Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Exam

    Uploaded by

    Mae Ann Daganos
    A t-test was conducted to compare the mean body fat percentages of two groups. The results showed a statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups (t(9) = -4.47, p = 0.0008). A second t-test found no statistically significant difference between the mean weights of two fruit samples (t(11) = 1.33, p = 0.21). Linear regression analysis found a participant's waist circumference strongly predicted their body fat percentage (R2 = 0.85, p < 0.0001).

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Exam

    Uploaded by

    Mae Ann Daganos
    9 views11 pages
    A t-test was conducted to compare the mean body fat percentages of two groups. The results showed a statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups (t(9) = -4.47, p = 0.0008). A second t-test found no statistically significant difference between the mean weights of two fruit samples (t(11) = 1.33, p = 0.21). Linear regression analysis found a participant's waist circumference strongly predicted their body fat percentage (R2 = 0.85, p < 0.0001).

    Original Description:

    lways exm po

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A t-test was conducted to compare the mean body fat percentages of two groups. The results showed a statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups (t(9) = -4.47, p = 0.0008). A second t-test found no statistically significant difference between the mean weights of two fruit samples (t(11) = 1.33, p = 0.21). Linear regression analysis found a participant's waist circumference strongly predicted their body fat percentage (R2 = 0.85, p < 0.0001).

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
    9 views11 pages

    Exam

    Uploaded by

    Mae Ann Daganos
    A t-test was conducted to compare the mean body fat percentages of two groups. The results showed a statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups (t(9) = -4.47, p = 0.0008). A second t-test found no statistically significant difference between the mean weights of two fruit samples (t(11) = 1.33, p = 0.21). Linear regression analysis found a participant's waist circumference strongly predicted their body fat percentage (R2 = 0.85, p < 0.0001).

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
    of 11

    t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

    regular premium
    Mean 23.1 25.1
    Variance 13.877777778 11.87778
    Observations 10 10
    Pearson Correlation 0.9251403719
    Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
    df 9
    t Stat -4.472135955
    P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000774943
    t Critical one-tail 1.8331129327
    P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0015498859
    t Critical two-tail 2.2621571628
    regular premium
    16 19
    20 22
    21 24
    22 24
    23 25
    22 25
    27 26
    25 26
    27 28
    28 32
    t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

    strwberry vanilla
    Mean 171.6666667 159.1667
    Variance 2069.69697 2281.061
    Observations 12 12
    Pearson Correlation 0.757990591
    Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
    df 11
    t Stat 1.331988569
    P(T<=t) one-tail 0.104901763
    t Critical one-tail 1.795884819
    P(T<=t) two-tail 0.209803525
    t Critical two-tail 2.20098516
    strwberry vanilla
    210 200
    220 220
    220 180
    120 120
    210 230
    140 140
    180 80
    170 160
    200 170
    100 120
    190 190
    100 100
    SUMMARY OUTPUT

    Regression Statistics
    Multiple R 0.9237307738
    R Square 0.8532785425
    Adjusted R Square 0.8451273505
    Standard Error 3.7636065201
    Observations 20

    ANOVA
    df SS MS F Significance F
    Regression 1 1482.784787311 1482.785 104.6814422 6.2734666E-09
    Residual 18 254.9652126893 14.16473
    Total 19 1737.75

    Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%


    Intercept -36.4879235761 5.5606554756 -6.5618 3.64125E-06 -48.170427223
    waist (inch) 1.6348233598 0.1597849923 10.23139 6.273467E-09 1.2991275478

    RESIDUAL OUTPUT

    Observation Predicted body fat (%) Residuals


    1 10.9219538572 -4.9219538572
    2 22.3657173756 -1.3657173756
    3 25.6353640952 -10.6353640952
    4 9.2871304975 -3.2871304975
    5 20.7308940159 1.2691059841
    6 28.9050108147 2.0949891853
    7 30.5398341745 1.4601658255
    8 20.7308940159 0.2691059841
    9 25.6353640952 -0.6353640952
    10 28.9050108147 1.0949891853
    11 7.6523071377 2.3476928623
    12 24.0005407354 -4.0005407354
    13 22.3657173756 -0.3657173756
    14 9.2871304975 -0.2871304975
    15 35.4443042538 2.5556957462
    16 7.6523071377 2.3476928623
    17 25.6353640952 1.3646359048
    18 10.9219538572 1.0780461428
    19 7.6523071377 2.3476928623
    20 20.7308940159 7.2691059841
    waist (inch) Line Fit Plot
    40
    30

    body fat (%)


    body fat (%)
    20 Predicted body fat
    10 (%)
    0
    26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
    waist (inch)

    Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%


    -24.8054 -48.17042722 -24.80541993
    1.970519 1.2991275478 1.9705191718
    lot

    dy fat (%)
    edicted body fat
    )
    SUMMARY OUTPUT

    Regression Statistics
    Multiple R 0.9237307738
    R Square 0.8532785425
    Adjusted R Square 0.8451273505
    Standard Error 2.1265656271
    Observations 20

    ANOVA
    df SS MS F Significance F
    Regression 1 473.398935405 473.3989354 104.6814 6.2734666E-09
    Residual 18 81.401064595 4.522281366
    Total 19 554.8

    Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%


    Intercept 24.0916990361 1.1140933138 21.62448938 2.49E-14 21.7510758383
    body fat (%) 0.5219392893 0.0510135024 10.23139493 6.27E-09 0.4147638979

    RESIDUAL OUTPUT

    Observation Predicted waist (inch) Residuals


    1 27.223334772 1.776665228
    2 35.0524241116 0.9475758884
    3 31.9207883758 6.0792116242
    4 27.223334772 0.776665228
    5 35.5743634009 -0.5743634009
    6 40.2718170047 -0.2718170047
    7 40.7937562941 0.2062437059
    8 35.0524241116 -0.0524241116
    9 37.1401812689 0.8598187311
    10 39.7498777154 0.2501222846
    11 29.3110919292 -2.3110919292
    12 34.5304848223 2.4695151777
    13 35.5743634009 0.4256365991
    14 28.7891526399 -0.7891526399
    15 43.9253920299 0.0746079701
    16 29.3110919292 -2.3110919292
    17 38.1840598475 -0.1840598475
    18 30.3549705078 -1.3549705078
    19 29.3110919292 -2.3110919292
    20 38.7059991368 -3.7059991368
    body fat (%) Line Fit Plot
    50
    40
    waist (inch)

    waist (inch)
    30
    20 Predicted waist
    10 (inch)
    0
    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
    body fat (%)

    Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%


    26.43232223 21.751075838 26.432322234
    0.629114681 0.4147638979 0.6291146808
    lot

    waist (inch)
    Predicted waist
    (inch)
    waist (inchbody fat (%)
    29 6
    36 21
    38 15
    28 6
    35 22
    40 31
    41 32
    35 21
    38 25
    40 30
    27 10
    37 20
    36 22
    28 9
    44 38
    27 10
    38 27
    29 12
    27 10
    35 28

    You might also like