/*! 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 49 The article "Portable MP3 Player... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

The article "Portable MP3 Player Ownership Reaches New High" (Ipsos Insight, June 29,2006 ) reported that in \(2006,20 \%\) of those in a random sample of 1112 Americans age 12 and older indicated that they owned an MP3 player. In a similar survey conducted in \(2005,\) only \(15 \%\) reported owning an \(\mathrm{MP} 3\) player. Suppose that the 2005 figure was also based on a random sample of size \(1112 .\) Estimate the difference in the proportion of Americans age 12 and older who owned an MP3 player in 2006 and the corresponding proportion for 2005 using a \(95 \%\) confidence interval. Is zero included in the interval? What does this tell you about the change in this proportion from 2005 to \(2006 ?\)

Short Answer

Expert verified
The estimated difference in the proportion of Americans age 12 and older who owned an MP3 player between 2005 and 2006 ranges from 1.8% to 8.2%. As zero is not included in this interval, we can conclude that there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of MP3 player owners from 2005 to 2006.

Step by step solution

01

Find the proportion for each year

In 2005, 15% of the 1112 surveyed individuals reported owning an MP3 player. This equates to \(0.15 * 1112 = 167\) individuals. In 2006, 20% of the 1112 individuals surveyed reported owning an MP3 player. This equates to \(0.2 * 1112 = 222\) individuals.
02

Calculate the standard error

The Standard error (SE) of a proportion is calculated by \(\sqrt {p * ( 1 - p ) / n}\), where p is the proportion and n is the sample size. For 2005, it's \(\sqrt(0.15 * (1 - 0.15) / 1112) = 0.011\). For 2006, it's \(\sqrt(0.2 * (1 - 0.2) / 1112) = 0.012\). The total standard error which is the difference is given by \(\sqrt{\(SE_1^{2}+SE_2^{2}}\) = 0.016.
03

Calculate the confidence interval

The difference in the proportions is \(0.2 - 0.15 = 0.05\). The 95% confidence interval around a proportion is calculated as 'proportion ± 1.96 * SE'. Therefore, the confidence interval for the change in proportions is \(0.05 \pm 1.96 * 0.016\), which gives a interval of (0.018, 0.082).
04

Analyze the interval

The interval does not contain zero, indicating a significant increase in the proportion of Americans age 12 and older who owned an MP3 player from 2005 to 2006. If zero were within the interval, it would suggest that the change in proportions isn't statistically significant, but that's not the case here.

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.

Statistical Significance
When performing statistical analyses, it's crucial to distinguish between a genuine effect and a result that occurs by chance. This determination is where statistical significance comes into play.

Statistical significance is a term used to state that a certain statistic is reliable and not likely due to random variation. In the context of the MP3 player ownership, determining statistical significance helps to understand whether the observed difference in ownership percentages between 2005 and 2006 reflects a real change in the population of Americans age 12 and older, rather than random chance in sample selection.

The confidence interval calculated in the original problem helps us assess this. Since the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions does not include zero, it suggests the increase in ownership is indeed statistically significant. If this interval had contained zero, it would be possible that no true difference existed between the two years under consideration. Consequently, the lack of zero in the interval implies that we can be confident, within a 95% probability, that more individuals owned MP3 players in 2006 compared to 2005.
Standard Error
Understanding the concept of standard error (SE) is integral to interpreting statistical data accurately. SE gives us an idea of the accuracy of our estimate from a sample concerning the actual population parameter.

In the exercise, SE is computed using the formula for the standard error of the proportion, which is \(\sqrt {p * ( 1 - p ) / n}\), where \(p\) represents the sample proportion and \(n\) the sample size. The smaller the SE, the more precise is our estimate of the population proportion. In our case, the SE helps us measure the variability in the estimation of the proportion of Americans owning MP3 players for each year.

The total SE for the difference was calculated using the individual SEs from 2005 and 2006 and taking the square root of the sum of their squares. This calculation was part of determining the margin of error for the 95% confidence interval. The margin of error, when multiplied by a critical value (in this case, 1.96 for a 95% confidence level), gives us a range above and below the estimated difference that is likely to contain the true difference in the population proportions.
Proportion Estimation
Proportion estimation plays a vital role in statistics as it allows us to infer about a larger population based on sample data. In our exercise, the objective was to estimate the difference in proportions of Americans age 12 and older who owned an MP3 player in 2006 versus 2005.

From the samples for each year, we estimated that the proportion of MP3 player ownership rose from 15% to 20%. The absolute difference between these two sample proportions was 5% (or 0.05 when expressed as a decimal). However, since we are dealing with samples rather than the entire population, we cannot rely purely on this point estimate. Thus, we calculate a confidence interval, which provides a range of values within which we can be reasonably sure that the true difference in proportions lies.

To form this interval, we adjust the point estimate by adding and subtracting the margin of error, which incorporates the standard error and reflects the desired level of confidence. This process often uncovers insights about population parameters, which in this scenario pointed towards a meaningful increase in MP3 player ownership over the year-long span.

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 press release titled "Keeping Score When It counts: Graduation Rates and Academic Progress Rates" (The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, March 16,2009 ) gave the 2009 graduation rates for African-American basketball players and for white basketball players at every NCAA Division I university with a basketball program. Explain why it is not necessary to use a paired \(t\) test to determine if the mean graduation rate for African-American basketball players differs from the mean graduation rate for white basketball players for Division I schools.

"Doctors Praise Device That Aids Ailing Hearts" (Associated Press, November 9,2004 ) is the headline of an article that describes the results of a study of the effectiveness of a fabric device that acts like a support stocking for a weak or damaged heart. In the study, 107 people who consented to treatment were assigned at random to either a standard treatment consisting of drugs or the experimental treatment that consisted of drugs plus surgery to install the stocking. After two years, \(38 \%\) of the 57 patients receiving the stocking had improved and \(27 \%\) of the patients receiving the standard treatment had improved. Do these data provide convincing evidence that the proportion of patients who improve is higher for the experimental treatment than for the standard treatment? Test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of \(.05 .\)

An individual can take either a scenic route to work or a nonscenic route. She decides that use of the nonscenic route can be justified only if it reduces the mean travel time by more than 10 minutes. a. If \(\mu_{1}\) is the mean for the scenic route and \(\mu_{2}\) for the nonscenic route, what hypotheses should be tested? b. If \(\mu_{1}\) is the mean for the nonscenic route and \(\mu_{2}\) for the scenic route, what hypotheses should be tested?

The article "Fish Oil Staves Off Schizophrenia" (USA Today, February 2, \(2 \mathrm{O} 1 \mathrm{O}\) ) describes a study in which 81 patients age 13 to 25 who were considered atrisk for mental illness were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Those in one group took four fish oil capsules daily. The other group took a placebo. After 1 year, \(5 \%\) of those in the fish oil group and \(28 \%\) of those in the placebo group had become psychotic. Is it appropriate to use the two-sample \(z\) test of this section to test hypotheses about the difference in the proportions of patients receiving the fish oil and the placebo treatments who became psychotic? Explain why or why not.

In the experiment described in the paper "Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Induces Changes in EEG in Human Volunteers" (Particle and Fibre Toxicology [2007])\(, 10\) healthy men were exposed to diesel exhaust for 1 hour. A measure of brain activity (called median power frequency, or MPF) was recorded at two different locations in the brain both before and after the diesel exhaust exposure. The resulting data are given in the accompanying table. For purposes of this example, assume that it is reasonable to regard the sample of 10 men as representative of healthy adult males. $$ \begin{array}{ccrcr} \hline & \text { Location 1 } & \text { Location 1 } & \text { Location 2 } & \text { Location 2 } \\ \text { Subject } & \text { Before } & \text { After } & \text { Before } & \text { After } \\ \hline 1 & 6.4 & 8.0 & 6.9 & 9.4 \\ 2 & 8.7 & 12.6 & 9.5 & 11.2 \\ 3 & 7.4 & 8.4 & 6.7 & 10.2 \\ 4 & 8.7 & 9.0 & 9.0 & 9.6 \\ 5 & 9.8 & 8.4 & 9.7 & 9.2 \\ 6 & 8.9 & 11.0 & 9.0 & 11.9 \\ 7 & 9.3 & 14.4 & 7.9 & 9.1 \\ 8 & 7.4 & 11.3 & 8.3 & 9.3 \\ 9 & 6.6 & 7.1 & 7.2 & 8.0 \\ 10 & 8.9 & 11.2 & 7.4 & 9.1 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ a. Do the data provide convincing evidence that the mean MPF at brain location 1 is higher after diesel exposure? Test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of \(.05 .\) b. Construct and interpret a \(90 \%\) confidence interval estimate for the difference in mean MPF at brain location 2 before and after exposure to diesel exhaust.

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.