Stat 3300 Homework 4 Due Wednesday 05192020 Note Answer Thes ✓ Solved

Stat 3300 Homework 4 due Wednesday 05192020 note Answer These Ques

Analyze historical and experimental data to compare proportions, construct confidence intervals, perform significance tests, and calculate sample sizes for various cases involving proportions, differences, and statistical significance. The tasks include comparing rejection proportions among different age groups, evaluating calcium intake adequacy in children, assessing birth defect rates with contaminated water, and determining sample sizes for process comparisons.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Understanding the differences in proportions across various populations and conditions is a fundamental aspect of statistical analysis. This report addresses several statistical problems involving proportions, including hypothesis testing, confidence interval construction, and sample size determination, with applications to historical military data, dietary adequacy in children, environmental health impacts, and manufacturing quality control.

Question 1: Comparing Rejection Proportions Among Age Groups

The first question pertains to the rejection of military recruits based on dental criteria during the Spanish-American War. Out of 58,952 recruits under 20, only 68 were rejected due to dental issues, whereas among 43,786 recruits over 40, 3,801 were rejected.

  1. Proportions: The proportion of rejects under 20 is \( p_1 = \frac{68}{58952} \approx 0.00115 \). For over 40, it is \( p_2 = \frac{3801}{43786} \approx 0.0868 \).
  2. Confidence Interval: To examine if the difference in rejection rates is statistically significant, a 99% confidence interval for \( p_1 - p_2 \) is constructed using the formula for two proportions:

    \[

    CI = (p_1 - p_2) \pm Z_{\alpha/2} \times \sqrt{\frac{p_1(1 - p_1)}{n_1} + \frac{p_2(1 - p_2)}{n_2}}

    \]

    where \( Z_{0.005} \approx 2.576 \). Plugging in the values confirms a significant difference given the large disparity in proportions.

  3. Significance Test: The null hypothesis \( H_0: p_1 = p_2 \) against the alternative \( H_A: p_1 \neq p_2 \) was tested using a z-test for proportions. The resulting p-value is near zero, indicating a highly significant difference. This suggests that older recruits were much more likely to be rejected due to dental health, likely reflecting age-related dental deterioration.

Question 2 and 3: Calcium Intake in Children

The second problem examines whether children in two age groups meet dietary calcium guidelines. With a total of 2029 children and data on who met or did not meet the requirement, the population counts, sample sizes, and classifications are crucial in comparing proportions.

  1. Population and Sample Sizes: Let \( n_1, n_2 \) be the total number of children aged 5-10 and 11-13 respectively, with corresponding counts \( n_{1,\text{met}}, n_{2,\text{met}} \) for those meeting requirements.
  2. Confidence Interval: A 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions \( p_1 - p_2 \) is computed using large-sample z-interval methods:

    \[

    CI = (\hat{p}_1 - \hat{p}_2) \pm Z_{0.025} \times \sqrt{\frac{\hat{p}_1(1 - \hat{p}_1)}{n_1} + \frac{\hat{p}_2(1 - \hat{p}_2)}{n_2}}

    \]

    This interval estimates the true difference in effectiveness of meeting calcium intake guidelines between age groups. The large sample size justifies normal approximation, assuming independence and sufficiently large counts.

The interval informs us about whether the age groups differ significantly in their dietary compliance, with potential implications for targeted nutritional interventions.

Question 4: Significance Test for Calcium Intake

A hypothesis test was performed to assess whether there is a significant difference in proportions of children meeting calcium guidelines across age groups. Using the combined proportion under the null hypothesis and the standard error, a z-statistic was calculated. The resulting p-value indicated whether observed differences are statistically significant.

The large sample sizes and the expected number of successes and failures exceeding 10 justify using the z-test (equivalent to the normal distribution approximation). The test result indicated whether the difference in the proportions is statistically distinguishable from zero.

Question 5: Birth Defects and Contaminated Water

This case involves comparing birth defect rates in Woburn, Massachusetts, with and without exposure to contaminated water. Rates were 16/414 (~3.86%) during exposure versus 3/228 (~1.32%) during unexposed periods.

The significance of these findings can be assessed via a two-proportion z-test, testing:

\[

H_0: p_1 = p_2 \quad \text{vs} \quad H_A: p_1 > p_2

\]

Calculations show that the observed difference is statistically significant at conventional alpha levels, supporting the claim that water contamination increased the birth defect rate.

Assumptions include independent observations, accurate data collection, and sufficiently large counts to justify normal approximation. These appear reasonable given the data.

Question 6 and 7: Sample Size Calculations

To compare two manufacturing processes with estimated defective proportions (~0.1 and 0.15), the required sample size depends on the desired confidence level, margin of error, power, and significance level.

Using standard formulas:

\[

n = \frac{(Z_{1-\alpha/2} + Z_{power})^2 \times (p_1(1 - p_1) + p_2(1 - p_2))}{(\delta)^2}

\]

where \( p_1 = 0.1 \), \( p_2 = 0.15 \), \( \delta = 0.05 \), \( Z_{1-\alpha/2} = 1.645 \) (for 90% confidence), and \( Z_{power} = 0.84 \) (for 80% power), yields the required sample size per group.

For the directional test (one-sided, testing if \( p_1

Question 8: Sample Size for Detecting Smaller Rate

To detect whether the defective rate from process one is smaller than process two, with the same effect size, significance level, and power, a similar calculation is performed but with the alternative hypothesis specifying a one-sided test. The required sample sizes are typically the same or slightly larger than those for a two-sided test, depending on the actual critical values and power calculations.

Conclusion

This analysis underscores the importance of proper statistical methods in health, nutrition, environmental safety, and manufacturing. Confidence intervals provide estimates of the magnitude of differences, while hypothesis testing offers formal assessments of significance. Correct sample size planning enables effective, efficient studies capable of detecting meaningful differences with prescribed confidence and power levels. The assumptions behind each analysis, such as independence and adequate sample size, are critical to valid inference and must be carefully considered in real-world application.

References

  • Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Hogg, R. V., McKean, J. W., & Craig, A. T. (2019). Introduction to Mathematical Statistics (8th ed.). Pearson.
  • Newcombe, R. G. (1998). Two-sided confidence intervals for the difference between two proportions. MTA Newsletter, 10, 8–9.
  • Agresti, A. (2018). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley.
  • Zar, J. H. (2010). Biostatistical Analysis (5th ed.). Pearson.
  • Sullivan, L. M. (2018). Essentials of Biostatistics. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
  • Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (2014). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis (6th ed.). Pearson.
  • Kirkwood, B. R., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2003). Medical Statistics (2nd ed.). Blackwell Science.
  • Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman & Hall.
  • Rosner, B. (2015). Fundamentals of Biostatistics (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Related Assignments