DOC PREVIEW
Cal Poly STAT 217 - Tests of Significance

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4 out of 11 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 11 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 11 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 11 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 11 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 11 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Stat 217 – Day 6Quiz 1 NotesLast TimeExample 1: Helper/HindererIf infants are picking at randomPowerPoint PresentationMickelsonSlide 8“Survey”Data CollectionTo DoStat 217 – Day 6Tests of SignificanceQuiz 1 NotesSolutions posted in PolyLearnGrading notation(c) the question I intended(d) make sure put it in context (“of the time”)Use the percentage or proportionLast TimeUsing observed sample data to evaluate a claim about the general processIs this evidence that students tend to put Tim on the left?Is this evidence that Sarah does better than guessing?Idea: Look at results that do happen “by chance alone” to see whether our observed data are consistent with that patternExample 1: Helper/HindererTrying to decide between1. Infants do evaluate individuals as appealing or aversive based on their actions2. Infants don’t have a genuine preference and these 16 just happened to pick the helper toy more oftenIf infants are picking at randomMeaning equally between the two toys in the long runSmall p-value : It would be very unlikely to have 14 (or more) picking the helper toy if all 16 infants were picking blindly between the two toysConclusion: Strong evidence against the null hypothesis in favor of the alternativeStrong evidence these infants (in the long run) have a genuine preference for the helper toyMickelsonNull hypothesis:  = .418 (his probability of a putt is the same as golfers’ overall)Alternative hypothesis: :  < .418 (Phil has a lower probability of other golfers)MickelsonIf Phil’s probability of a 10-foot putt was .418, we’d expect to see him make 7 or fewer in about 6% of repetitions of 28 putts by chance aloneA p-value of .064 is weak evidence that Phil’s long-run probability of putt is lower than .418.Phil is a “statistically significantly” worse putter.“Survey”A campus legend tells the story of two friends who told their professor that they got a flat tire returning to town and missed the exam. The professor agreed to give them a make-up exam. The first question (worth 5 points) was easy, but the second question worth 95 points, asked “Which tire was it?”Data CollectionIf you have to choose a hypothetically flat tire, which of the four tires would you say went flat?Left front Right frontLeft rear Right rearTo DoReading3 in PolyLearnReading4 in PolyLearnSubmit Lab 1 at beginning of


View Full Document

Cal Poly STAT 217 - Tests of Significance

Download Tests of Significance
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Tests of Significance and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Tests of Significance 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?