INDEPENDENT T-TEST & MANN-WHITNEY U TEST
H0:There is no difference in the average satisfaction scores between
customers served by human agents and those served by the AI
chatbot.
H1:There is a difference in the average satisfaction scores between
customers served by human agents and those served by the AI
chatbot.
========================================================
>> IMPORT EXCEL FILE <<
========================================================
#install.packages(“readxl”)
LOAD THE PACKAGE
library(readxl)
A6R2 <- read_excel("C:/Users/lesle/Downloads/A6R2.xlsx")
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
LOAD THE PACKAGE
library(dplyr)
##
## Attaching package: 'dplyr'
## The following objects are masked from 'package:stats':
##
## filter, lag
## The following objects are masked from 'package:base':
##
## intersect, setdiff, setequal, union
CALCULATE THE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
A6R2 %>%
group_by(ServiceType) %>%
summarise(
Mean = mean(SatisfactionScore, na.rm = TRUE),
Median = median(SatisfactionScore, na.rm = TRUE),
SD = sd(SatisfactionScore, na.rm = TRUE),
N = n()
)
## # A tibble: 2 × 5
## ServiceType Mean Median SD N
## <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <int>
## 1 AI 3.6 3 1.60 100
## 2 Human 7.42 8 1.44 100
HISTOGRAMS
Purpose: Visually check the normality of the scores for each
group.
CREATE THE HISTOGRAMS
Replace “dataset” with your dataset name (without .xlsx)
Replace “score” with your dependent variable R code name (example:
USD)
Replace “group” with your independent variable R code name (example:
Country)
Replace “Group1” with the R code name for your first group (example:
USA)
Replace “Group2” with the R code name for your second group
(example: India)
hist(A6R2$SatisfactionScore[A6R2$ServiceType == "Human"],
main = "Histogram of Human Scores",
xlab = "Value",
ylab = "Frequency",
col = "green",
border = "black",
breaks = 20)

hist(A6R2$SatisfactionScore[A6R2$ServiceType == "AI"],
main = "Histogram of AI Scores",
xlab = "Value",
ylab = "Frequency",
col = "yellow",
border = "black",
breaks = 20)

QUESTIONS
Q1) Check the SKEWNESS of the VARIABLE 1 histogram. In your opinion,
does the histogram look symmetrical, positively skewed, or negatively
skewed?
Ans.Negatively skewed.
Q2) Check the KURTOSIS of the VARIABLE 1 histogram. In your opinion,
does the histogram look too flat, too tall, or does it have a proper
bell curve?
Ans. Too tall
Q3) Check the SKEWNESS of the VARIABLE 2 histogram. In your opinion,
does the histogram look symmetrical, positively skewed, or negatively
skewed?
#Answ. Positively skewed # Q4) Check the KUROTSIS of the VARIABLE 2
histogram. In your opinion, does the histogram look too flat, too tall,
or does it have a proper bell curve? #Ans. Too flat.
SHAPIRO-WILK TEST
Purpose: Check the normality for each group’s score
statistically.
The Shapiro-Wilk Test is a test that checks skewness and kurtosis at
the same time.
The test is checking “Is this variable the SAME as normal data (null
hypothesis) or DIFFERENT from normal data (alternate hypothesis)?”
For this test, if p is GREATER than .05 (p > .05), the data is
NORMAL.
If p is LESS than .05 (p < .05), the data is NOT normal.
CONDUCT THE SHAPIRO-WILK TEST
Replace “dataset” with your dataset name (without .xlsx)
Replace “score” with your dependent variable R code name (example:
USD)
Replace “group” with your independent variable R code name (example:
Country)
Replace “Group1” with the R code name for your first group (example:
USA)
Replace “Group2” with the R code name for your second group
(example: India)
shapiro.test(A6R2$SatisfactionScore[A6R2$ServiceType == "Human"])
##
## Shapiro-Wilk normality test
##
## data: A6R2$SatisfactionScore[A6R2$ServiceType == "Human"]
## W = 0.93741, p-value = 0.0001344
shapiro.test(A6R2$SatisfactionScore[A6R2$ServiceType == "AI"])
##
## Shapiro-Wilk normality test
##
## data: A6R2$SatisfactionScore[A6R2$ServiceType == "AI"]
## W = 0.91143, p-value = 5.083e-06
QUESTION
Was the data normally distributed for Variable 1?
#Ans: Not normal # Was the data normally distributed for Variable 2?
#Ans: Not normal
If p > 0.05 (P-value is GREATER than .05) this means the data is
NORMAL. Continue to the box-plot test below.
If p < 0.05 (P-value is LESS than .05) this means the data is NOT
normal (switch to Mann-Whitney U).
MANN-WHITNEY U TEST
PURPOSE: Test if there was a difference between the distributions of
the two groups.
Replace “dataset” with your dataset name (without .xlsx)
Replace “score” with your dependent variable R code name (example:
USD)
Replace “group” with your independent variable R code name (example:
Country)
wilcox.test(SatisfactionScore ~ ServiceType, data = A6R2, exact = FALSE)
##
## Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction
##
## data: SatisfactionScore by ServiceType
## W = 497, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true location shift is not equal to 0
DETERMINE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
P < .05, statistically significant
If results were statistically significant (p < .05), continue to
effect size section below.
If results were NOT statistically significant (p > .05), skip to
reporting section below.
NOTE: The Mann-Whitney U test is used when your data is abnormally
distributed
or when assumptions of the t-test are not met.
It is not chosen based on whether the t-test was significant.
EFFECT-SIZE
PURPOSE: Determine how big of a difference there was between the
group distributions.
INSTALL REQUIRED PACKAGE
If never installed, remove the hashtag before the install code.
If previously installed, leave the hashtag in front of the
code.
#install.packages(“effectsize”)
LOAD THE PACKAGE
Always load the package you want to use.
library(effectsize)
CALCULATE EFFECT SIZE (R VALUE)
Replace “dataset” with your dataset name (without .xlsx)
Replace “score” with your dependent variable R code name (example:
USD)
Replace “group” with your independent variable R code name (example:
Country)
mw_results <- wilcox.test(SatisfactionScore ~ ServiceType, data = A6R2, exact = FALSE)
rank_biserial(SatisfactionScore ~ ServiceType, data = A6R2, exact = FALSE)
## r (rank biserial) | 95% CI
## ----------------------------------
## -0.90 | [-0.93, -0.87]
QUESTIONS
Q1) What is the size of the effect?
The effect means how big or small was the difference between the two
groups.
± 0.00 to 0.10 = ignore
± 0.10 to 0.30 = small
± 0.30 to 0.50 = moderate
± 0.50 to + = large
Example 1) A rank-biserial correlation of 0.05 indicates the
difference between the groups was not meaningful. There was no
#effect.
Example 2) A rank-biserial correlation of 0.32 indicates the
difference between the groups was moderate.
Q2) Which group had the higher average rank?
The Mann-Whitney U test does not compare means directly. Instead, it
looks at whether one group tends to have higher scores #than the
other.
To determine which group ranked higher, look at the group means or
medians in your dataset.
WRITTEN REPORT FOR MANN-WHITNEY U TEST
Write a paragraph summarizing your findings.
1) REVIEW YOUR OUTPUT
Collect the information below from your output:
1. The name of the inferential test used
Ans:(Mann-Whitney U test)
2. The names of the IV and DV (their proper names, not their R code
names).
Ans: IV is Satisfaction Score, DV is Service Type.
3. The sample size for each group (labeled as “n”).
Ans: Sample size is 100
4. Whether the inferential test results were statistically
significant (p < .05) or not (p > .05).
Ans: p< .05 result are statistically significant
5. The median for each group’s score on the DV (rounded to two
places after the decimal).
Ans: Median for Human is 8 and for AI Charbot is 3.
6. U statistic (from output).
Ans: U Statistic is 497
7. EXACT p-value to three decimals. NOTE: If p > .05, just report
p > .05 If p < .001, just report p < .001
Ans: p< 0.001
8. Effect size (rank-biserial correlation) ** Only if the results
were significant.
Ans: Rank-biserial correlation = -0.90
2) REPORT YOUR DATA AS A PARAGRAPH
#A Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to compare customer satisfaction
scores between those served by human agents (n = 100) and those served
by the AI chatbot (n = 100). Customers served by human agents had
significantly higher median satisfaction scores (Mdn = 8.00) than those
served by the AI chatbot (Mdn = 3.00), U = 497, p < .001. The effect
size was large (r = –0.90, 95% CI [–0.93, –0.87]), indicating a
substantial and meaningful difference in satisfaction, with customers
reporting much greater satisfaction when served by human agents compared
to the AI chatbot.