Finding Proportions And Probabilities Based On Normal Distri

Finding Proportions and Probabilities Based on Normal Distributions and Other Statistical Scenarios

Analyze various statistical problems involving proportions, probabilities, and normal distributions. These problems include calculating proportions of IQ scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), identifying specific IQ scores corresponding to certain percentiles, estimating hours of physical discomfort during colds using normal distribution, interpreting body mass index (BMI) data, evaluating survey sampling methods, and computing probabilities related to births, card guesses, sensor accuracy in nuclear reactors, and medical testing scenarios such as mammograms.

Paper For Above instruction

Statistical analysis plays a critical role in understanding and interpreting data across diverse fields such as psychology, medicine, and social sciences. One fundamental concept is understanding how data are distributed in a population and using this information to derive meaningful proportions, probabilities, and inferences. This paper explores a variety of statistical problems centered around the normal distribution, as well as probability calculations related to real-world scenarios, emphasizing practical applications and interpretation of statistical data.

One key area of focus is the analysis of IQ scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). The WAIS scores are approximately normally distributed with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Understanding the proportion of individuals scoring above or below certain thresholds allows psychologists and educators to assess the distribution of intelligence within populations. For instance, calculating the proportion of scores above a certain value, such as Kristen’s score of 125, involves computing the z-score and consulting the standard normal distribution table. Specifically, the z-score for Kristen’s score would be (125-100)/15 = 1.67, which corresponds to a cumulative probability of approximately 0.9525 (or 95.25%). Therefore, about 4.75% of the population scores higher than 125.

Similarly, the proportion of scores below 82 can be calculated by z = (82-100)/15 = -1.2, corresponding to a cumulative probability of roughly 0.1151. Consequently, approximately 11.51% of individuals score below 82. To determine the proportion within a certain range around the mean, like within 9 points, one would assess the z-scores corresponding to 91 and 109 (since 100 ± 9), which are approximately -0.6 and +0.6. The area between these z-scores gives the proportion within this range, roughly 0.4515 on each side, totaling approximately 90.7% of the population (since the area between z = -0.6 and z = 0.6 is about 0.4515 on each side). Likewise, the proportion more than 40 points away from the mean involves calculating the z-scores for 60 and 140, which are about -2.67 and +2.67, corresponding to cumulative probabilities of about 0.0038 and 0.9962, respectively, indicating that around 0.38% of scores are more than 40 points from the mean in either direction.

Another crucial aspect is identifying specific IQ scores that correspond to certain percentile cut-offs. For example, to find the IQ score corresponding to the upper 2% of scores, one would identify the z-score that leaves 98% to the left, approximately 2.05. Using the z-score formula, the IQ score is 100 + 2.05 15 = 100 + 30.75 = 130.75. For the lower 10%, the z-score is approximately -1.28, leading to 100 - 1.28 15 = 100 - 19.2 = 80.8. The upper 60% corresponds to a z-score of about 0.25, resulting in 100 + 0.25 * 15 = 103.75. The middle 95%, which straddles the median, spans z-scores of approximately -1.96 and +1.96, translating to scores of about 100 - 29.4 = 70.6 and 100 + 29.4 = 129.4. The middle 99% encompasses z-scores of roughly -2.58 and +2.58, leading to scores of approximately 100 - 38.7 = 61.3 and 100 + 38.7 = 138.7. These calculations facilitate understanding the distribution of IQ scores and identifying thresholds for different performance categories.

Extending the analysis to health scenarios, suppose an investigator examines hours of discomfort during colds, modeled by a normal distribution with a mean of 83 hours and a standard deviation of 20 hours. Calculating the hours corresponding to the shortest suffering 5% involves identifying the z-score associated with the 5th percentile, approximately -1.64, and converting it back to hours: 83 + (-1.64) 20 ≈ 83 - 32.8 ≈ 50.2 hours. Similarly, to find the proportion of sufferers experiencing more than 48 hours, the z-score for 48 hours is (48-83)/20 = -1.75, corresponding to a cumulative probability of about 0.0401, indicating roughly 96% suffer more than 48 hours. For fewer than 61 hours, z = (61-83)/20 = -1.1, and the cumulative probability is approximately 0.1357, so about 86.43% suffer less than 61 hours. For the extreme 1% above or below the mean, the z-scores are about ±2.33, translating to hours approximately 83 ± 2.3320 = 83 ± 46.6, giving a range of roughly 36.4 to 129.6 hours. This indicates that only 1% of sufferers are estimated to endure fewer than about 36 hours or more than about 130 hours of discomfort. Analyzing durations that correspond to specific day ranges, such as 1 to 3 days (24-72 hours), involves calculating their z-scores: from -2.45 to 0.35, with respective probabilities, and finding the proportion of sufferers within this range.

Body Mass Index (BMI), a measure of body size, follows a positively skewed distribution in American males, with a mean of 28 and a standard deviation of 4. Since the distribution is positively skewed, the median BMI is typically lower than the mean, indicating that the median BMI score would likely be less than 28. For overweight classification, the BMI threshold is 25, which corresponds to a z-score of (25 - 28)/4 = -0.75. For obesity at a BMI of 30 or more, z = (30 - 28)/4 = 0.5. These z-scores help identify the percentage of the population classified as overweight or obese directly from the standard normal distribution table, indicating the public health implications of rising BMI trends over time.

Survey methods are critical in gathering representative data. For example, a poll following a televised debate used automated phone calls to collect feedback. However, such a sampling method is unlikely to be truly random, as it may exclude certain demographics, such as individuals without landlines or those who do not answer automated calls. Improving this poll could involve using multiple modes of contact, stratified sampling, and ensuring the sample reflects the voting population's demographic composition, thus increasing the validity and reliability of the results.

Probabilities related to births, test scenarios, and sensor accuracy in nuclear reactors involve systematic calculations based on sample space and independence of events. In the case of randomly selecting families with two children, each child has an equal chance of being a boy or girl, with probabilities of 0.5 each. The probability of two boys, two girls, or one of each can be computed using the multiplication rule, assuming independence. For example, the probability of two boys is 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25, same as for two girls, and the combined probability of either two boys or two girls is 0.25 + 0.25 = 0.5. These calculations are fundamental in understanding probabilities in reproductive epidemiology and genetic studies.

In ESP card guessing tests, the probability of a correct guess is 1/5, as there are five symbols. For two guesses, the probability of both being correct is (1/5)^2 = 1/25, while for incorrect guesses in sequence, it's (4/5)^2 = 16/25. For three guesses, probabilities follow similarly, with correct sequences around (1/5)^3 and incorrect ones around (4/5)^3. Such calculations evaluate the likelihood of guessing accuracy under randomness assumptions.

Sensor accuracy in nuclear reactors involves probabilities of correct detection and false alarms. If the sensor has a 97% correct detection rate and false alarm rate of 2%, the probability of an incorrect report—either a false alarm or a miss—is the sum of these probabilities, accounting for overlap. Using independence, the probability of both sensors falsely reporting is the product of individual false alarm probabilities, which helps in designing systems to minimize costly shutdowns or prevent unnoticed faults.

In medical testing, Bayesian reasoning is used to assess the likelihood of diseases given test results. For example, the probability that a woman aged 50-59 has breast cancer given a positive mammogram involves Bayes’ theorem, considering the disease prevalence, test sensitivity, and specificity. Calculations show that the probability of actually having cancer given a positive test is lower than the test's sensitivity, due to the low prevalence of breast cancer but higher than the false positive rate. Similarly, the probability of not having cancer given a negative mammogram involves calculating the negative predictive value, which provides critical information for clinical decision-making.

References

  • Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994). Statistics notes: Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ, 309(6947), 102.
  • Lehne, R. A. (2018). Pharmacology and the nursing process. Elsevier.
  • Lowry, R. (2014). Concepts and applications of inferential statistics. Pearson.
  • Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (2006). Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. W. H. Freeman.
  • Wasserman, L. (2004). All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference. Springer.
  • Jung, T. P., & Nagel, R. (1997). Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. McGraw-Hill.
  • Triola, M. F. (2018). Elementary Statistics. Pearson.
  • Devore, J. L. (2015). Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. Cengage Learning.
  • Rice, J. A. (2006). Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis. Cengage Learning.
  • Hogg, R. V., Tanis, E. A., & Zimmerman, D. L. (2019). Probability and Statistical Inference. Pearson.

Related Assignments