library(readxl)
library(ggpubr)
## Loading required package: ggplot2
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
library(effectsize)
library(effsize)
Dataset6.1 <- read_excel("C:/Users/DELL/Documents/Applied Analytics/Assignment6/Dataset6.1.xlsx")
Dataset6.1 %>%
group_by(Group) %>%
summarise(
Mean = mean(Exam_Score, na.rm = TRUE),
Median = median(Exam_Score, na.rm = TRUE),
SD = sd(Exam_Score, na.rm = TRUE),
N = n()
)
## # A tibble: 2 × 5
## Group Mean Median SD N
## <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <int>
## 1 No Tutoring 71.9 71.5 7.68 40
## 2 Tutoring 78.4 78.7 7.18 40
hist(Dataset6.1$Exam_Score[Dataset6.1$Group == "Tutoring"],
main = "Histogram of Tutoring Exam Scores",
xlab = "Value",
ylab = "Frequency",
col = "lightblue",
border = "black",
breaks = 10)
hist(Dataset6.1$Exam_Score[Dataset6.1$Group == "No Tutoring"],
main = "Histogram of No Tutoring Exam Scores",
xlab = "Value",
ylab = "Frequency",
col = "lightgreen",
border = "black",
breaks = 10)
For the Tutoring histogram, the data appears symmetrical (normal). The kurtosis also appears bell-shaped (normal). For the No Tutoring histogram, the data appears symmetrical (normal). The kurtosis also appears bell-shaped (normal). We may need to use an Independent T-Test.
ggboxplot(Dataset6.1, x = "Group", y = "Exam_Score",
color = "Group",
palette = "jco",
add = "jitter")
The Tutoring boxplot appears abnormal. There are several dots past the whiskers. Although some are very close to the whiskers, some are arguably far away. The No Tutoring boxplot appears abnormal. There are several dots past the whiskers. Although some are very close to the whiskers, some are arguably far away. We may need to use an Independent T-Test.
shapiro.test(Dataset6.1$Exam_Score[Dataset6.1$Group == "Tutoring"])
##
## Shapiro-Wilk normality test
##
## data: Dataset6.1$Exam_Score[Dataset6.1$Group == "Tutoring"]
## W = 0.98859, p-value = 0.953
shapiro.test(Dataset6.1$Exam_Score[Dataset6.1$Group == "No Tutoring"])
##
## Shapiro-Wilk normality test
##
## data: Dataset6.1$Exam_Score[Dataset6.1$Group == "No Tutoring"]
## W = 0.98791, p-value = 0.9398
The data for Tutoring was normal (p > .05). The data for females was normal (p > .05). After conducting all three normality tests, it is clear we must use an Independent T-Test.
t.test(Exam_Score ~ Group, data = Dataset6.1, var.equal = TRUE)
##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: Exam_Score by Group
## t = -3.8593, df = 78, p-value = 0.000233
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No Tutoring and group Tutoring is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -9.724543 -3.105845
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No Tutoring mean in group Tutoring
## 71.94627 78.36147
The p(0.00023) < .05, (less than .05), this means the results were SIGNIFICANT. Calculate the Effect Size.
cohens_d_result <- cohens_d(Exam_Score ~ Group, data = Dataset6.1, pooled_sd = TRUE)
print(cohens_d_result)
## Cohen's d | 95% CI
## --------------------------
## -0.86 | [-1.32, -0.40]
##
## - Estimated using pooled SD.
The effect was large (-0.86) between the group averages.
Tutoring (M = 78.4, SD = 7.18 ) were significantly different from No Tutoring (M = 71.9, SD = 7.68) in exam scores, t(78) = -3.8593, p = 0.000233. The effect size was large (Cohen’s d = -0.86).