Lie Adi Darmawan MATH 1040-010 Term Project Summer 2012

Term Project Written Report

Purpose
The purpose of the study is to nd out if there is any correlation between the average hours spent playing games per week and the number of dates one had been on within the past 12 months.

Study Design
We created an online survey form through the Google Docs service (as displayed in the picture below) and we posted up the link to the the top 10 most popular video games forums according to eBusiness knowledge base (http://www.ebizmba.com), and also Facebook (since they also have a ourishing community of gamersfrom the wide selections of Facebook games available to be played online, right on the website).

Data, Statistics, and Graphs

Average Hours Spent Playing Games per Week 14 30 10 40 40 2 3 4 7 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 10 20 12 21 5 5 38 20 1 0 0 20 0 0 8 20 0 9 53 Approximate Number of Dates One Had Been on within the Past 12 Months 1 0 0 90 0 12 20 2 0 14 5 0 4 24 60 50 8 2 1 3 29 10 1 5 5 30 32 2 9 28 12 25 1 18 8 2

Average Hours Spent Playing Games per Week 7 4 30 0 2 2 1 0.5 35 30 20 0 15 7 20 60 80 0 10 2 7 21 7 30 5 7 0 0 23 15 2 5 3

Approximate Number of Dates One Had Been on within the Past 12 Months 23 4 70 20 100 8 50 2 80 1 3 14 50 7 35 0 0 15 0 20 120 0 0 15 0 0 1 60 1 200 5 6 150

Total of 68 data collected.

Part 1: First Quantitative Variable (Hours Spent Playing per Week

Total 853.50 Average 12.55 Std. Deviation 16.01 Min. 0 Q1 1 Median 7 Q3 20 Max. 80 Range [0,80] Mode 0 Outliers 53, 60, 80 IQR 19 Lower Fence -27.5 Upper Fence 48.5 Hours/Wk 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 Frequency 44 10 7 4 0 2 0 1

Hours Spent Playing Video Games Frequency!

50! 45! 40! 35! 30! 25! 20! 15! 10! 5! 0! 44!

Frequency!

10!

7!

4! 0! 31-40! 41-50!

2! 51-60!

0! 61-70!

1! 71-80!

0-10!

11-20!

21-30!

Average Number of Hours Spent Playing Games per Week!

1$

!40$

!20$

0$

20$

40$

60$

80$

100$

Part 2: Second Quantitative Variable (Number of Dates)

Total 1571 Average 23.10 Std. Deviation 37.55 Min. 0 Q1 1 Median 8 Q3 25.75 Max. 200 Range [0,200] Mode 0 70, 80, 90, 100, Outliers 120, 150, 200 IQR 24.75 Lower Fence -36.125 Upper Fence 62.875 Dates/in the Last Yr Frequency 0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 48 8 5 2 2 1 0 1 0 1

Number of Dates Frequency!

60! 50! 48!

Frequency!

40! 30! 20! 10! 0! 0-20! 21-40! 41-60! 61-80! 81-100!101-120! 21-140! 41-160! 61-180! 81-200! 1 1 1 1 Approximate Number of Dates within the Past 12 Months! 8! 5! 2! 2! 1! 0! 1! 0! 1!

1$

!50$

0$

50$

100$

150$

200$

250$

r = -0.05

Testing Correlation between Hours Spent Playing Games ! and Number of Dates!

250!

200!

150!

100!

Approximate Number of Dates within the Past 12 Months!

50!

y = -0.1092x + 24.474!

0! 20! 30! 40! 50! 60! 70! 80! 90! Average Number of Hours Spent Playing Games per Week!

0!

10!

Difculties/Surprises Encountered
When collecting the data through an online survey, a few difculties we encountered were: We dont know how many responds would we get. Even though the link to the online survey was posted, but there was no way to know how many people actually cared to answer the survey. Some people may or may not skeptically suspected the legitimate existence of the survey itself, afraid of being spammed, despite the explanation that this was done for a study from Salt Lake Community College, which could deter them from answering/participating. There were a few responds that we needed to discard due to invalid responds, such as tree or green or 500 hours or 500 dates. There is no way of knowing how objective/honest or biased these respondents were.

Analysis and Interpretation

r = -0.05 indicates a very weak correlation or very little evidence exist of a linear relation between the two variables. According to Sullivan in the text Statistics: Informed Decisions Using Data, the critical values for correlation coefcient can be obtained from Appendix A Table II. But this does not apply to our data because we have 68 data (Table II only provides up to 30 data). So I did a little research on the internet and found an instruction on using the Critical Values of thePearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefcient table provided by Del Siegle, Ph.D. from University of Connecticut (Critical Values of thePearson ProductMoment Correlation Coefcient Table is attached at the end of this report). Siegle explained that the following values are needed to get the critical value:
r -0.05 |r| alpha df 0.05 0.05 66 (absolute value of r to be used when comparing with critical value) (a common alpha level for educational research, according to Siegle) (df = n-2)

Critical Value between 0.232 and 0.250 (the table only have df of 60 and 70) Even though there is no exact df of 66, when using df of 60 and 70, both critical 0.05 < 0.232 values show to be larger than the absolute value of r itself, which shows that there is not a statistically signicant relationship between hours spent playing 0.05 < 0.250 games (per week) and the number of dates (within the past 12 months).

Conclusion
The scatterplot graph, r value, and comparison between r and critical value all show that there is not a statistically signicant correlation between hours spent playing games per week and the number of dates within the past 12 months.

Sources:
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/video-game-websites http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/correlation/corrchrt.htm http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/correlation/alphaleve.htm

Critical Values of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient

How to use this table df = n -2 Level of Significance (p) for .10 Two-Tailed Test

.05

.02

.01

df
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .988 .997 .9995 .9999 .900 .950 .980 .805 .878 .934 .729 .811 .882 .669 .754 .833 .622 .707 .789 .582 .666 .750 .549 .632 .716 .521 .602 .685 .497 .576 .658 .476 .553 .634 .458 .532 .612 .441 .514 .592 .426 .497 .574 .412 .482 .558 .400 .468 .542 .389 .456 .528 .378 .444 .516 .369 .433 .503 .990 .959 .917 .874 .834 .798 .765 .735 .708 .684 .661 .641 .623 .606 .590 .575 .561 .549

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 80 90 100

.360 .423 .492 .352 .413 .482 .344 .404 .472 .337 .396 .462 .330 .388 .453 .323 .381 .445 .317 .374 .437 .311 .367 .430 .306 .361 .423 .301 .355 .416 .296 .349 .409 .275 .325 .381 .257 .304 .358 .243 .288 .338 .231 .273 .322 .211 .250 .295 .195 .232 .274 .183 .217 .256 .173 .205 .242 .164 .195 .230

.537 .526 .515 .505 .496 .487 .479 .471 .463 .456 .449 .418 .393 .372 .354 .325 .303 .283 .267 .254

Del Siegle, Ph.D. Neag School of Education - University of Connecticut del.siegle@uconn.edu www.delsiegle.com

10