Question 2the top part of the second image is the continuation of question 2. 0.5, so it is reasonablen in that case. Certainly a correction of 0.5, asby some, is entirely too large and results in a worse estimate ofthe true probability in most cases. See Pearson (1947), Plackett (1964), Grizzle(1967) and Conover (1974) for support of this statement. More information on therecommeMantel-Haenszel test may be found in Li, Simon, and Gart (1997) and Breslowand Liang (1982). DConfidence intervals may be formed for any unknown probabilities associ-ated with the 2 X 2 contingency table or any contingency table, for that matter,by applying the procedure described in Section 3.1. Similarly, the test in Section3.1 may be used on contingency tables, whenever the hypotheses are pertinentand the assumptions of the test are metA shortcut rule for the one-sided test is given by Ott and Free (1969). Furtherdiscussion of the continuity correction may be found in Mantel and Greenhouse(1968), Pirie and Hamdan (1972), and Maxwell (1976). The power of the test 1sdiscussed by Harkness and Katz (1964). The exact test is considered by Gail andGart (1973), Garside and Mack (1976), and McDonald, Davis, and Milliken (1977).For methods of combining the test statistics in several 2 x 2 contingency tablessee Radhakrishna (1965), Nelson (1966), Meeker (1978), and Zelen (1971). Possibleerrors in the marginal totals because of misclassification is the subject of manypapers, including ones by Chiacchierini and Arnold (1977) and Plackett (1977).Other related papers are by Fienberg and Gilbert (1970), Upton and Lee (1976),and Ray (1976). An excellent book by Fleiss (1973) is concerned primarily withdiscussion of 2 X 2 contingency tables.KERCISESA random sample of 135 people was drawn from each of two populations to gauge reactionto pending legislation. In the first sample there were 43 responses of "opposed'"; in thesecond sample there were 37 "opposed." Is there a difference in the proportion of peopleopposed in the two populations? Does a comparison of this problem with Exercises 1 andin Section 3.5 suggest an advantage in using the same persons in both samples wheneverpossible, such as in a "before" and "after" situation?1.Sixty students were divided into two classes of 30 each and taught how to write a programfor a computer. One class used the conventional method of learning, and the other classused a new, experimental method. At the end of the courses, each student was given atest that consisted of writing a computer program. The program was either correct orincorrect, and the results were tabulated as follows.2. CONTINGENCY TABLESIncorrectCorrectfo 10isv insltibelstoProgram oProgram723Conventional Class27Experimental ClassMs timo ofIs there reason to believe the experimental method is superior? Or could the precedingdifferences be due to chance fluctuations?One hundred men and 100 women were asked to try a new toothpaste and to state whetherthey liked or did not like the new taste. Thirty-two men and 26 women said they did notlike the new taste. Does this indicate a difference in preferences between men and womenin general?3.4. Contingency tables may be used to present data representing scales of measurement higherthan the nominal scale. For example, a random sample of size 20 was selected from thegraduate students who are U.S. citizens, and their grade poirnt averages were recorded.3.42 3.54 3.21 3.63 3.223.80 3.70 3.20 3.75 3.313.86 4.00 2.86 2.92 3.592.91 3.77 2.70 3.06 3.30LEAlso, a random sample of 20 students was selected from the non-U.S. citizen groupgraduate students at the same university. Their grade point averages were as follows.of3.50 4.00 3.43 3.85 3.843.21 3.58 3.94 3.48 3.763.87 2.93 4.00 3.37 3.724.00 3.06 3.92 3.72 3.91Test the null hypothesis that the proportion of graduate students with averagos of 3.50 ohigher is the same for both the U.S. citizens and theFiaha5n

Name: Question 2the top part of the second image is the continuation of ques
Uploaded: 2024-03-20T06:38:58.000Z
Channel: Bartleby
Description: Question 2the top part of the second image is the continuation of question 2. 0.5, so it is reasonablen in that case. Certainly a correction of 0.5, asby some, is entirely too large and results in a worse estimate ofthe true probability in most cases

Question

Question 2the top part of the second image is the continuation of question 2. 0.5, so it is reasonablen in that case. Certainly a correction of 0.5, asby some, is entirely too large and results in a worse estimate ofthe true probability in most cases. See Pearson (1947), Plackett (1964), Grizzle(1967) and Conover (1974) for support of this statement. More information on therecommeMantel-Haenszel test may be found in Li, Simon, and Gart (1997) and Breslowand Liang (1982). DConfidence intervals may be formed for any unknown probabilities associ-ated with the 2 X 2 contingency table or any contingency table, for that matter,by applying the procedure described in Section 3.1. Similarly, the test in Section3.1 may be used on contingency tables, whenever the hypotheses are pertinentand the assumptions of the test are metA shortcut rule for the one-sided test is given by Ott and Free (1969). Furtherdiscussion of the continuity correction may be found in Mantel and Greenhouse(1968), Pirie and Hamdan (1972), and Maxwell (1976). The power of the test 1sdiscussed by Harkness and Katz (1964). The exact test is considered by Gail andGart (1973), Garside and Mack (1976), and McDonald, Davis, and Milliken (1977).For methods of combining the test statistics in several 2 x 2 contingency tablessee Radhakrishna (1965), Nelson (1966), Meeker (1978), and Zelen (1971). Possibleerrors in the marginal totals because of misclassification is the subject of manypapers, including ones by Chiacchierini and Arnold (1977) and Plackett (1977).Other related papers are by Fienberg and Gilbert (1970), Upton and Lee (1976),and Ray (1976). An excellent book by Fleiss (1973) is concerned primarily withdiscussion of 2 X 2 contingency tables.KERCISESA random sample of 135 people was drawn from each of two populations to gauge reactionto pending legislation. In the first sample there were 43 responses of &#34;opposed'&#34;; in thesecond sample there were 37 &#34;opposed.&#34; Is there a difference in the proportion of peopleopposed in the two populations? Does a comparison of this problem with Exercises 1 andin Section 3.5 suggest an advantage in using the same persons in both samples wheneverpossible, such as in a &#34;before&#34; and &#34;after&#34; situation?1.Sixty students were divided into two classes of 30 each and taught how to write a programfor a computer. One class used the conventional method of learning, and the other classused a new, experimental method. At the end of the courses, each student was given atest that consisted of writing a computer program. The program was either correct orincorrect, and the results were tabulated as follows.2. CONTINGENCY TABLESIncorrectCorrectfo 10isv insltibelstoProgram oProgram723Conventional Class27Experimental ClassMs timo ofIs there reason to believe the experimental method is superior? Or could the precedingdifferences be due to chance fluctuations?One hundred men and 100 women were asked to try a new toothpaste and to state whetherthey liked or did not like the new taste. Thirty-two men and 26 women said they did notlike the new taste. Does this indicate a difference in preferences between men and womenin general?3.4. Contingency tables may be used to present data representing scales of measurement higherthan the nominal scale. For example, a random sample of size 20 was selected from thegraduate students who are U.S. citizens, and their grade poirnt averages were recorded.3.42 3.54 3.21 3.63 3.223.80 3.70 3.20 3.75 3.313.86 4.00 2.86 2.92 3.592.91 3.77 2.70 3.06 3.30LEAlso, a random sample of 20 students was selected from the non-U.S. citizen groupgraduate students at the same university. Their grade point averages were as follows.of3.50 4.00 3.43 3.85 3.843.21 3.58 3.94 3.48 3.763.87 2.93 4.00 3.37 3.724.00 3.06 3.92 3.72 3.91Test the null hypothesis that the proportion of graduate students with averagos of 3.50 ohigher is the same for both the U.S. citizens and theFiaha5n

Accepted Answer

Null and alternative hypotheses:The null and alternative hypotheses to test whether the experimental…