Each row of the matrix represents a case or record of the survey
There were 1691 participants in this survey
Sex is categorical and nominal. Age is numerical and discrete. Marital is categorical and nominal. grossIncome is numerical and continuous. Smoke is categorical and nominal. amtWeekends is numerical and discreet. amtWeekdays is numerical and discreet.
The population were children between ages 5 and 15. The sample were 160 children between ages 5 and 15.
This study can be the generlized to the population if it generalizes specifically to the children ages 5-15 and a large enough sample was taken. Association does not establish causation.
No, because the sample is sampling members of a health care plan. The sample is not random enough and cannot speak to a popoulation of smokers as a whole
The coclusion is an associcaiton and association does not result in causation. It is possible that lack of sleep can be a confounding variable and not the actual cause. More information is needed to make any conclusions.
This is a experimental study because they are interfering with how the data arise be asking a group to excercise and the other not to exercise. It also has an explanatory variable (excercise or not) and response variable (results of mental health exam)
The treatemnt group is the group asked to exercise twice a week. The control group is the group asked not to exercise.
Yes it does , as it stratified by age then make a randomize selection per group.
This does not make use of bliding as patients are told to excercise or not exercise and we are not sure if the research are aware who were told to excercise or not.
It cannot be used to establish a casual relationship as it was not a blind study. We cant generalize results to population at large since we do not know how large the sample is and it does not include all age groups.
I would have reservations on proposal. If the studay can narrow its scope to a specific age group or include the rest of the age range i may reconsider.
57, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 78, 79, 79, 81, 81, 82, 83, 83, 88, 89, 94 Create a box plot of the distribution of these scores. The ???ve number summary provided below may be useful. Min Q1 Q2 (Median) Q3 Max 57 72.5 78.5 82.5 94
sts <-c(57, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 78, 79, 79, 81, 81, 82, 83, 83, 88, 89, 94)
boxplot(sts)
I would expect this to be skewed to the right. The meaningful number of houses more that 6 million will skew the numbers. The median would be the best represent a typical observation since the average will be affected by the right skew. In this case IQR would be best used for variability as it uses median rather than average for variability.
I would expect this to be symentrical with no skew. The very few houses more that 1.2 million will probably not skew the numbers. The mean would be the best represent a typical observation. In this case standard deviation would be best used for variability as it uses mean rather than median for variability.
I would expect this to be skewed to the left. The low the number of driking will cause affect skewing. The median would be the best represent a typical observation since the average will be affected by the left skew. In this case IQR would be best used for variability as it uses median rather than average for variability.
I would expect this to be skewed slightly to the right. Although there are only a few executives who will have a higher salary it states much higher. The median would be the best represent a typical observation since the average will be affected by the right skew. In this case IQR would be best used for variability as it uses median rather than average for variability.
library(openintro)
## Please visit openintro.org for free statistics materials
##
## Attaching package: 'openintro'
## The following objects are masked from 'package:datasets':
##
## cars, trees
data(heartTr)
Based on mosaic plat survival was not independent on whether or not the patient got a transplant. Based on chart ~3x patients survived when getting transplant compare to those that did not.
The boxplot shows that most of the patients with treatment will outlive patients witout treatment.
nrow(subset(heartTr, transplant == "treatment" & survived == "dead"))/nrow(subset(heartTr, transplant == "treatment"))
## [1] 0.6521739
nrow(subset(heartTr, transplant == "control" & survived == "dead"))/nrow(subset(heartTr , transplant == "control"))
## [1] 0.8823529
The study is to determine if transplants prolong lives and gives a patient a higher survival rate compared to a patient that does not get a transplant.
We write alive on ALIVE cards representing patients who were alive at the end of the study, and DEAD dead on cards representing patients who were not. Then, we shu???e these cards and split them into two groups: one group of TREATMENT size representing treatment, and another group of COTROL size representing control. We calculate the di???erence between the proportion of dead cards in the treatment and control groups (treatment control) and record this value. We repeat this 100 times to build a distribution centered at 50% . Lastly, we calculate the fraction of simulations where the simulated di???erences in proportions are DIFFERENT . If this fraction is low, we conclude that it is unlikely to have observed such an outcome by chance and that the null hypothesis should be rejected in favor of the alternative.
THis shows that simulated differences are with -.05 and .05% in difference.