C} \right)}&{ Type of Pour }&n&{ Mean (g/L)}&{ SD }\\{18}&{ Traditional }&4&{4.0}&{.5}\\{18}&{ Slanted }&4&{3.7}&{.3}\\{12}&{ Traditional }&4&{3.3}&{.2}\\{12}&{ Slanted }&4&{2.0}&{.3}\\{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\end{array}\)

Assume that the sampled distributions are normal.

a. Carry out a test at significance level \(.01\) to decide whether true average\(C{O_2}\)loss at \(1{8^o}C\) for the traditional pour differs from that for the slanted pour.

b. Repeat the test of hypotheses suggested in (a) for the \(1{2^o}\) temperature. Is the conclusion different from that for the \(1{8^o}\) temperature? Note: The \(1{2^o}\) result was reported in the popular media

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.