One Sample t-test

A psychologist has prepared an “Optimism

STATISTICAL TESTS Test” that is administered to graduating
college seniors. The test measures how each
graduating class feels about its future - the
SAMPLE STATISTICAL PROBLEMS
PREPARED BY GEREON A. CABARLES
higher the score, the more optimistic the
class. Last year s class had a mean score of
μ = 15. A sample of n = 9 seniors from this
year s class was selected and tested. The
scores for these seniors are as follows:

1 2

Claim: μ ≠ 15
This year s class has a different level of optimism
than last year s class.
7 12 11 15 7 8 15 9 6
H0 : μ = 15
On the basis of this sample, test the claim
This year s class has the same level of optimism with
that this year s class has a different level last year s class.
of optimism than last year s class. Use 5%
level of signi cance. H1 : μ ≠ 15
This year s class has a different level of optimism
than last year s class.
Test type: 2-tailed

3 4



’

’
’
’
’
’
’
fi
’
’

’
 Decision Rule: Solution:
Subject X X2
1 7 49
df = n − 1 2 12 144
=9−1 3 11 121
=8 4 15 225
5 7 49
6 8 64
α = 0.05 7 15 225
8 9 81
Critical value : ± 2.306
9 6 36
Reject H0 if t ≤ − 2.306 or t ≥ + 2.306 n=9 X=90 X =994
2

Fail to Reject H0 if − 2.306 < t < + 2.306 M=10

5 6

( ∑ X)
2
M−μ Decision Rule:
∑ X2 − s2 t=
2
s = n SM = SM
n−1 n
10 − 15
(90)2
11.75 =
994 − 9 = 1.1426 df = n − 1
= 9
9−1 −5 =9−1
=
994 −
8100
9
= 1.305 1.1426 =8
= = − 4.376
8 = 1.1426
994 − 900
= α = 0.05
8
94 Critical value : ± 2.306
=
8 Reject H0 if t ≤ − 2.306 or t ≥ + 2.306
= 11.75
Fail to Reject H0 if − 2.306 < t < + 2.306

7 8
𝜮
𝜮
 Decision: H0 is rejected
Independent Samples t-
Conclusion: Seniors from this year s class is
test
relatively less optimistic than last year s Seniors. A group of Grade 11 Senior High School
students were given a test on coping ability
using a standardized test. The higher the
test score, the better is the ability to cope.
Results are given below:
Group 1 (Male) 6 8 10 6 7 7 11 9
Group 2 (Female) 3 5 7 3 4 4 8 6

Test the claim that male SHS students can cope

better than female SHS students. Use 0.05 level of
signi cance.
9 10

Claim: μ1 > μ2 Decision Rule:

Male SHS students can cope better than female SHS
students.
df = n1 + n2 − 2
H0 : μ1 ≤ μ2
=8+8−2
There is no signi cant difference in the coping ability = 14
of male and female SHS students.
H1 : μ1 > μ2
α = 0.05
Male SHS students can cope better than female SHS
students. Critical value : + 1.761
Test type: 1-tailed, right-tailed Reject H0 if t ≥ + 1.761
Fail to Reject H0 if t < + 1.761

11 12
fi
fi
’
’
 ( ∑ X1) ( ∑ X2)
2 2

∑ X12 − + ∑ X22 − X1 − X2
Solution: s2 =
n1 n1 t=
n1 + n2 − 2 s2 s2
Subject X1 X12 Subject X2 X22 n1
+ n2
(64)
2
2
1 6 36 1 3 9 536 − + 224 −
(40)

= 8 8 8−5
2 8 64 2 5 25 8+8−2 =
3.43 3.43
3 10 100 3 7 49 (4096) (1600)
8
+ 8
536 − 8
+ 224 − 8
4 6 36 4 3 9 = 3
16 − 2 =
5 7 49 5 4 16 536 − 512 + 224 − 200 0.42875 + 0.42875
=
6 7 49 6 4 16 14
24 + 24
3
7 11 121 7 8 64 = =
14 0.8575
8 9 81 8 6 36 48
= 3
X1=64 X12=536 X2=40 X22=224
14 =
= 3.43
0.926
n1=8 n2=8
= 3.240
M1=8 M2=5

13 14

Decision Rule: Decision: H0 is rejected

Conclusion: Male SHS students have relatively

df = n1 + n2 − 2 better coping ability than female SHS students.
=8+8−2
= 14

α = 0.05
Critical value : + 1.761
Reject H0 if t ≥ + 1.761
Fail to Reject H0 if t < + 1.761

15 16
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
 Paired Samples t-test Claim: μ1 ≠ μ2
The pretest and the posttest scores differ.
A teaching method was introduced to teachers
handling Biology 1 in Senior High School. To H0 : μ1 = μ2
determine its effectiveness, a pretest was given
to 10 students before the new method was used The pretest and the posttest scores do not differ.
and a posttest after a one-week period. Obtained
scores are shown below: H1 : μ1 ≠ μ2
Pretest 8 8 9 10 11 10 7 8 6 6 The pretest and the posttest scores differ.
Posttest 10 10 9 11 11 10 7 7 5 8
Test type: 2-tailed
Using 5% alpha, test the claim that the
pretest and posttest scores differ.

17 18

Decision Rule: Solution:

Subject Pretest (X1) Posttest (X2) D (X1-X2) D2
1 8 10 -2 4

df = n − 1 2 8 10 -2 4
3 9 9 0 0
= 10 − 1 4 10 11 -1 1
=9 5 11 11 0 0
6 10 10 0 0
7 7 7 0 0
α = 0.05 8 8 7 1 1
Critical value : ± 2.262 9 6 5 1 1
10 6 8 -2 4
Reject H0 if t ≤ − 2.262 or t ≥ + 2.262 n=10 X1=83 X2=88 D=-5 D2=15
Fail to Reject H0 if − 2.262 < t < + 2.262 M1=8.3 M2=8.8

19 20
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
 ( ∑ D)
2

∑ D2 − sD
n sD = X1 − X2 Decision Rule:
sD = n t=
n−1 sD
1.18
= 8.3 − 8.8
(−5)
2
10 =
15 − 0.37
=
10 − 1
10
1.18 −0.5 df = n − 1
= =
3.16 0.37 = 10 − 1
(25) = 0.3726779962 = − 1.341640786
15 − 10 =9
=
9
15 − 2.5
=
9 α = 0.05
=
12.5 Critical value : ± 2.262
9
Reject H0 if t ≤ − 2.262 or t ≥ + 2.262
= 1.39
= 1.178511302 Fail to Reject H0 if − 2.262 < t < + 2.262

21 22

Decision: Fail to reject H0

One-Way Analysis of
Variance (One-Way ANOVA)
Conclusion: The new teaching method is relatively
not effective in improving the scores of SHS You wish to compare how a low-fat diet, low-fat diet and
students in Biology 1. a brisk four-mile walk each day, and a low-fat diet and a
four-mile jog each day, affect cholesterol levels. You
randomly assign six subjects to each group. The scores
presented below show the reduction in cholesterol count
after t wo months. At 5% level of signi cance, test the
claim that there is a signi cant difference in the mean
cholesterol count for the three groups.
Low-fat diet 10 8 15 12 9 6
Diet and walk 14 12 18 16 13 17
Diet and jog 19 15 14 16 18 20

23 24
fi
fi
 Claim: μ1 ≠ μ2 ≠ μ3 Decision Rule:
There is a signi cant difference in the mean
cholesterol count for the three groups.
dfb = k − 1 dfw = nt − k
H0 : μ1 = μ2 = μ3 =3−1 = 18 − 3
There is no signi cant difference in the mean =2 = 15
cholesterol count for the three groups.

H1 : μ1 ≠ μ2 ≠ μ3 α = 0.05
There is a signi cant difference in the mean Critical value : + 3.68
cholesterol count for the three groups. Reject H0 if F ≥ + 3.68
Test type: 2-tailed Fail to Reject H0 if F < + 3.68

25 26

Solution:
∑ ∑ 1 ∑ 2 ∑ 3
Xt = X + X + X
X1 X12 X2 X22 X3 X32
= 60 + 90 + 102
10 100 14 196 19 361
= 252
8 64 12 144 15 225

Xt2 = X2 + X2 + X2
∑ ∑ 1 ∑ 2 ∑ 3
15 225 18 324 14 196
12 144 16 256 16 256 = 650 + 1378 + 1762
9 81 13 169 18 324 = 3790
6 36 17 289 20 400
nt = n1 + n2 + n3
X1=60 X12=650 X2=90 X22=1378 X3=102 X32=1762
=6+6+6
n1=6 n2=6 n1=6 = 18
M1=10 M2=15 M3=17

27 28
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
fi
fi
fi
Total Sum of Squares (SSt) Bet ween Sum of Squares (SSb)

( ∑ Xt)
2
( ∑ X1) ( ∑ X2) ( ∑ X3) ( ∑ Xt)
2 2 2 2
X2
∑ t
SSt = − SSb = + + −
nt n1 n2 n3 nt

(252)
2

(60) (252)
2 2
= 3790 − (90)2 (102)2
18 = + + −
6 6 6 18
63504
= 3790 −
[ 6 6 ]
18 3600 8100 10404 63504
= + + −
= 3790 − 3528 6 18
= 262 = [600 + 1350 + 1734] − 3528
= 3684 − 3528
= 156

29 30

Within Sum of Squares (SSw) Mean Squares (MS)

SSw = SSt − SSb SSb SSw
= 262 − 156 MSb = MSw =
dfb dfw
= 106
156 106
Bet ween degrees of freedom (dfb) = =
2 15
dfb = k − 1 = 78 = 7.07
=3−1
=2 MSb
F ratio (F)
F=
Within degrees of freedom (dfw) MSw
dfw = nt − k 78
=
= 18 − 3 7.07
= 15 = 11.03

31 32
 Decision Rule:
ONE-WAY ANOVA

CHOLESTEROL COUNT dfb = k − 1 dfw = nt − k

=3−1 = 18 − 3
Sum of Mean
=2 = 15
Squares df Square F
Between Groups
156 2 78 11.03
α = 0.05
Within Groups
106 15 7.07
Critical value : + 3.68
Total
262 17 Reject H0 if F ≥ + 3.68
Fail to Reject H0 if F < + 3.68

33 34

Post Hoc Test (Tukey s HSD test) Post Hoc Test (Tukey s HSD test)
Tukey s Honestly Signi cant Difference test MSw
MSw HSD = q
HSD = q n
n
7.07
Where:
= 3.67
MSw = the within-groups mean square = 7.07 6
n = the number of cases in each group = 6 = 3.67 1.178
q = the value of a new statistic called Studentized range statistic = 3.67 = 3.67 × 1.085
The value of q depends on the signi cance level (0.05), the number of = 3.98
groups (3), and dfw (15).

35 36
’
fi
’
’
fi
 Decision: Reject H0
M1 = 10 M2 = 15 M3 = 17
Conclusion: Diet with walk and diet with jog are
M1 = 10 - 5 7 likely to be more effective in lowering the
cholesterol level compared to diet only.
M2 = 15 5 - 2

M3 = 17 7 2 -

Our computed HSD is 3.98. If the difference is equal to

or greater than the computed HSD, the result is
signi cant, meaning, there is a signi cant difference
bet ween the t wo means. Therefore, results are
signi cant for Groups 1 and 2 and Groups 1 and 3.

37 38

Mann-Whitney U test Claim:

Men are better than women in abstract reasoning.
An educational psychologist feels that men are better
at abstract reasoning than women. To test this claim, H0 :
he collected the following percentile scores for 6
women and 7 men. Using 0.05 level of signi cance, There is no signi cant difference in the abstract
test the claim that men are better than women in reasoning ability of men and women.
abstract reasoning. High score indicates better
abstract reasoning ability. Data are given below: H1 :
Men are better than women in abstract reasoning.
Women 72 64 50 85 78 80
Men 75 86 92 81 88 95 91
Test type: 1-tailed, right-tailed

39 40
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Solution:
Decision Rule:
α = 0.05
Subject Percentile Score Group Ranked Score Final Rank Group
1 72 1 95 1 2
2 64 1 92 2 2
Test type: 1-tailed, right-tailed
3 50 1 91 3 2

n1 = 6 n2 = 7 4 85 1 88 4 2
5 78 1 86 5 2
Critical value : 8 6 80 1 85 6 1
7 75 2 81 7 2

Reject H0 if U ≤ 8 8 86 2 80 8 1
9 92 2 78 9 1
10 81 2 75 10 2
Fail to Reject H0 if U > 8
11 88 2 72 11 1
12 95 2 64 12 1
13 91 2 50 13 1

41 42

n1(n1 + 1) n2(n2 + 1)
∑ 1 ∑ 2
U1 = n1n2 + − R U2 = n1n2 + − R
Group 1 Rank Group 2 Rank 2 2
6 (6 + 1) 7 (7 + 1)
72 11 75 10 =6×7+ − 59 =6×7+ − 32
2 2
64 12 86 5 6 (7) 7 (8)
=6×7+ − 59 =6×7+ − 32
2 2
50 13 92 2
42 56
= 42 + − 59 = 42 + − 32
85 6 81 7 2 2
= 42 + 21 − 59 = 42 + 28 − 32
78 9 88 4 = 63 − 59 = 70 − 32
80 8 95 1 =4 = 38

91 3 n1n2 = U1 + U2 U1 = 4 U2 = 38
n1 = 6 R1 = 59 n2 = 7 R2 = 32 6 × 7 = 4 + 38
42 = 42 U=4

43 44
𝜮
𝜮
 Solution:
Group 1 Rank Group 2 Rank
Subject Percentile Score Group Ranked Score Final Rank Group
1 72 1 50 1 1 72 3 75 4
2 64 1 64 2 1
64 2 86 9
3 50 1 72 3 1
4 85 1 75 4 2 50 1 92 12
5 78 1 78 5 1
6 80 1 80 6 1
85 8 81 7
7 75 2 81 7 2 78 5 88 10
8 86 2 85 8 1
9 92 2 86 9 2 80 6 95 13
10 81 2 88 10 2
91 11
11 88 2 91 11 2
12 95 2 92 12 2 n1 = 6 R1 = 25 n2 = 7 R2 = 66
13 91 2 95 13 2

45 46

n1(n1 + 1) n2(n2 + 1)
∑ 1 ∑ 2
U1 = n1n2 + − R U2 = n1n2 + − R Decision Rule:
2 2
6 (6 + 1) 7 (7 + 1) α = 0.05
=6×7+ − 25 =6×7+ − 66
2 2
6 (7) 7 (8) Test type: 1-tailed
=6×7+ − 25 =6×7+ − 66
2 2
42 56 n1 = 6 n2 = 7
= 42 + − 25 = 42 + − 66
2 2
= 42 + 21 − 25 = 42 + 28 − 66 Critical value : 8
= 63 − 25 = 70 − 66
= 38 =4 Reject H0 if U ≤ 8

n1n2 = U1 + U2 U1 = 38 U2 = 4 Fail to Reject H0 if U > 8

6 × 7 = 38 + 4
42 = 42 U=4

47 48
𝜮
𝜮
 Shortcut Solution:
Decision: Reject H0
Subject Ranked Score Final Rank Group # of 2s below 1 # of 1s below 2

Conclusion: Men tend to perform better in abstract 1 95 1 2 6

2 92 2 2 6
reasoning than women.
3 91 3 2 6
4 88 4 2 6
5 86 5 2 6
6 85 6 1 2
7 81 7 2 5
8 80 8 1 1
9 78 9 1 1
10 75 10 2 3
11 72 11 1
12 64 12 1
13 50 13 1
U1 = 4 U2 = 38

49 50

Shortcut Solution: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks

Subject
1
Ranked Score

50
Final Rank
1
Group
1
# of 2s below 1 # of 1s below 2
7
test
2 64 2 1 7 A random sample of nine students was selected to
3 72 3 1 7
test the effectiveness of a special course designed
4 75 4 2 3
5 78 5 1 6
to improve memory. Using 5% alpha, test the claim
6 80 6 1 6 that the special course makes a signi cant
7 81 7 2 1 improvement in the memory of the students. The
8 85 8 1 5 following table gives the results of a memory test
9 86 9 2 given to these students before and after the course:
10 88 10 2
11 91 11 2
12 92 12 2 Before 43 57 48 65 81 49 38 69 58
13 95 13 2 After 49 56 55 77 89 57 38 64 69
U1 = 38 U2 = 4

51 52
fi
 Claim: Decision Rule:
The special course makes signi cant improvement in α = 0.05
the memory of the students.
Test type: 1-tailed
H0 :
n=8
There is no signi cant difference in the before and
after memory scores of the students. Critical value : 5

H1 : Reject H0 if T ≤ 5
The special course makes signi cant improvement in Fail to Reject H0 if T > 5
the memory of the students.

Test type: 1-tailed

53 54

Solution:
Subject Before After Difference Absolute
Rank Rank - Rank + Decision Rule:
1 43 49 6 3 3 α = 0.05
2 57 56 -1 1 1
Test type: 1-tailed
3 48 55 7 4 4
4 65 77 12 8 8 n=8
5 81 89 8 5.5 5.5
Critical value : 5
6 49 57 8 5.5 5.5
7 38 38 0 Reject H0 if T ≤ 5
8 69 64 -5 2 2
9 58 69 11 7 7 Fail to Reject H0 if T > 5
R-=3 R + =33

Wilcoxon T is the smaller of the t wo sums. T = 3

55 56
𝜮
𝜮
fi
fi
fi
Decision: Reject H0
Kruskal-Wallis H test
Conclusion: The special course is relatively effective A researcher wants to examine how social
in improving the memory of the students. input affects creativity. Children are asked
to draw pictures under three different
conditions: (1) working along without
supervision, (2) working in groups where
the children are encouraged to examine and
criticize each other s work, and (3) working
along but with frequent super vision and
comments from a teacher.

57 58

Three separate samples are used to represent

the three treatment conditions with n=5 Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3
children in each condition. At the end the
study, the researcher collects the drawings 14 2 26
from all 15 children and rank-orders the
complete set of drawing in terms of 3 14 8
creativity scores. A higher score indicates
high level of creativity. Using 5% alpha, test 21 9 14
the claim that there is a signi cant difference
in the creativity scores of the children 5 12 19
exposed to three different conditions.
Creativity scores are given below: 16 5 20

59 60
’
fi
 Claim: Decision Rule:
There is a signi cant difference in the creativity scores
of the children exposed to three different conditions.
df = k − 1
H0 : =3−1
There is no signi cant difference in the creativity scores =2
of the children exposed to three different conditions.

H1 : α = 0.05
There is a signi cant difference in the creativity scores Critical value : + 5.991
of the children exposed to three different conditions. Reject H0 if H ≥ + 5.991
Test type: 2-tailed Fail to Reject H0 if H < + 5.991

61 62

Solution:
Condition 1 Rank Condition 2 Rank Condition 3 Rank
Subject Creativity Score Group Ranked Score Final Rank Group
1 14 1 26 1 3
2 3 1 21 2 1 14 7 2 15 26 1
3 21 1 20 3 3
4 5 1 19 4 3 3 14 14 7 8 11
5 16 1 16 5 1
6 2 2 14 7 1
7 14 2 14 7 2
21 2 9 10 14 7
8 9 2 14 7 3
9 12 2 12 9 2 5 12.5 12 9 19 4
10 5 2 9 10 2
11 26 3 8 11 3 16 5 5 12.5 20 3
12 8 3 5 12.5 1
13 14 3 5 12.5 2
14 19 3 3 14 1
n1 = 5 R1 = 40.5 n2 = 5 R2 = 53.5 N3 = 5 R3 = 26
15 20 3 2 15 2

63 64
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
fi
fi
fi
 12 k
R2 Solution:
N (N + 1) ∑
H= − 3 (N + 1)
n
i=1 i Subject Creativity Score Group Ranked Score Final Rank Group

(40.5) (53.5) (26)

2 2 2 1 14 1 2 1 2
12
= + + − 3 (15 + 1) 2 3 1 3 2 1
15 (15 + 1) 5 5 5 3 21 1 5 3.5 1
4 5 1 5 3.5 2
(1640.25) (2862.25) (676)
15 (16) [ 5 ]
12 5 16 1 8 5 3
= + + − 3 (16) 6 2 2 9 6 2
5 5 7 14 2 12 7 2
12 8 9 2 14 9 1
= [328.05 + 572.45 + 135.2] − 48 9 12 2 14 9 2
240
10 5 2 14 9 3
= 0.05 (1035.7) − 48 11 26 3 16 11 1
= 51.785 − 48 12 8 3 19 12 3
= 3.785 13 14 3 20 13 3
14 19 3 21 14 1
15 20 3 26 15 3

65 66

k
12 R2
N (N + 1) ∑
H= − 3 (N + 1)
Condition 1 Rank Condition 2 Rank Condition 3 Rank n
i=1 i

(39.5) (26.5) (54)

2 2 2
14 9 2 1 26 15 12
= + + − 3 (15 + 1)
15 (15 + 1) 5 5 5
3 2 14 9 8 5
(1560.25) (702.25) (2916)
15 (16) [ 5 ]
12
= + + − 3 (16)
21 14 9 6 14 9 5 5
12
5 3.5 12 7 19 12 = [312.05 + 140.45 + 583.2] − 48
240
= 0.05 (1035.7) − 48
16 11 5 3.5 20 13
= 51.785 − 48
n1 = 5 n2 = 5 = 3.785
R1 = 39.5 R2 = 26.5 N3 = 5 R3 = 54

67 68
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
 Formula for adjusting H Formula for adjusting H
with tied ranks with tied ranks
H D=1−
∑ (t 3 − t)
Hadj = (n − 1)n(n + 1)
D =1−
∑ (23 − 2) + (33 − 3)
(15 − 1)(15)(15 + 1)

∑ (t 3 − t) =1−
(23 − 2) + (33 − 3)

D=1− (15 − 1)(15)(15 + 1)

(8 − 2) + (27 − 3)
(n − 1)n(n + 1) =1−
(14)(15)(16)
(6) + (24)
=1−
(3360)
(30)
=1−
(3360)
= 1 − 0.0089
= 0.991

69 70

Formula for adjusting H Decision Rule:

with tied ranks
H df = k − 1
Hadj =
D =3−1
3.785 =2
=
0.991
= 3.819 α = 0.05
Critical value : + 5.991
Reject H0 if H ≥ + 5.991
Fail to Reject H0 if H < + 5.991

71 72
 Decision: Fail to reject H0
Chi-Square test of Goodness of Fit
Conclusion: The type of social input given to children A psychologist examining art appreciation
does not seem to have any effect on their level of selected an abstract painting that had no
creativity. obvious top or bottom. Hangers were placed
on the painting so that it could be hung
with any one of the four sides at the top.
The painting was shown to a sample of n =
50 participants, and each was asked to
hang the painting in the orientation that
looked correct. Data are given below:

73 74

Top up Claim:
Bottom up Left Side up Right Side up
(correct)
There is no signi cant difference in the preference for
18 17 7 8 any speci c orientation.
H0 :
Using 5% alpha, test the claim that there is no There is no signi cant difference in the preference for
signi cant difference in the preference for any any speci c orientation.
speci c orientation.
H1 :
There is a signi cant difference in the preference for
any speci c orientation.

Test type: 2-tailed

75 76
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Solution:
Decision Rule:
Category O E (O - E) (O - E)2 (O-E)2/E

df = k − 1 Top Up 18 12.5 5.5 30.25 2.42

Bottom Up 17 12.5 4.5 20.25 1.62
=4−1
Left Side Up 7 12.5 -5.5 30.25 2.42
=3
Right Side Up 8 12.5 -4.5 20.25 1.62
Total 50 50 0 2=8.08
α = 0.05
nt
Critical value : + 7.815 E= (O − E)2
k χ2 =
Reject H0 if χ 2 ≥ + 7.815 ∑ E
50
= = 8.08
Fail to Reject H0 if χ 2 < + 7.815 4
= 12.5

77 78

Decision Rule: Decision: Reject H0

Conclusion: The four orientations are not equally

df = k − 1 likely to be preferred. Instead, there are signi cant
differences among the four orientations, with some
=4−1 selected more often and others less often than
=3 would be expected by chance.

α = 0.05
Critical value : + 7.815
Reject H0 if χ 2 ≥ + 7.815
Fail to Reject H0 if χ 2 < + 7.815

79 80
𝝌
fi
Chi-Square test for Independence Claim:
A study was conducted among eight-grade students There is a signi cant relationship bet ween gender and
to demonstrate that gender is related to willingness willingness to seek mental health assistance.
in using mental health services. Results of the
survey are given below: H0 :
Willingness to Use Mental Health Services There is no signi cant relationship bet ween gender
and willingness to seek mental health assistance.
Sex Probably No Maybe Probably Yes Total
Male 17 32 11 60 H1 :
Female 13 43 34 90
Total 30 75 45 150 There is a signi cant relationship bet ween gender and
willingness to seek mental health assistance.
Using 5% alpha, test the claim that there is a signi cant relationship
bet ween gender and willingness to seek mental health assistance. Test type: 2-tailed

81 82

Solution:
Decision Rule:
Willingness to Use Mental Health Services

df = (C − 1)(R − 1) Sex Probably No Maybe Probably Yes Total

= (3 − 1)(2 − 1) Male 17 (1) 32 (2) 11 (3) 60
=2×1 Female 13 (4) 43 (5) 34 (6) 90
=2 Total 30 75 45 150

α = 0.05 (CT )(RT )

Ex =
Critical value : + 5.991 GT
Reject H0 if χ 2 ≥ + 5.991
Fail to Reject H0 if χ 2 < + 5.991

83 84
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Solution:
(30)(60) (45)(60) (75)(90) Category O E (O - E) (O - E)2 (O-E)2/E
E1 = E3 = E5 =
150 150 150 1 17 12 5 25 2.08
1800 2700 6750
= = = 2 32 30 2 4 0.13
150 150 150
= 12 = 18 = 45 3 11 18 -7 49 2.72
4 13 18 -5 25 1.39
(75)(60) (30)(90) (45)(90) 5 43 45 -2 4 0.09
E2 = E4 = E6 =
150 150 150 6 34 27 7 49 1.81
4500 2700 4050 Total 150 150 0 2=8.22
= = =
150 150 150
= 30 = 18 = 27 (O − E)2
χ2 =
∑ E
= 8.22

85 86

Decision Rule: Decision: Reject H0

Conclusion: Males were less likely to be willing in

df = (C − 1)(R − 1) using mental health ser vices and females were
= (3 − 1)(2 − 1) more likely to be willing in using mental health
=2×1 ser vices.
=2

α = 0.05
Critical value : + 5.991
Reject H0 if χ 2 ≥ + 5.991
Fail to Reject H0 if χ 2 < + 5.991

87 88
𝝌
 Pearson Correlation Patient 7-Minute Screen Cognitive Series
A 3 11
Identifying individuals with a high risk of
B 8 19
Alzheimer s disease usually involves a long
series of cognitive tests. However, C 10 22
researchers have developed a 7-Minute D 8 20
Screen, which is a quick and easy way to E 4 14
accomplish the same goal. To address this F 7 13
question, an investigator administered both G 4 9
tests to a group of patients and compared H 5 20
the results. The following data represent I 14 25
results similar to those obtained in the study. Using 5% alpha, test the claim that there is a
signi cant relationship bet ween the t wo test scores.

89 90

Claim: ρ ≠ 0 Decision Rule:

There is a signi cant relationship bet ween the t wo
test scores. df = n − 2
H0 : ρ = 0 =9−2
There is no signi cant relationship bet ween the t wo =7
test scores.

H1 : ρ ≠ 0 α = 0.05
There is a signi cant relationship bet ween the t wo Critical value : ± 0.666
test scores. Reject H0 if r ≤ − 0.666 or r ≥ + 0.666
Test type: 2-tailed Fail to Reject H0 if − 0.666 < r < + 0.666

91 92
fi
’
fi
fi
fi
 Solution: N ∑ XY − ∑ X ∑ Y
r=
[N ∑ X − ( ∑ X) ] [N ∑ Y − ( ∑ Y) ]
X (7-Minute Y (Cognitive 2 2
Patient Screen) Series) X2 Y2 XY 2 2

A 3 11 9 121 33
9(1198) − (63)(153)
B 8 19 64 361 152 =
[9(539) − (63)2] [9(2837) − (153)2]
C 10 22 100 484 220
10782 − 9639
D 8 20 64 400 160 =
(4851 − 3969)(25533 − 23409)
E 4 14 16 196 56
1143
F 7 13 49 169 91 =
(882)(2124)
G 4 9 16 81 36 1143
H 5 20 25 400 100 =
1873368
I 14 25 196 625 350 1143
=
n=9 X=63 Y=153 X2=539 Y2=2837 XY=1198 1368.7103
= 0.835

93 94

Decision Rule: Decision: Reject H0

Conclusion: The 7-Minute Screen is likely to be

df = n − 2 effective as the Cognitive Series in identifying
=9−2 individuals with high risk of Alzheimer s disease.
=7

α = 0.05
Critical value : ± 0.666
Reject H0 if r ≤ − 0.666 or r ≥ + 0.666
Fail to Reject H0 if − 0.666 < r < + 0.666

95 96
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
𝜮
’
 Spearman Correlation Job Salary (Rank) Stress level (Rank)
Stockholder 2 2
An investigator wanted to test the Zoologist 6 7
claim that there is a signi cant Electrical engineer 3 6
relationship bet ween salary and School principal 5 4
stress level of randomly selected Hotel manager 7 5
jobs. Using 5% level of signi cance, Bank of cer 10 8
test the claim of the investigator. Occupational safety
inspector 9 9
Below are the data obtained in the Home economist 8 10
Psychologist 4 3
study.
Commercial airline pilot 1 1

97 98

Claim: ρ ≠ 0 Decision Rule:

There is a signi cant relationship bet ween salary and
stress level of randomly selected jobs
H0 : ρ = 0 n = 10
There is no signi cant relationship bet ween salary
and stress level of randomly selected jobs.

H1 : ρ ≠ 0 α = 0.05
There is a signi cant relationship bet ween salary and Critical value : ± 0.648
stress level of randomly selected jobs. Reject H0 if r ≤ − 0.648 or r ≥ + 0.648
Test type: 2-tailed Fail to Reject H0 if − 0.648 < r < + 0.648

99 100
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Solution: 6 ∑ d2
ρ=1−
Job Salary (Rank) Stress level (Rank) d d2 n(n 2 − 1)
Stockholder 2 2 0 0 6 × 24
=1−
Zoologist 6 7 -1 1 10(102 − 1)
Electrical
3 6 -3 9 144
engineer
=1−
School principal 5 4 1 1 10(100 − 1)
Hotel manager 7 5 2 4 144
=1−
Bank of cer 10 8 2 4 10(99)
Occupational
9 9 0 0 144
safety inspector
=1−
Home
economist 8 10 -2 4 990
Psychologist 4 3 1 1 = 1 − 0.145
Commercial = 0.855
airline pilot 1 1 0 0
d2=24

101 102

Decision Rule: Decision: Reject H0

Conclusion: The salary of the person seems to be

related to the stress level experienced by him or her
n = 10 in the job. The higher the stress level, the more
likely the person receives a higher salary,

α = 0.05
Critical value : ± 0.648
Reject H0 if r ≤ − 0.648 or r ≥ + 0.648
Fail to Reject H0 if − 0.648 < r < + 0.648

103 104
𝜮
fi