t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequalt-Test: Two-Sample At-Test: Tw t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3 Variable 1 Variable 2

Mean 47.9523809524 47.2381 Mean 46.52381 Mean Mean 46.52381 45.80952
Variance 142.147619048 226.2905 Variance 310.4333 Variance Variance 310.4333 394.5762
Observatio 21 21 Observatio 21 ObservatioObservatio 21 21
Hypothesiz 0 Hypothesiz 0 HypothesizHypothesiz 0
df 38 df 38 df df 38
t Stat 0.1705294328 t Stat 0.170529 t Stat t Stat 0.170529
P(T<=t) one 0.4327492649 P(T<=t) one0.432749 P(T<=t) oneP(T<=t) one0.432749
t Critical o 1.6859544606 t Critical o 1.685954 t Critical o t Critical o 1.685954
P(T<=t) two 0.8654985298 P(T<=t) two0.865499 P(T<=t) twoP(T<=t) two0.865499
t Critical t 2.0243941467 t Critical t 2.024394 t Critical t t Critical t 2.024394
Unequal Variances
 Plant A Plant B
35 32
52 39
48 54
25 47
39 41
51 34
46 30
55 36
46 36
53 38
45 46
42 58
54 52
65 29
56 76
67 46
74 46
32 45
43 78
34 80
45 49

Count 21 21
Mean 47.95238 47.2380952381
StDev 11.92257 15.0429543704
Variance 142.1476 226.2904761905

ttest p value its not ttest value 0.865453

should be lower than 0.05
hence null hypothesis is not rejected
 One way test

Example 7.1 Boys of a certain age have a mean w

tion was made that in a city neighbo
dence, all 25 boys in the neighborho
have a mean x of 80.94 lb and a stan
tion of the procedure above yields

X=80.94
μ=85
σ=11.60

p-Value
Childrens are underfeed

Example 7.2 Tace metals in drinking water a¤ect

unusually high concentrations can p
 metal concentrations (zinc, in mg/L)
at six di¤erent river locations (the d

Location
1
2
3
4
5
6

Average

sd
SE n=6

z=0.091667/0.024776

Example 7.3 The systolic blood pressures of n ¼ 12 women between the ag

of 20 and 35 were measured before and after administration of a newly de
oped oral contraceptive. Data are shown in Table 7.2 (the di¤erence is afte
before). The necessary summarized figures are

Subject Before(mm of Hg)

1 122
2 126
3 132
4 120
5 142
6 130
7 142
8 137
9 128
10 132
11 128
12 129

Mean
SD
SE 3.4641016151

z= 2.8976449587
ffrom table 11df 2.201
Reject null hypo

Example 7.4 Data in epidemiologic studies are sometimes self-reported.

Screening data from the hypertension detection and follow-up program in
Minneapolis, Minnesota (1973–1974) provided an opportunity to evaluate
accuracy of self-reported height and weight. Table 7.3 gives the percent di
crepancy between self-reported and measured height:
x ¼ self-reported height _x0001_ measured height _x0002_ 100%

x ¼ self-reported height _x0001_ measured height _x0002_ 100%

Men
Education N
<= High School 476
>=College 192

SE

Z
as compared to table highly significa

Comparing two means Two Sample ttest

Example 7.5 In an attempt to assess the physical condition of joggers, a
sample of n1= 25 joggers was selected and their maximum volume of oxyg
uptake (VO2) was measured with the following results:
n
x1 = 47:5 mL=kg s1 =4:8 mL=kg n1=25

esults for a sample of n2= 26 nonjoggers were

x2 =37:5 mL=kg s2 = 5:1 mL=kg

Sp=(n1-1)S1*S1+(n2-1)S2*S2/n1+n2-2

1203.21
552.96+650.25=1203.21

1203.21/49=24.56
SE(x1=x2)=sp sqrt (n2*n1)/n1+n2
26*25/26+25=12.745
sqrt12.745=3.57
SE=24.56*3.57
 ertain age have a mean weight of 85 lb. An observa-
made that in a city neighborhood, children were underfed. As evi-
25 boys in the neighborhood of that age were weighed and found to
an x of 80.94 lb and a standard deviation s of 11.60 lb. An applica-
procedure above yields

Z=80.94-8 -4.06
SE=11.60/ 2.32

z=-1.75
0.0400591569
are underfeed

ls in drinking water a¤ect the flavor of the water, and

high concentrations can pose a health hazard. Table 7.1 shows trace-
centrations (zinc, in mg/L) for both surface water and bottom water
rent river locations (the di¤erence is bottom _x0001_ surface).

Bottom Surface di di2

0.43 0.415 0.015 0.000225
0.266 0.238 0.028 0.000784
0.567 0.39 0.177 0.031329
0.531 0.41 0.121 0.014641
0.707 0.605 0.102 0.010404
0.716 0.609 0.107 0.011449

0.0916666667 0.011472

0.0606882745
2.4494897428 0.0247758843

7/0.024776 3.6998343001

3.69 is gretaer than 2.75found in table at df5 hence null hypothesis rejected

12 women between the ages

ministration of a newly devel-
7.2 (the di¤erence is after–

After (mm of Hg) Diferrence

127 5
128 2
140 8
119 -1
145 3
130 0
148 6
135 -2
129 1
137 5
128 0
133 4

2.583333
3.088346
0.891529
metimes self-reported.
and follow-up program in
n opportunity to evaluate the
e 7.3 gives the percent dis-

ht _x0002_ 100%

ht _x0002_ 100%

Women
mean SD N mean SD
1.38 1.53 323 0.66 1.53
1.04 1.31 62 0.41 1.46

21.8174242293 1.53
0.070127
19.67846
ed to table highly significant

mple ttest
condition of joggers, a
maximum volume of oxygen

0.25=1203.21
 0.0140018158

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Bottom Surface Bottom

Mean 0.536167 0.4445 Mean 0.352833
Variance 0.029353 0.020099 Variance 0.010845
Observations 6 6 Observatio 6
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Hypothesiz 0
df 10 df 10
t Stat 1.009714 t Stat 1.009714
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.16822 P(T<=t) one 0.16822
t Critical one-tail 1.812461 t Critical o 1.812461
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.336439 P(T<=t) two0.336439
t Critical two-tail 2.228139 t Critical t 2.228139
Assuming Unequal Variances
 -1.95996

0.991452

0.044366 0.85%
Err:502
0.955634 0 1.644854

Sample x1 x2 Variance
1 3 3 0
2 3 5 2
3 3 10 24.5
4 5 1 8
5 5 5 0
6 5 10 12.5
7 10 5 12.5
8 10 5 12.5
9 10 10 0
ANOVA

One way ANOVA Group or factor

a b c
1 23 56 34
2 34 45 76
3 65 34 43
 4 76 65 23
5 85 34 37
6 34 76 37
7 23 24 73
8 56 65 85
9 76 34 96
10 45 23 46
Mean 51.7 45.6 55
variance 533.7888888889 351.8222222222 631.5556

Group A Group B Group C

8.9 15.6 8.6
13.6 18.9 4.5
18.5 22.5 4.6
7.5 20.2 5.8
10.1 12.5 12.2
11.1 16.2 15.5
15 14.1 7.8
10.1 2.9
16.6 5.8
29.5 8.9
22.2
28.2
Mean 12.1 18.8833333333 7.66
SD 3.8301436004 5.9490004253 3.850599
SE 1.4476582075 1.7173284985 1.217666
N 7 12 10

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Group B Group C
Mean 18.8833333333 7.66
Variance 35.3906060606 14.8271111111
Observations 12 10
Pooled Variance 26.1370333333
Hypothesized Mean D 0
df 20
t Stat 5.1271142886
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.56754321855E-05
t Critical one-tail 1.7247182182
P(T<=t) two-tail 5.1350864371E-05
t Critical two-tail 2.0859634413 0.05/3

Hardwood Conc % Tensil strenght

5 7 8 15
10 12 17 13
15 14 18 19
20 19 25 22
All
Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum
7 5 53
12 5 82
14 5 88
19 5 108

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df
Between Groups 310.15 3
Within Groups 86.8 16

Total 396.95 19
x (mm of H
42
46
42
71
80
74
70
80
85
72
64
81
41
61
75
Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
a 10 517 51.7 533.7888888889
b 10 456 45.6 351.8222222222
c 10 550 55 631.5555555556

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value
Between Groups 454.86666667 2 227.4333 0.4497198726 0.642498039
Within Groups 13654.5 27 505.7222

Total 14109.366667 29

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Group A 7 84.7 12.1 14.67
Group B 12 226.6 18.88333 35.3906060606
Group C 10 76.6 7.66 14.8271111111

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value
Between Groups 702.09243678 2 351.0462 14.9439906273 4.780948E-05
Within Groups 610.76066667 26 23.49079

Total 1312.8531034 28

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Group A Group B t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Mean 12.1 18.8833333333
Variance 14.67 35.3906060606 Group A
Observations 7 12 Mean 12.1
Pooled Variance 28.0774509804 Variance 14.67
Hypothesized Mean Dif 0 Observations 7
df 17 Pooled Variance 14.76426667
t Stat -2.6917031488 Hypothesized Mean 0
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0077200282 df 15
t Critical one-tail 1.7396067156 t Stat 2.344777236
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0154400563 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.016606792
t Critical two-tail 2.1098155586 t Critical one-tail 1.753050325
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.033213585
t Critical two-tail 2.131449536
 0.0166

Mean SD
11 9 10 10 2.8284271247
18 19 15 15.66667 2.8047578624
17 16 18 17 1.788854382
23 18 20 21.16667 2.639444386
15.95833 4.6115294322

Average Variance
10.6 7.3
16.4 5.8
17.6 1.3
21.6 7.3

MS F P-value F crit
103.3833333333 19.0568356375 0.000015662 3.238872
5.425
weight in oz Increase in wt after 70-100
x y
112 63 Anova: Single Factor
111 66
107 72 SUMMARY
119 52 Groups Count
92 75 x 12
80 118 y 12
81 120
84 114
118 42 ANOVA
106 72 Source of Variation SS
103 90 Between Groups 2242.666667
94 91 Within Groups 9425.166667

Total 11667.83333

One factor ANOVA

 Mean n Std. Dev
100.6 12 14.00 x
81.3 12 25.71 y
90.9 24 22.52 Total

ANOVA table
Source SS df MS F
Treatment 2,242.67 1 2,242.667 5.23
Error 9,425.17 22 428.417
Total 11,667.83 23

Comparison of Groups

130.0

120.0

110.0

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

y mm of Hg
130
115 One factor ANOVA
148
100 Mean n Std. Dev
 156 65.6 15 15.59
162 146.2 15 19.48
151 105.9 30 44.50
156
162 ANOVA table
158 Source SS df MS
155 Treatment ### 1 48,722.700
160 Error 8,716.00 28 311.286
125 Total ### 29
150
165
Comparison of Groups

50,000.0

45,000.0

40,000.0

35,000.0

30,000.0

25,000.0

20,000.0

15,000.0

10,000.0

5,000.0

0.0

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
x (mm of Hg 15 984 65.6 243.1142857143
y mm of Hg 15 2193 146.2 379.4571428571

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value
Between Groups 48722.7 1 48722.7 156.5208352455 5.54E-13
Within Groups 8716 28 311.2857
Total 57438.7 29

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Example 8.7 Ultrasounds were taken at the time of liver transplant and again
five to ten years later to determine the systolic pressure of the hepatic artery.
Results for 21 transplants for 21 children are shown in Table 8.7; also available
are gender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female) and age at the second measurement.

Child 5-10 Yrs Later At Transplant Gender Age

1 46 35 2 16
2 40 40 2 19
3 50 58 2 19
4 50 71 1 23
5 41 33 1 16
6 70 79 1 23
7 35 20 1 13
8 40 19 1 19
9 56 56 1 11
10 30 26 2 14
11 30 44 1 15
12 60 90 2 12
13 43 43 2 15
14 45 42 1 14
15 40 55 1 14
16 50 60 2 17
17 66 62 2 21
18 45 26 2 21
19 40 60 1 11
20 35 27 1 9
21 25 31 1 9

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Child 21 231 11 38.5
5-10 Yrs Later 21 937 44.61905 132.7476190476
At Transplant 21 977 46.52381 388.1619047619
Gender 21 30 1.428571 0.2571428571
Age 21 331 15.7619 18.0904761905

ANOVA
 Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value
Between Groups 35252.990476 4 8813.248 76.2712129829 1.621537E-29
Within Groups 11555.142857 100 115.5514

Total 46808.133333 104

Anova: Two-Factor Without Replication

SUMMARY Count Sum Average Variance

1 4 99 24.75 383.5833333333
2 4 101 25.25 338.25
3 4 129 32.25 689.5833333333
4 4 145 36.25 938.25
5 4 91 22.75 318.9166666667
6 4 173 43.25 1396.25
7 4 69 17.25 201.5833333333
8 4 79 19.75 254.25
9 4 124 31 850
10 4 72 18 160
11 4 90 22.5 345.6666666667
12 4 164 41 1708
13 4 103 25.75 424.9166666667
14 4 102 25.5 461.6666666667
15 4 110 27.5 599
16 4 129 32.25 744.25
17 4 151 37.75 981.5833333333
18 4 94 23.5 312.3333333333
19 4 112 28 728.6666666667
20 4 72 18 246.6666666667
21 4 66 16.5 193

5-10 Yrs Later 21 937 44.61905 132.7476190476

At Transplant 21 977 46.52381 388.1619047619
Gender 21 30 1.428571 0.2571428571
Age 21 331 15.7619 18.0904761905

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value
Rows 4863.1666667 20 243.1583 2.4636201718 0.003777392
Columns 30907.27381 3 10302.42 104.3816213217 8.86887E-24
Error 5921.9761905 60 98.6996

Total 41692.416667 83
 F crit
3.3541308286

F crit
3.3690163595

suming Equal Variances

Group C
7.66
14.8271111111
10
Sum Average Variance
1207 100.583333333 196.0833
975 81.25 660.75

df MS F P-value F crit
1 2242.66666667 5.234779 0.032115 4.300949462
22 428.416666667

23
 p-value
.0321

oups

Child
 x (mm of Hg
y mm of Hg
Total

F p-value
156.52 5.54E-13

arison of Groups

F crit
4.1959717074
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.8258905786
R Square 0.6820952478
Adjusted R Squa 0.6259944092
Standard Error 7.0461586476
Observations 21

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 3 1810.93 603.6435 12.1583788165 0.0001707493
Residual 17 844.022 49.64835
Total 20 2654.952

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 9.644 7.084 1.361 0.191 -5.302 24.590
At Transplant 0.381 0.082 4.631 0.000 0.208 0.555
Gender 1.740 3.241 0.537 0.598 -5.097 8.578
Age 0.935 0.395 2.366 0.030 0.101 1.769

Using the second measurement of the systolic pressure of the hepatic artery
as our dependent variable, the resulting ANOVA table is shown in Table 8.8.
The result of the overall F test ( p ¼ 0:0002) indicates that taken collectively,
the three independent variables (systolic pressure at transplant, gender, and
age) contribute significantly to the prediction of the dependent variable. In
addition, we have the results shown in Table 8.9. The e¤ects of pressure at
transplant and age are significant at the 5% level, whereas the e¤ect of gender is
not ( p ¼ 0:5982).
these in-
dicate that the pressure at transplant time (pressure1) is the most significant
variable. Example 8.8 There have been times the city of London experienced peri
dense fog. Table 8.10 shows such data for a very severe 15-day period w
included the number of deaths in each day (y), the mean atmospheric sm
(x1, in mg/m3), and the mean atmospheric sulfur dioxide content (x2, in
 F crit
2.462614926 Number of deaths Smoke Sulfur dioxide
112 0.3 0.09
140 0.49 0.16
143 0.61 0.22
120 0.49 0.14
196 2.64 0.75
294 3.45 0.86
513 4.46 1.34
518 4.46 1.34
430 1.22 0.47
274 1.22 0.47
255 0.32 0.22
236 0.29 0.23
256 0.5 0.26
222 0.32 0.16
213 0.32 0.16

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.9268446481
R Square 0.8590410017
Adjusted R Square 0.8355478354
Standard Error 52.9576915765
Observations 15

ANOVA
df SS
Regression 2 205097.5282
Residual 12 33654.2052
Total 14 238751.7333

Coefficients Standard Error

Intercept 89.511 25.078
Smoke -220.324 58.143
Sulfur dioxide 1051.816 212.596

F crit Using the number of deaths in each day as our dependent variable, Tab
1.7479841334 8.11 is the resulting ANOVA table. The result of the overall F test ðp ¼ 0
2.7580783156 indicates that taken collectively, the two independent variables contrib
nificantly to the prediction of the dependent variable. In addition, we h
results shown in Table 8.12. The e¤ects of both factors, the mean atmo
smoke and the mean atmospheric sulfur dioxide content, are significan
the 1% level (both p < 0:001).
Trace metals in drinking water a¤ect the flavor of the water, and un-
usually high concentration can pose a health hazard. Table E8.1 shows
trace-metal concentrations (zinc, in mg/L) for both surface water and
bottom water at six di¤erent river locations. Our aim is to see if sur-
face water concentration (x) is predictive of bottom water concen
(y).

Location Bottom Surface

1 0.43 0.415
2 0.266 0.238
3 0.567 0.39
4 0.531 0.41
5 0.707 0.605
6 0.716 0.609

face water concentration (x) is predictive of bottom water concentratio

0.65
0.6
0.55 f(x) = 0.7796285844x + 0.0264891406
R² = 0.887674252
0.5
0.45
Surface

0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Bottom

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.9421646629
R Square 0.887674252
Adjusted R Square 0.859592815
Standard Error 0.0531225177
Observations 6

ANOVA
 df SS
Regression 1 0.0892054924
Residual 4 0.0112880076
Total 5 0.1004935

Coefficients Standard Error

Intercept 0.0265 0.0774
Bottom 0.7796 0.1387

In a study of saliva cotinine, seven subjects, all of whom had abstained

from smoking for a week, were asked to smoke a single cigarette. The
cotinine levels at 12 and 24 hours after smoking are provided in Table
E8.2.

Subject After 12 hrs After 24 hrs

1 73 24
2 58 27
3 67 49
4 93 59
5 33 0
6 18 11
7 147 43

(a) Draw a scatter diagram to show a possible association between the

cotinine levels (24-hour measurement as the dependent variable) and
check to see if a linear model is justified.

(b) Estimate the regression parameters, the 24-hour measurement for a

subject with a 12-hour cotinine level of 60 mmol/L, and draw the
regression line on the same graph with the scatter diagram.
(c) Test to see if the two cotinine levels are independent; state your
hypotheses and choice of test size.
(d) Calculate the coe‰cient of determination and provide your inter-
pretation.

In a study of saliva cotinine, seven subjects, all of whom had abstaine

70

60
f(x) = 0.3485905144x + 6.0770340681
50 R² = 0.4856072451
After 24 hrs

40

30

20

10
 f(x) = 0.3485905144x + 6.0770340681
50 R² = 0.4856072451

After 24 hrs
40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1
After 12 hrs

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.6968552541
R Square 0.4856072451
Adjusted R Square 0.3827286941
Standard Error 16.591371509
Observations 7

ANOVA
df SS
Regression 1 1299.346242962
Residual 5 1376.368042752
Total 6 2675.714285714

Coefficients Standard Error

Intercept 6.077 12.843
After 12 hrs 0.349 0.160

Table E8.3 gives the net food supply (x, number of calories per person
per day) and the infant mortality rate (y, number of infant deaths per
1000 live births) for certain selected countries before World War II.

Country X Y
Argentina 2730 98.8
Australia 3300 39.1
Austria 2900 87.4
Belium 3000 83.1
 Burma 1080 202.1
Canada 3070 67.4
chile 2240 240.8
Cuba 2610 116.8
Eypt 2450 162.9
France 2880 66.1
Germany 2960 63.3
Iceland 3160 42.4
India 1970 161.6
Ireland 3390 69.6
Italy 2510 102.7
Japan 2180 60.6
Netherlands 3010 37.4
New Zealand 3260 32.2
Sweden 3210 43.3
UK 3100 55.3
US 3150 53.2
Uruguay 2380 94.1

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.787725072
R Square 0.620510789
Adjusted R Squa 0.6015363285
Standard Error 35.2685353868
Observations 22

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 40677.55 40677.55 32.7024205728 1.34966421E-05
Residual 20 24877.39 1243.87
Total 21 65554.94

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 312.240 39.582 7.888 0.000 229.674 394.806
X -0.081 0.014 -5.719 0.000 -0.110 -0.051
 Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
-5.302 24.590
0.208 0.555
-5.097 8.578
0.101 1.769

of London experienced periods of

very severe 15-day period which
y), the mean atmospheric smoke
ulfur dioxide content (x2, in ppm).
 MS F Significance F
102548.7641 36.5656 0.0000
2804.5171

t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%
3.569 0.004 34.870 144.152 34.870 144.152
-3.789 0.003 -347.007 -93.641 -347.007 -93.641
4.947 0.000 588.610 1515.023 588.610 1515.023

our dependent variable, Table

lt of the overall F test ðp ¼ 0:0001Þ
dependent variables contribute sig-
nt variable. In addition, we have the
oth factors, the mean atmospheric
oxide content, are significant even at
 or of the water, and un-
h hazard. Table E8.1 shows
or both surface water and
Our aim is to see if sur-
e of bottom water concentration

di
0.015
0.028
0.177
0.121
0.102
0.107

of bottom water concentration

+ 0.0264891406

.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

m

a) Draw a scatter diagram to show a possible association between the

concentrations and check to see if a linear model is justified.
(b) Estimate the regression parameters, the bottom water concentration
for location with a surface water concentration of 0.5 mg/L, and
draw the regression line on the same graph with the scatter diagram.
(c) Test to see if the two concentrations are independent; state your
hypotheses and choice of test size.
(d) Calculate the coe‰cient of determination and provide your inter-
pretation.
 MS F Significance F
0.089205492 31.610713235 0.0049206619
0.002822002

t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
0.3420 0.7495 -0.1885 0.2415 -0.1885 0.2415
5.6223 0.0049 0.3946 1.1646 0.3946 1.1646

all of whom had abstained

oke a single cigarette. The
king are provided in Table

e association between the

e dependent variable) and

24-hour measurement for a

mmol/L, and draw the
scatter diagram.
ndependent; state your

on and provide your inter-

cts, all of whom had abstained

6.0770340681
6.0770340681

100 120 140 160

hrs

MS F Significance F
1299.346243 4.7201991132 0.0818736968
275.2736086

t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
0.473 0.656 -26.938 39.092 -26.938 39.092
2.173 0.082 -0.064 0.761 -0.064 0.761

mber of calories per person

mber of infant deaths per
es before World War II.

net food supply (x, number of calories per person

300

250

200 f(x) = - 0.0807579101x + 312.2401762758

R² = 0.620510789

150
Y
 300

250

200 f(x) = - 0.0807579101x + 312.2401762758

R² = 0.620510789

150

Y
Country
100 Argentina
Australia
50
Austria
Belium
0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Burma
Canada
X
chile
Cuba
Eypt
France
Regression Analysis Germany
Iceland
r² 0.621 n 22 India
r -0.788 k 1 Ireland
Std. Error 35.269 Dep. Var. Y Italy
Japan
Netherland
df MS F p-value New Zealan
1 ### 32.70 1.35E-05 Sweden
20 ### UK
21 US
Uruguay

confidence interval
std. error t (df=20) p-value95% lower95% upper
39.5819 7.888 1.45E-07 229.6739 394.8065
0.0141 -5.719 1.35E-05 -0.1102 -0.0513

Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

229.674 394.806
-0.110 -0.051
X x2 Y SUMMARY OUTPUT
2730 7452900 98.8
3300 10890000 39.1 Regression Statistics
2900 8410000 87.4 Multiple R 0.795921986
3000 9000000 83.1 R Square 0.633491807
1080 1166400 202.1 Adjusted R Square 0.594911997
3070 9424900 67.4 Standard Error 35.56049103
2240 5017600 240.8 Observations 22
2610 6812100 116.8
2450 6002500 162.9 ANOVA
2880 8294400 66.1 df SS
2960 8761600 63.3 Regression 2 41528.516263
3160 9985600 42.4 Residual 19 24026.421919
1970 3880900 161.6 Total 21 65554.938182
3390 11492100 69.6
2510 6300100 102.7 Coefficients Standard Error
2180 4752400 60.6 Intercept 231.732 105.945
3010 9060100 37.4 X -0.008 0.090
3260 10627600 32.2 x2 0.000 0.000
3210 10304100 43.3
3100 9610000 55.3
3150 9922500 53.2
2380 5664400 94.1
 MS F Significance F
20764.26 16.4202937 7.2242876E-05
1264.549

t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%
2.187 0.041 9.986 453.478 9.986 453.478
-0.084 0.934 -0.197 0.182 -0.197 0.182
-0.820 0.422 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
 Chart Title
60

50

40

Axis Title 30

20

10

0
Red Blue Green Black Yellow White Silver Other

Axis Title
 The effect of UV exposure on the appearance of mutant in 3 different bacterial populations
600

E.coli

500
f(x) = 48.9x - 1.2272727273
Number of mutant bacterial cells

400

300

200
C.sporogenes

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Amount of time bacteria were exposed to UV Radiation

Time Temperature
0 10
1 25 Figure1: Time Vs.Temperature
2 18 60
3 36
50
4 55
5 22 40

Temperature
6 7 30
7 6
20
8 13
9 15 10
10 29
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure1: Time Vs.Temperature Time

Car colour Survey January February March Total

West $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $12,000
Red 48 East $2,000 $5,000 $3,000 $10,000
Blue 12 South $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $10,000
Green 8 North $4,000 $1,000 $5,000 $10,000
Black 26
Yellow 4
White 35
Silver 41
Other 9 Total
Total 183

West
East
South
North

Number of mutant cells that appeared

Amount of time expose to UV radiation(Minutes) E.coli S.aureus C.sporogenes
0 3 2 4
 1 50 25 10
2 85 55 18
3 147 68 32
4 202 101 45
5 239 130 49
6 288 144 57
7 340 169 73
8 399 202 83
9 435 225 90
10 488 255 101

Amount Time E.coli S.aureus C.sporogenes

0 3 2 4
1 50 25 10
2 85 55 18
3 147 68 32
4 202 101 45
5 239 130 49
6 288 144 57
7 340 169 73
8 399 202 83
9 435 225 90
Chart Title
10 488 255 101

30%

25%
25% Luxury
22% Luxury Sports Luxury Sports
Sports
White 25 10 White 25% 10%
20%
Black 18% 22 15 Black 22% 15%
15% Silver 16 18 15% Silver 16% 18%
16%
Percentages

15%
15% Gray 12 15 Gray 12% 15%
13%
12%
Blue 7 13 Blue 7% 13%
10%
10% Red 7 15 Red 7% 15%
Gold 6 7% 5 7% Gold 6% 5%
7%
6%
Green 3 2 Green 5% 3% 2%
5%
Brown 2 7 Brown 3% 2% 2% 7%
2%

0%
White Black Silver Gray Blue Red Gold Green Brown
Car Colours
ature

10 12

$5,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
January
$2,500 February
$2,000 March
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
West East South North

West
East
South
North

cells that appeared

C.sporogenes
The effect of UV exposure on the appearance of mutant in 3 different bacterial populations
600

E.coli
 The effect of UV exposure on the appearance of mutant in 3 different bacterial populations
600

E.coli

500
f(x) = 48.9x - 1.2272727273

400
Number of mutant bacterial cells

S.aureus
300

200

100

C.sporogenes

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Amount of time bacteria were exposed to UV Radiation

Luxury
Luxury Sports
Sports
White 0.25% 0.10%
Black 0.22% 0.15%
Silver 0.16% 0.18%
Gray 0.12% 0.15%
Blue 0.07% 0.13%
Red 0.07% 0.15%
7% Gold 0.06% 0.05%
Green 0.03% 0.02%
2%
Brown 0.02% 0.07%

Brown
populations
populations

C.sporogenes

10 12
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.912424
R Square 0.832518
Adjusted R 0.741609
Standard E 36.28798
Observatio 12

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 72002 72002 54.67879 2.33E-05
Residual 11 14485 1316.818
Total 12 86487

Coefficients
Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
Intercept 0 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
x 0.763364 0.103234 7.394511 1.37E-05 0.536148 0.99058 0.536148 0.99058
Ice cream sales data-Simple Regression Analysis
Day Temp Sales
1 65 20
2 68 22
3 66 21
4 75 23 Cha
5 81 25
35
6 76 26
7 78 28 f(x) = 0.4330867518x - 8.4
8 85 30 30 R² = 0.7413818931
9 88 30
10 95 35
11 90 29 25

Sales
12 82 28
13 80 26
14 76 26 20
15 74 24
16 73 24
15
17 73 20 60 65 70
18 77 18
19 68 19
20 60 20

weight in oz Increase in wt after 70-100

x y SUMMARY OUTPUT
112 63
111 66 Regression Statistics
107 72 Multiple R 0.912424
119 52 R Square 0.832518
92 75 Adjusted R 0.741609
80 118 Standard E 36.28798
81 120 Observatio 12
84 114
118 42 ANOVA
106 72 df
103 90 Regression 1
94 91 Residual 11
Total 12

Coefficients
Intercept 0
x 0.763364
Regression Analysis 89.5% of the variation in growth rates

r² 0.895 n
r -0.946 k
Std. Error 8.717 Dep. Var.

ANOVA table
Source SS df MS
Regression 6,508.4274 1 ###
Residual 759.8226 10 75.9823
Total 7,268.2500 11

Regression output
variables coefficients std. error t (df=10)
Intercept 255.9719 19.0454 13.440
x -1.7371 0.1877 -9.255

Example 8.2 In Table 8.2 the first two columns give the values for age (x, in
years) and systolic blood pressure (y, in mmHg) for 15 women. We first let
each pair of numbers ðx; yÞ be represented by a dot in a diagram with the x’s
on the horizontal axis; we have the scatter diagram shown in Figure 8.2. Again
the dots do not fall perfectly on a straight line, but scatter around a line, very
typical for statistical relationships. In this example, a straight line still seems
to fit, too; however, the dots spread more and cluster less around the line,
indicating a weaker association. Generally, the 15 dots go from lower left to
upper right, and we have a positive association. As shown in Example 2.9, we
obtained a Pearson’s correlation coe‰cient of r ¼ 0:566, indicating a moder-
ately positive association, confirming the observation from the graph.

x (mm of Hg y mm of Hg
42 130
46 115 Regression Analysis
42 148
71 100
80 156
74 162 Std. Error
70 151
80 156 ANOVA table
85 162 Source
 72 158 Regression
64 155 Residual
81 160 Total
41 125
61 150
75 165 Regression output
variables
Intercept
x (mm of Hg

170

160
f(x) = 0.7049006934x + 99.958514514
150 R² = 0.3183490971

140
y mm of Hg

130

120

110

100

90

80
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Age
 SUMMARY OUTPUT
Chart Title
Regression Statistics
35
Multiple R
f(x) = 0.4330867518x - 8.4311365165
R Square
30 R² = 0.7413818931 Adjusted R Square
Standard Error
Observations
25
ANOVA

20 Regression
Residual
Total
15
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
High Temp
Intercept
Temp

y
140

120
f(x) = - 1.7370861183x + 255.9719120658
100 R² = 0.895460037
y
80 Linear (y)
60

40

20

0
SS MS F Significance F
75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
72002 72002 54.67879 2.33E-05
14485 1316.818
86487

Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
0.103234 7.394511 1.37E-05 0.536148 0.99058 0.536148 0.99058
 the variation in growth rates

12 Birth weights effects

1
y 130

120
f(x) = - 1.7370861183x + 255.9719120658
110
F p-value R² = 0.895460037
85.66 3.22E-06 100

90
y
80

70
confidence interval
60
p-value95% lower95% upper
1.00E-07 213.5362 298.4076 50
3.22E-06 -2.1553 -1.3189
40
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

ues for age (x, in

men. We first let
iagram with the x’s
in Figure 8.2. Again
around a line, very
ht line still seems
around the line,
rom lower left to
in Example 2.9, we
ndicating a moder-

31.8% of variation among BP

Regression Analysis

r² 0.318 n 15
r 0.564 k 1
Std. Error 16.690 Dep. Var. y mm of Hg

ANOVA table
SS df MS F p-value
 ### 1 ### 6.07 .0285
### 13 278.5540
### 14

Regression output confidence interval

coefficients std. error t (df=13) p-value95% lower95% upper
99.9585 19.2552 5.191 .0002 58.3603 141.5568
0.7049 0.2861 2.464 .0285 0.0869 1.3229

80 85 90
gression Statistics
0.86104
0.74138
0.72701
2.32489
20

df SS MS F Significance F
1 278.907868191 278.9078682 51.6006951 1.09618775E-06
18 97.292131809 5.405118434
19 376.2

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0%
-8.431 4.641 -1.817 0.086 -18.182 1.320 -18.182
0.433 0.060 7.183 0.000 0.306 0.560 0.306

y
Linear (y)
5.9719120658

120 130
Upper 95.0%
1.320
0.560
 Systolic blood pressure measurement (mm Hg) from arteriosnode machineobtained by from 10

Persons Oberserver 1
1 194
2 126
3 130
4 98
5 136
6 145
7 110
8 108
9 102
10 126
Mean x
Variance
SD
 Chi square test One way for varinace
pressure measurement (mm Hg) from arteriosnode machineobtained by from 10 patients and read by 2 observers

Observer 2 Difference d
200 -6
123 3
128 2
101 -3
135 1
145 0
111 -1
107 1
99 3
128 -2
-0.2
8.1777777778 Polutation
2.8596814119 SD

χ2=(n-1)samle varance/population deviation

χ2=(10-1)*8.178/35

73.602
2.1029142857
χ2=2.103

Perform Chi sqaure Chi distant

Ans Chi dist (right hand tail are) 0.9897320039
p value 1tail 1-0.989 0.010268
p value2 tail 2*0.01268 0.020536

maximum limits of variance for 95% confidence intervals 9*8.178/19.02 3.87

9*8.178/2.70 27.26
Therefore confidence limits the value is expected between
(3.87 & 27.26
similarly std deviations limits(1.97 &5.22)

Hence, null hypothesis is rejected as p value is less than 0.05

the observed variance (0.9897)is well below expected value 8.178
Therefore the result measured has strong relations
 #VALUE!

Polutation
35

opulation deviation
Confidence interval - mean

95% confidence level

7 mean
2 std. dev.
25 n
1.960 z
0.784 half-width
7.784 upper confidence limit
6.216 lower confidence limit

Confidence interval - mean

95% confidence level

7 mean
2 std. dev.
25 n
2.064 t (df = 24)
0.826 half-width
7.826 upper confidence limit
6.174 lower confidence limit

Descriptive statistics

Oberserver 1 Observer 2
count 10 10
mean 127.50 127.70
sample standard 27.93 29.53
sample varianc 779.83 871.79
minimum 98 99
maximum 194 200
range 96 101

normal curve GOF

p-value .2733 .1573
chi-square(df=1 1.20 2.00
E 2.50 2.50
O(-0.67) 3 3
O(+0.00) 3 2
f(Chisq)
O(+0.67) 3 4
O(inf.) 1 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Chisq
0.00

Chi-square distribution
df = 9
P(lower) P(upper) Chi-square
0.00E+00 1.0000 0.00
Correlation Matrix

x (mm of Hg y mm of Hg
x (mm of Hg 1.000
y mm of Hg .564 1.000

15 sample size

± .514 critical value .05 (two-tail)

± .641 critical value .01 (two-tail)

Randomized blocks ANOVA

Mean n Std. Dev

11.000 21 6.205 Child
44.619 21 11.522 5-10 Yrs Later
46.524 21 19.702 At Transplant
1.429 21 0.507 Gender
15.762 21 4.253 Age

20.000 5 20.012 Block 1

20.600 5 19.021 Block 2
26.400 5 26.235 Block 3
29.800 5 30.194 Block 4
19.200 5 17.384 Block 5
35.800 5 36.396 Block 6
 15.200 5 13.122 Block 7
17.400 5 14.775 Block 8
26.600 5 27.098 Block 9
16.400 5 11.524 Block 10
20.200 5 16.903 Block 11
35.200 5 38.068 Block 12
23.200 5 18.740 Block 13
23.200 5 19.305 Block 14
25.000 5 21.920 Block 15
29.000 5 24.718 Block 16
33.600 5 28.676 Block 17
22.400 5 15.502 Block 18
26.200 5 23.721 Block 19
18.400 5 13.631 Block 20
17.400 5 12.198 Block 21
23.867 105 21.215 Total

ANOVA table
Source SS df MS F p-value
Treatments 35,252.99 4 8,813.248 90.68 6.41E-29
Blocks 3,780.13 20 189.007 1.94 .0197
Error 7,775.01 80 97.188
Total 46,808.13 104

Post hoc analysis

p-values for pairwise t-tests
Gender Child Age10 Yrs LaterAt Transplant
1.429 11.000 15.762 44.619 46.524
Gender 1.429
Child 11.000 .0023
Age 15.762 1.02E-05 .1215
5-10 Yrs Later 44.619 1.45E-23 9.02E-18 9.81E-15
At Transplant 46.524 1.18E-24 5.81E-19 5.87E-16 .5330

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 80)

Gender Child Age10 Yrs LaterAt Transplant
1.429 11.000 15.762 44.619 46.524
Gender 1.429
Child 11.000 3.15
Age 15.762 4.71 1.57
5-10 Yrs Later 44.619 14.20 11.05 9.49
At Transplant 46.524 14.82 11.68 10.11 0.63

critical values for experimentwise error rate:

0.05 2.80
0.01 3.38

Comparison of Groups
100.0
90.0
80.0
 Comparison of Groups
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Child 5-10 Yrs Later At Transplant Gender Age
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Confidence interval
Mean zone diameters with 30μg netilmicin disks te

E.Coli
Lab diff media
1A 27.5
B 24.6
C 25.3
D 28.7
E 23
F 26.8
G 24.7
H 24.3
9I 24.9

Point estimate Mean 25.5333333333

SD 1.7839562775
Confidence 1.1654966846

Confidence Interval of mean 27.3172896108

24.3678366487

Confidence Inteval of SD 2.9494529621

0.6184595929

Confidence Cofficient 1.96

Margin of Error 1.1655181013
Upper bound 26.6988514346
Lower bound 24.367815232

1.0303317214

Margin of Error 0.4121326886

7.4121326886 6.5878673114

Column1

Mean
Standard Error
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Sample Variance
Kurtosis
Skewness
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Count
Confidence Level(95.0%)

Descriptive statistics

count
mean
sample standard deviation
sample variance
minimum
maximum
range

standard error of the mean

confidence interval 95.% low

confidence interval 95.% upp
half-width
meters with 30μg netilmicin disks tested in nine separate laboratories

S.aureus P.aeruginosa
Common Media difference diff media Common Media
23.8 3.7 25.4 23.9 20.1 16.7
21.1 3.5 24.8 24.2 18.4 17
25.4 -0.1 24.6 25 16.8 17.1
25.4 3.3 29.8 26.7 21.7 18.2
24.8 -1.8 27.5 25.3 20.1 16.7
25.7 1.1 28.1 25.2 20.3 19.2
26.8 -2.1 31.2 27.1 22.8 18.8
26.2 -1.9 24.3 26.5 19.9 18.1
26.3 -1.4 25.4 25.1 19.3 19.2

25.0555555556 0.477778 26.788888889 25.4444444444 19.93333 17.88889

1.7263481045 2.480311 2.4886966692 1.1046618387 1.735655 1.039765
1.1278600365 1.62044 1.6259186133 0.7216991396 1.133941 0.679301

Column1

25.5333333333
0.5946520925
24.9
#N/A
 1.7839562775
3.1825
-0.2607497746
0.6114613616
5.7
23
28.7
229.8
9
1.3712701832

diff media
9
25.533
1.784
3.183
23
28.7
5.7

0.595

24.162
26.905
1.371