Ferl Diane Siño

John Kerby Gripo

ANALYSIS 3

PROBLEM 1
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
1. Ho: There is no significant difference between taking a Math Test with Bilingual
Dictionary and Math Test without Bilingual Dictionary
Ha: There is a significant difference between taking a Math Test with Bilingual
Dictionary and Math Test without Bilingual Dictionary
2.  = 0.05  = 10
3. TS: T-Test for dependent samples
4. DR: Reject the Ho if p-value ≤ 0.05 critical value; otherwise fail to reject
5. Computation

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair Without Bilingual 3.10000 7.34015 2.32116 -2.15083 8.35083 1.336 9 .214
1 Dictionary - With
Bilingual Dictionary

6. Decision/Conclusion:
Since the p-value resulted from this test is 0.214 which is greater than the supposed
P-value of 0.05, we therefore conclude that there is no significant difference between
taking a Math Test with Bilingual Dictionary and Math Test without Bilingual Dictionary.
PROBLEM 2
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
1. Ho: There is no significant difference between the health of the participants with
hobbies and the health of the participants without hobbies
Ha: There is a significant difference between the health of the participants with hobbies
and the health of the participants without hobbies
2.  = 0.05 1 = 7, 2 = 6
3. TS: T-Test for Independent samples
4. DR: Reject the Ho if p-value ≤ 0.05 critical value; otherwise fail to reject
5. Computation

Group Statistics
With Hobby Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Number of visits No Hobby Group 7 11.0000 4.12311 1.55839
With Hobby Group 6 5.5000 3.27109 1.33542

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Number Equal .184 .676 2.629 11 .023 5.50000 2.09178 .89602 10.10398
of visits variances
assumed
Equal 2.680 10.957 .021 5.50000 2.05229 .98078 10.01922
variances not
assumed

6. Decision/Conclusion:

Since the p-value resulted from Levene’s test for equality of variances is 0.676, it
can be determined that the data has equal variances assumed. The p-value where equal
variances are assumed is 0.023 which is less than the supposed P-value of 0.05, we
therefore conclude that there is a significant difference between the health of the
participants with hobbies and the health of the participants without hobbies.

PROBLEM 3
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
1. Ho: There is no significant difference between having an animal companionship (a
cat) and not having an animal companionship (a cat) on the quality of life satisfaction of
elderly males.
Ha: There is significant difference between having an animal companionship (a cat)
and not having an animal companionship (a cat) on the quality of life satisfaction of
elderly males.
2.  = 0.05  = 10
3. TS: Friedman Two-way ANOVA
4. DR: Reject the Ho if p-value ≤ 0.05 critical value; otherwise fail to reject
5. Computation

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
Week 1 10 9.4000 2.79682 7.00 15.00
Week 2 10 10.6000 5.56177 4.00 19.00
Week 3 10 10.1000 3.87155 2.00 16.00
Week 4 10 10.2000 4.02216 5.00 17.00

Ranks
Mean Rank
Test Statisticsa
N 10
Week 1 2.00
Chi-Square 2.160
Week 2 2.60
df 3
Week 3 2.60
Asymp. Sig. .540
Week 4 2.80
a. Friedman Test

6. Decision/Conclusion:
After running the Friedman Test, we therefore conclude that there is no significant
difference between having an animal companionship (a cat) and not having an animal
companionship (a cat) on the quality of life satisfaction of elderly males since the P-value
resulted from this test is 0.540 which is greater than the supposed P-value of 0.05.
PROBLEM 4
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
1. Ho: There is no significant difference between the strength gains of the participants
who are subject to three different treatments.
Ha: There is significant difference between the strength gains of the participants who
are subject to three different treatments.
2.  = 0.05 1= 5, 2=5, 3 =5
3. TS: Kruskal-Wallis H-test
4. DR: Reject the Ho if p-value ≤ 0.05 critical value; otherwise fail to reject
5. Computation

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
Treatment 15 8.4667 4.88243 1.00 16.00
Rank 15 2.0000 .84515 1.00 3.00

Test Statisticsa,b
Treatment
Rank N Mean Rank
Chi-Square 2.720
Treatment I 5 7.30
df 2
II 5 6.10
Asymp. Sig. .257
III 5 10.60
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
Total 15
b. Grouping Variable: Rank

6. Decision/Conclusion:

After running the Kruskal-Wallis H-test, we therefore conclude that there is no

significant difference between the strength gains of the participants who are subject to
three different treatments since the P-value resulted from this test is 0.257 which is greater
than the supposed P-value of 0.05.

PROBLEM 6
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
1. Ho: There is no significant relationship between the ratings of a tobacco leaf grader
and the moisture content of the corresponding tobacco leaves
 Ha: There is significant relationship between the ratings of a tobacco leaf grader and
the moisture content of the corresponding tobacco leaves
2.  = 0.05  =12
3. TS: Spearman Rank Correlation, T-test
4. DR: Reject the Ho if p-value ≤ 0.05 critical value; otherwise fail to reject
5. Computation

Correlations
Grader's rating moisture content
Spearman's rho Grader's rating Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .912**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 12 12
moisture content Correlation Coefficient .912** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .
N 12 12
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

6. Decision/Conclusion:

Since the p-value is .000; reject the null hypothesis. We therefore conclude that
there is a significant correlation between the ratings of a tobacco leaf grader and the
moisture content of the corresponding tobacco leaves. Further, since the correlation is
very strong positive, it can be concluded that the higher the rating of graders, the better
are the moisture content of the corresponding tobacco leaves and vice-versa.

PROBLEM 7
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
1. Ho: There is no significant difference between the physical feature and the capability
of a person in solving difficult problems
Ha: There is a significant difference between the physical feature and the capability of
a person in solving difficult problems
2.  = 0.05  = 24
3. TS: Kruskal-Wallis H-test, Mann-Whitney U-tests
4. DR: Reject the Ho if p-value ≤ 0.05 critical value; otherwise fail to reject
5. Computation
KRUSKAL-WALLIS H-TEST

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
PHOTOGRAPHS OF 24 24 12.5000 7.07107 1.00 24.00
PEOPLE
CLASSIFICATION BY 24 2.0000 .83406 1.00 3.00
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION

Ranks
CLASSIFICATION BY PHYSICAL
ATTRACTION N Mean Rank
PHOTOGRAPHS OF 24 PEOPLE Very Attractive 8 7.50
Average 8 11.50
Very Unattractive 8 18.50
Total 24

Test Statisticsa,b

PHOTOGRAPHS
OF 24 PEOPLE
Chi-Square 9.920
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .007
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable:
CLASSIFICATION BY PHYSICAL
ATTRACTION

6. Decision/Conclusion:
After running the Kruskal-Wallis H-test, we therefore conclude that there is a
significant difference between the physical feature and the capability of a person in solving
difficult problems since the P-value resulted from this test is 0.007 which is much lower
than the supposed P-value of 0.05. With this, we proceed to Mann-Whitney U-tests to
identify which groups are significantly different.

MANN-WHITNEY U-TESTS

 Between Very Attractive and the Average

Ranks
CLASSIFICATION BY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
PHOTOGRAPHS OF 24 Very Attractive 8 7.00 56.00
PEOPLE Average 8 10.00 80.00
Total 16

Test Statisticsa
PHOTOGRAPH
S OF 24
PEOPLE
Mann-Whitney U 20.000
Wilcoxon W 56.000
Z -1.260
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .208
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .234b
a. Grouping Variable: CLASSIFICATION BY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION
b. Not corrected for ties.

Explanation:
After running the Mann-Whitney U-test, it can be determined that the “between very
attractive and the average” group are not the ones that is significantly different because
its p-value was only 0.208 which is greater than the supposed P-value of 0.05.
  Between the Average and Very Unattractive

Ranks
CLASSIFICATION BY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
PHOTOGRAPHS OF 24 Average 8 6.00 48.00
PEOPLE Very Unattractive 8 11.00 88.00
Total 16

Test Statisticsa
PHOTOGRAPH
S OF 24
PEOPLE
Mann-Whitney U 12.000
Wilcoxon W 48.000
Z -2.100
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .036
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .038b
a. Grouping Variable: CLASSIFICATION BY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION
b. Not corrected for ties.

Explanation:
After running the Mann-Whitney U-test, it can be determined that the “between the
Average and Very Unattractive” group are the ones that is significantly different from the
rest of the group because its computed p-value was only 0.036 which is lower than the
supposed P-value of 0.05.

 Between Very Attractive and Very Unattractive

Ranks
CLASSIFICATION BY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
PHOTOGRAPHS OF 24 Very Attractive 8 5.00 40.00
PEOPLE Very Unattractive 8 12.00 96.00
Total 16
 Test Statisticsa
PHOTOGRAPH
S OF 24
PEOPLE
Mann-Whitney U 4.000
Wilcoxon W 40.000
Z -2.941
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .003
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .002b
a. Grouping Variable: CLASSIFICATION BY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION
b. Not corrected for ties.

Explanation:
After running the Mann-Whitney U-test, it can be determined that the between Very
Attractive and Very Unattractive group are the ones that is significantly different from the
rest of the group because its computed p-value was only 0.003 which is greatly lower than
the supposed P-value of 0.05.