/*! 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 59 A random sample of \(n=347\) stu... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

A random sample of \(n=347\) students was selected, and each one was asked to complete several questionnaires, from which a Coping Humor Scale value \(x\) and a Depression Scale value \(y\) were determined ("Depression and Sense of Humor" (Psychological Reports [1994]: \(1473-1474\) ). The resulting value of the sample correlation coefficient was \(-.18\). a. The investigators reported that \(P\) -value \(<.05 .\) Do you agree? b. Is the sign of \(r\) consistent with your intuition? Explain. (Higher scale values correspond to more developed sense of humor and greater extent of depression.) c. Would the simple linear regression model give accurate predictions? Why or why not?

Short Answer

Expert verified
a. Yes, the p-value < .05 suggests the result is statistically significant. b. The negative sign of \(r\) suggests an inverse relationship between sense of humor and depression, which could be counter-intuitive. c. A simple linear regression model would not necessarily provide accurate predictions for this scenario, as \(r = -0.18\) suggests only a weak relationship.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding P-value

The P-value is the probability that, if the null hypothesis was true, we would observe a statistic at least as extreme as the one estimated from the sample data. Here, the researchers reported that the P-value < .05, which typically indicates a significant result at the 0.05 level. This means there's a less than 5% chance of observing a correlation coefficient as extreme as -0.18 if there was truly no relationship between coping humor and depression scale scores.
02

Sign of Correlation Coefficient

The correlation coefficient measures the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables. It ranges from -1 to 1. Positive values indicate a positive relationship (as one variable increases, so does the other), while negative values indicate a negative relationship (as one variable increases, the other decreases). Considering that higher scale values correspond to a more developed sense of humor (x) and greater depression (y), a negative coefficient (-0.18) suggests that as one's sense of humor increases, their extent of depression decreases, which might be counter-intuitive due to expectations.
03

Evaluating the Accuracy of Linear Regression Model

A simple linear regression model would not necessarily give accurate predictions here. While the correlation is statistically significant, the value of r = -0.18 suggests only a weak negative relationship. There are likely many other variables at play affecting depression, so the prediction of the depression scale based only on the coping humor scale could be inaccurate. Significance doesn't imply the strength or predictive power of the relationship.

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.

P-value Significance
When researchers are investigating a hypothesis, they often seek to understand whether the observations they've made are due to chance or if they reflect a true effect in the population. A key metric used in this determination is the P-value, which is a statistical measure that helps scientists and statisticians determine the significance of their results.

The P-value is calculated from hypothesis testing, which usually involves setting up a null hypothesis that states there is no effect or no difference, against an alternative hypothesis that states there is a significant effect. If the P-value is lower than a predefined level of significance, typically 0.05 or 5%, it suggests that the observed data would be very unlikely under the null hypothesis. In the context of the exercise, the P-value was reported to be less than 0.05, indicating that the negative relationship between coping humor and depression is statistically significant and less likely to be due to random chance.

However, it's crucial to remember that a low P-value does not necessarily mean the effect is practically important or large; it merely suggests that the effect is unlikely to be the result of random variation within the data.
Correlation Coefficient Interpretation
The interpretation of the correlation coefficient is crucial in understanding the nature of the relationship between two variables. This coefficient, often denoted as r, can range from -1 to 1.

A value of -1 indicates a perfect negative linear relationship, meaning as one variable increases, the other decreases in a perfectly predictable pattern. Similarly, a value of 1 indicates a perfect positive linear relationship. A value of 0, on the other hand, signifies no linear relationship between the variables.

In the case of our exercise, the sample correlation coefficient of -0.18 suggests a slight negative correlation: as the sense of humor increases (as measured by the coping humor scale), the level of depression (measured by the depression scale) tends to decrease. However, since the correlation is relatively close to 0, it indicates that the relationship is weak and not highly predictive. This implies that while there may be a tendency for these variables to move inversely, other factors likely play a significant role in an individual's level of depression.
Simple Linear Regression Model
A simple linear regression model is a fundamental statistical tool used for predicting the value of one variable based on the value of another. It assumes a linear relationship between the two variables.

In our example, the simple linear regression model would use coping humor scores to predict depression scores. While the statistically significant correlation suggests some degree of linear association, the small magnitude of the correlation coefficient (-0.18) indicates that the relationship between these variables is weak. Therefore, the predictability of the regression model might be limited. This is because the model, being 'simple', does not account for other contributing factors or complexities of human psychology that would affect the depression scale scores.

Moreover, when using a regression model, one should also consider the r-squared value, which provides information on how much variance in the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variable. A low r-squared value, which is likely in this case given the weak correlation, would further suggest that the simple linear regression model may not be the best tool for making accurate predictions in this context.

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

An}\( experiment to study the relationship between \)x=\( time spent exercising (min) and \)y=\( amount of oxygen consumed during the exercise period resulted in the following summary statistics. $$ \begin{aligned} &n=20 \quad \sum x-50 \quad \sum y-16,705 \quad \sum x^{2}-150 \\ &\sum y^{2}=14,194,231 \quad \sum x y=44,194 \end{aligned} $$ a. Estimate the slope and \)y\( intercept of the population regression line. b. One sample observation on oxygen usage was 757 for a 2 -min exercise period. What amount of oxygen consumption would you predict for this exercise period, and what is the corresponding residual? c. Compute a \)99 \%$ confidence interval for the true average change in oxygen consumption associated with a 1 -min increase in exercise time.

A regression of \(y=\) sunburn index for a pea plant on \(x=\) distance from an ultraviolet light source was considered in Exercise 13.22. The data and summary statistics presented there give $$ \begin{aligned} &n=15 \quad \bar{x}=40.60 \quad \sum(x-\bar{x})^{2}=3311.60 \\ &b=-.0565 \quad a=4.500 \quad \text { SSResid }=.8430 \end{aligned} $$ a. Calculate a \(95 \%\) confidence interval for the true average sunburn index when the distance from the light source is \(35 \mathrm{~cm}\). b. When two \(95 \%\) confidence intervals are computed, it can be shown that the simultaneous confidence level is at least \([100-2(5)] \%=90 \%\). That is, if both intervals are computed for a first sample, for a second sample, yet again for a third, and so on, in the long run at least \(90 \%\) of the samples will result in intervals both of which capture the values of the corresponding population characteristics. Calculate confidence intervals for the true mean sunburn index when the distance is \(35 \mathrm{~cm}\) and when the distance is \(45 \mathrm{~cm}\) in such a way that the simultaneous confidence level is at least \(90 \%\). c. If two \(99 \%\) intervals were computed, what do you think could be said about the simultaneous confidence level? d. If a \(95 \%\) confidence interval were computed for the true mean index when \(x=35\), another \(95 \%\) confidence interval were computed when \(x=40\), and yet another one when \(x=45\), what do you think would be the simultaneous confidence level for the three resulting intervals? e. Retum to Part (d) and answer the question posed there if the individual confidence level for each interval were \(99 \%\).

'The article "Photocharge Effects in Dye Sensitized \(\mathrm{Ag}[\mathrm{Br}, \mathrm{I}]\) Emulsions at Millisecond Range Exposures" (Photographic Science and Engineering [1981]: \(138-144\) ) gave the accompanying data on \(x=\%\) light absorption and \(y=\) peak photovoltage. \(\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrrr}x & 4.0 & 8.7 & 12.7 & 19.1 & 21.4 & 24.6 & 28.9 & 29.8 & 30.5 \\ y & 0.12 & 0.28 & 0.55 & 0.68 & 0.85 & 1.02 & 1.15 & 1.34 & 1.29\end{array}\) \(\sum x=179.7 \quad \sum x^{2}=4334.41\) \(\sum y=7.28 \quad \sum y^{2}=7.4028 \quad \sum x y=178.683\) a. Construct a scatterplot of the data. What does it suggest? b. Assuming that the simple linear regression model is appropriate, obtain the equation of the estimated regression line. c. How much of the observed variation in peak photovoltage can be explained by the model relationship? d. Predict peak photovoltage when percent absorption is 19.1, and compute the value of the corresponding residual. e. The authors claimed that there is a useful linear relationship between the two variables. Do you agree? Carry out a formal test. f. Give an estimate of the average change in peak photovoltage associated with a \(1 \%\) increase in light absorption. Your estimate should convey information about the precision of estimation. g. Give an estimate of true average peak photovoltage when percentage of light absorption is 20 , and do so in a way that conveys information about precision.

An investigation of the relationship between traffic flow \(x\) (thousands of cars per \(24 \mathrm{hr}\) ) and lead content \(y\) of bark on trees near the highway (mg/g dry weight) yielded the accompanying data. A simple linear regression model was fit, and the resulting estimated regression line was \(\hat{y}=28.7+33.3 x .\) Both residuals and standardized residuals are also given. \(\begin{array}{lrrrrr}\text { iduals are also given. } & & & & \\ x & 8.3 & 8.3 & 12.1 & 12.1 & 17.0 \\ y & 227 & 312 & 362 & 521 & 640 \\ \text { Residual } & -78.1 & 6.9 & -69.6 & 89.4 & 45.3 \\ \text { St. resid. } & -0.99 & 0.09 & -0.81 & 1.04 & 0.51\end{array}\) \(\begin{array}{lrrrrr}x & 17.0 & 17.0 & 24.3 & 24.3 & 24.3 \\ y & 539 & 728 & 945 & 738 & 759 \\ \text { Residual } & -55.7 & 133.3 & 107.2 & -99.8 & -78.8 \\\ \text { St. resid. } & -0.63 & 1.51 & 1.35 & -1.25 & -0.99\end{array}\) a. Plot the \((x\), residual \()\) pairs. Does the resulting plot suggest that a simple linear regression model is an appropriate choice? Explain your reasoning. b. Construct a standardized residual plot. Does the plot differ significantly in general appearance from the plot in Part (a)?

The article "Performance Test Conducted for a Gas Air-Conditioning System" (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineering [1969]: 54 ) reported the following data on maximum outdoor temperature \((x)\) and hours of chiller operation per day \((y)\) for a 3 -ton residential gas air- conditioning system: \(\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}x & 72 & 78 & 80 & 86 & 88 & 92 \\ y & 4.8 & 7.2 & 9.5 & 14.5 & 15.7 & 17.9\end{array}\) Suppose that the system is actually a prototype model, and the manufacturer does not wish to produce this model unless the data strongly indicate that when maximum outdoor temperature is \(82^{\circ} \mathrm{F}\), the true average number of hours of chiller operation is less than \(12 .\) The appropriate hypothesis is then $$ H_{0}: \alpha+\beta(82)=12 \text { versus } H_{a}: \alpha+\beta(82)<12 $$

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.