/*! 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 22 The technology underlying hip re... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

The technology underlying hip replacements has changed as these operations have become more popular (over 250,000 in the United States in 2008). Starting in 2003, highly durable ceramic hips were marketed. Unfortunately, for too many patients the increased durability has been counterbalanced by an increased incidence of squeaking. The May 11 , 2008 , issue of the New York Times reported that in one study of 143 individuals who received ceramic hips between 2003 and 2005,10 of the hips developed squeaking. a. Calculate a lower confidence bound at the \(95 \%\) confidence level for the true proportion of such hips that develop squeaking. b. Interpret the \(95 \%\) confidence level used in (a).

Short Answer

Expert verified
Lower bound: about 0.0343. 95% confidence implies 95% of intervals from samples will contain the true proportion.

Step by step solution

01

Define Known Values

We are given that out of 143 ceramic hip implants, 10 developed squeaking. We denote the sample proportion of squeaking hips as \( \hat{p} = \frac{10}{143} \). We are asked to find a lower confidence bound at \(95\%\) confidence level for the true proportion of squeaking hips.
02

Calculate Sample Proportion

Calculate the sample proportion using the formula: \( \hat{p} = \frac{x}{n} \), where \(x\) is the number of successes (squeaking hips) and \(n\) is the total number of trials (hips). Thus, \( \hat{p} = \frac{10}{143} \approx 0.0699.\)
03

Determine Z-Score for 95% Confidence

For a 95% confidence level, we look up the Z-score from the standard normal distribution table, which is \( Z = 1.645 \) for a one-sided confidence interval.
04

Calculate Standard Error

The standard error (SE) for the proportion is given by \( SE = \sqrt{ \frac{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})}{n} } \). Substitute \( \hat{p} = 0.0699 \) and \( n = 143 \) to get \( SE \approx \sqrt{ \frac{0.0699 \times 0.9301}{143} } \approx 0.0217. \)
05

Calculate Lower Confidence Bound

The lower confidence bound is given by \( \hat{p} - Z \times SE \). Substitute \( \hat{p} = 0.0699 \), \( Z = 1.645 \), and \( SE \approx 0.0217 \) into the equation: \( 0.0699 - 1.645 \times 0.0217 \approx 0.0343 \). Thus, the lower confidence bound is approximately \(0.0343\).
06

Interpret the Confidence Level

A 95% confidence level means that if we were to take many samples and compute the lower confidence bounds for each, we would expect 95% of those intervals to contain the true proportion of squeaking hips.

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.

Understanding Sample Proportion
A sample proportion is a simple way to estimate the proportion of a certain characteristic in a population. Think of it like getting a tiny snapshot of a bigger picture. In our case with ceramic hips, the sample proportion tells us how many of those hips are actually squeaking.
In this exercise, we find the sample proportion by dividing the number of squeaking hips by the total hips in the study.
  • Number of squeaking hips: 10
  • Total hips: 143
So, the sample proportion is calculated as:\[ \hat{p} = \frac{10}{143} \approx 0.0699 \]This means that approximately 6.99% of the ceramic hips in the sample study developed a squeak. By calculating this proportion, we create a starting point for further statistical analysis, allowing us to draw conclusions about the larger population of hip implants based on our sample.
The Role of Standard Error
The standard error (SE) gives us an idea about the variability or spread of our sample proportion if we took many samples. It's basically telling us how much we can expect our sample proportion to fluctuate from the true proportion in the entire population.
For calculating the standard error, we use the formula:\[ SE = \sqrt{ \frac{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})}{n} } \]In our exercise:
  • \( \hat{p} = 0.0699 \)
  • \( n = 143 \)
This gives:\[ SE \approx \sqrt{ \frac{0.0699 \times 0.9301}{143} } \approx 0.0217 \]The standard error of about 0.0217 indicates how much the sample proportion could vary from the true population proportion by just considering the chance variation in sampling.
Decoding the Z-Score
A Z-score is a measure that tells us how many standard deviations an element is from the mean. In the context of confidence intervals, it helps determine how certain we are about our estimates.
For a one-sided confidence interval at a 95% confidence level, we utilize a Z-score of 1.645. This value comes from standard normal distribution tables, which tell us the probability of certain values occurring.
  • A Z-score of 1.645 means that we expect our sample estimate to fall within a range that covers 95% of all possible outcomes just by pure chance.
By using a Z-score, we can build a boundary around our sample proportion to estimate where the true population proportion might be.
Finding the Lower Confidence Bound
The lower confidence bound provides a boundary or limit where we can say with a certain level of confidence that the true proportion lies above it. It's like saying, "I am sure that the proportion is at least this high."
To find this lower confidence bound, we use the formula:\[ \hat{p} - Z \times SE \]Substituting our values:
  • \( \hat{p} = 0.0699 \)
  • \( Z = 1.645 \)
  • \( SE = 0.0217 \)
Yields:\[ 0.0699 - 1.645 \times 0.0217 \approx 0.0343 \]Therefore, at a 95% confidence level, we can claim that the true proportion of squeaking hips in the larger population is at least 3.43%. This bound provides us with a level of assurance that, given our data, the true squeaking rate isn’t likely lower than this calculated figure.

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

A manufacturer of college textbooks is interested in estimating the strength of the bindings produced by a particular binding machine. Strength can be measured by recording the force required to pull the pages from the binding. If this force is measured in pounds, how many books should be tested to estimate the average force required to break the binding to within .1 \(\mathrm{lb}\) with \(95 \%\) confidence? Assume that \(\sigma\) is known to be \(.8\).

For each of 18 preserved cores from oil-wet carbonate reservoirs, the amount of residual gas saturation after a solvent injection was measured at water flood-out. Observations, in percentage of pore volume, were \(\begin{array}{llllll}23.5 & 31.5 & 34.0 & 46.7 & 45.6 & 32.5 \\ 41.4 & 37.2 & 42.5 & 46.9 & 51.5 & 36.4 \\ 44.5 & 35.7 & 33.5 & 39.3 & 22.0 & 51.2\end{array}\) (See "Relative Permeability Studies of Gas-Water Flow Following Solvent Injection in Carbonate Rocks," Soc. of Petroleum Engineers J., 1976: 23-30.) a. Construct a boxplot of this data, and comment on any interesting features. b. Is it plausible that the sample was selected from a normal population distribution? c. Calculate a \(98 \%\) CI for the true average amount of residual gas saturation.

The article "Evaluating Tunnel Kiln Performance" (Amer: Ceramic Soc. Bull., Aug. 1997: 59-63) gave the following summary information for fracture strengths (MPa) of \(n=169\) ceramic bars fired in a particular kiln: \(\bar{x}=89.10\), \(s=3.73\). a. Calculate a (two-sided) confidence interval for true average fracture strength using a confidence level of \(95 \%\). Does it appear that true average fracture strength has been precisely estimated? b. Suppose the investigators had believed a priori that the population standard deviation was about \(4 \mathrm{MPa}\). Based on this supposition, how large a sample would have been required to estimate \(\mu\) to within . \(5 \mathrm{MPa}\) with \(95 \%\) confidence?

A more extensive tabulation of \(t\) critical values than what appears in this book shows that for the \(t\) distribution with \(20 \mathrm{df}\), the areas to the right of the values \(.687, .860\), and \(1.064\) are \(.25, .20\), and .15, respectively. What is the confidence level for each of the following three confidence intervals for the mean \(\mu\) of a normal population distribution? Which of the three intervals would you recommend be used, and why? a. \((\bar{x}-.687 s / \sqrt{21}, \bar{x}+1.725 s / \sqrt{21})\) b. \((\bar{x}-.860 s / \sqrt{21}, \bar{x}+1.325 s / \sqrt{21})\) c. \((\bar{x}-1.064 s / \sqrt{21}, \bar{x}+1.064 s / \sqrt{21})\)

According to the article "Fatigue Testing of Condoms" (Polymer Testing, 2009: 567-571), "tests currently used for condoms are surrogates for the challenges they face in use," including a test for holes, an inflation test, a package seal test, and tests of dimensions and lubricant quality (all fertile territory for the use of statistical methodology!). The investigators developed a new test that adds cyclic strain to a level well below breakage and determines the number of cycles to break. A sample of 20 condoms of one particular type resulted in a sample mean number of 1584 and a sample standard deviation of 607 . Calculate and interpret a confidence interval at the \(99 \%\) confidence level for the true average number of cycles to break. [Note: The article presented the results of hypothesis tests based on the \(t\) distribution; the validity of these depends on assuming normal population distributions.]

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.