Master of Applied Statistics Applied Statistics Comprehensive Exam Computer Output January 2018

Similar documents
fruitfly fecundity example summary Tuesday, July 17, :13:19 PM 1

EXST7034 Multiple Regression Geaghan Chapter 11 Bootstrapping (Toluca example) Page 1

Análisis de la varianza (II)

The PRINCOMP Procedure

Stat 301 Lecture 30. Model Selection. Explanatory Variables. A Good Model. Response: Highway MPG Explanatory: 13 explanatory variables

Stat 401 B Lecture 31

Model Information Data Set. Response Variable (Events) Summe Response Variable (Trials) N Response Distribution Binomial Link Function

HASIL OUTPUT SPSS. Reliability Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Important Formulas. Discrete Probability Distributions. Probability and Counting Rules. The Normal Distribution. Confidence Intervals and Sample Size

tool<-read.csv(file="d:/chilo/regression 7/tool.csv", header=t) tool

Booklet of Code and Output for STAD29/STA 1007 Final Exam

Lampiran IV. Hasil Output SPSS Versi 16.0 untuk Analisis Deskriptif

Statistics for Social Research

DRIVING PERFORMANCE PROFILES OF DRIVERS WITH PARKINSON S DISEASE

SEM over time. Changes in Structure, changes in Means

Lecture 2. Review of Linear Regression I Statistics Statistical Methods II. Presented January 9, 2018

Basic SAS and R for HLM

Appendix B STATISTICAL TABLES OVERVIEW

TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. Faculty of Engineering, Mathematics and Science. School of Computer Science and Statistics

Guatemalan cholesterol example summary

TABLE 4.1 POPULATION OF 100 VALUES 2

delivery<-read.csv(file="d:/chilo/regression 4/delivery.csv", header=t) delivery

Cumulative Frequency Diagrams Question Paper 1

LAMPIRAN 1. Tabel 1. Data Indeks Harga Saham PT. ANTAM, tbk Periode 20 Januari Februari 2012

TRY OUT 25 Responden Variabel Kepuasan / x1

UJI VALIDITAS DAN RELIABILIAS VARIABEL KOMPENSASI

Descriptive Statistics Practice Problems (99-04)

TRY OUT 30 Responden Variabel Kompetensi/ x1

Oregon DOT Slow-Speed Weigh-in-Motion (SWIM) Project: Analysis of Initial Weight Data

Modeling Ignition Delay in a Diesel Engine

Example #1: One-Way Independent Groups Design. An example based on a study by Forster, Liberman and Friedman (2004) from the

DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS AND DEMOGRAPHY MAIN EXAMINATION, 2011/12 STATISTICAL INFERENCE II ST232 TWO (2) HOURS. ANSWER ANY mree QUESTIONS

. Enter. Model Summary b. Std. Error. of the. Estimate. Change. a. Predictors: (Constant), Emphaty, reliability, Assurance, responsive, Tangible

Motor Trend MPG Analysis

R-Sq criterion Data : Surgical room data Chap 9

DATA PENELITIAN 1. CAR CAR (%)

Statistics and Quantitative Analysis U4320. Segment 8 Prof. Sharyn O Halloran

LAMPIRAN. Lampiran 1. Data deviden untuk menghitung economic performance tahun

Motor Trend Yvette Winton September 1, 2016

LAMPIRAN 1. Lampiran Nama dan Kondisi Perusahaan Textile No Kode Nama Perusahaan Hasil z-score FD Non-FD

Some Robust and Classical Nonparametric Procedures of Estimations in Linear Regression Model

Technical Papers supporting SAP 2009

Drilling Example: Diagnostic Plots

female male help("predict") yhat age

Review of Upstate Load Forecast Uncertainty Model

The Dynamics of Plug-in Electric Vehicles in the Secondary Market

THERMOELECTRIC SAMPLE CONDITIONER SYSTEM (TESC)

Lampiran 1. Data Perusahaan

Volvo City Safety loss experience a long-term update

Tifton, Georgia: Oat Grain Performance, Yield 1

5. CONSTRUCTION OF THE WEIGHT-FOR-LENGTH AND WEIGHT-FOR- HEIGHT STANDARDS

ME101, Final Examination, sample. Closed Book Examination (with the exception of one 3 x5 cards of handwritten notes, both sides, allowed)

Lampiran 1. Penjualan PT Honda Mandiri Bogor

Analyzing Crash Risk Using Automatic Traffic Recorder Speed Data

The application of the 95% Confidence interval with ISAT and IMAGE

DATA SAMPEL TAHUN 2006

Author s Accepted Manuscript

SAN PEDRO BAY PORTS YARD TRACTOR LOAD FACTOR STUDY Addendum

In the Slow Lane: ZEV Markets in California, June 2014 to June 2017

Inheritance of chinch bug resistance in grain pearl millet

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 11, November ISSN

Regression Models Course Project, 2016

ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC SPEEDS IN NEW YORK CITY. Austin Krauza BDA 761 Fall 2015

Start Time. LOCATION: Scotts Valley Dr QC JOB #: SPECIFIC LOCATION: 0 ft from Tabor St. DIRECTION: EB/WB CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA

Verifying the accuracy of involute gear measuring machines R.C. Frazer and J. Hu Design Unit, Stephenson Building, University ofnewcastle upon Tyne,

Investigating the Concordance Relationship Between the HSA Cut Scores and the PARCC Cut Scores Using the 2016 PARCC Test Data

ESSAYS ESSAY B ESSAY A and 2009 are given below:

FINAL REPORT AP STATISTICS CLASS DIESEL TRUCK COUNT PROJECT

Identification of Contributing Factors for Work Zone Crashes

1 - Inventory regime changes: An application of Hamilton s state space model

Passenger seat belt use in Durham Region

Descriptive Statistics

9.3 Tests About a Population Mean (Day 1)

Effect of Sample Size and Method of Sampling Pig Weights on the Accuracy of Estimating the Mean Weight of the Population 1

MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT MODEL ON THE ROAD SECTION OF HIGHLANDS REGION BY USING GENELARIZED LINEAR MODEL

PREFACE. Date : Director General, Jammu & Kashmir

LAMPIRAN UJI VALIDITAS

Road Surface characteristics and traffic accident rates on New Zealand s state highway network

Concrete (63) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM REPORT

Algebra 2 Plus, Unit 10: Making Conclusions from Data Objectives: S- CP.A.1,2,3,4,5,B.6,7,8,9; S- MD.B.6,7

LAMPIRAN I Data Perusahaan Sampel kode DPS EPS Ekuitas akpi ,97 51,04 40,

Jarrell Independent School District

Crop Stage at Each Application A B C Crop Name: ZEAMX ZEAMX ZEAMX Height (In.): 12-15(14) 21-27(24) Stage (L): V5-6(6)8L V8 11L

Lecture 3: Measure of Central Tendency

DEFECT DISTRIBUTION IN WELDS OF INCOLOY 908

FRICTION POTENTIAL AND SAFETY : PREDICTION OF

Getting Started with Correlated Component Regression (CCR) in XLSTAT-CCR

An Introduction to Partial Least Squares Regression

Oat. Tifton, Georgia: Oat Grain Performance, Data 2-Year Average 3 Rank Yield 1 Wt Ht Lodg.

IVEware Analysis Example Replication C10

Lampiran 1. Tabel Sampel Penelitian

Trial report. Variety testing of. Poa pratensis, Festuca rubra, Lolium perenne, Dactylis glomerata and Festuca arundinacea. Second year harvest

Oat. Tifton, Georgia: Oat Grain Performance,

MONTHLY NEW RESIDENTIAL SALES, APRIL 2017

EFFICACY/CROP TOLERANCE PERFORMANCE FORM Page 1 of 69 Tolerance Study AAFC15-068T-200 Indaziflam / Lowbush Blueberry

QUALITY ASSURANCE & LAB ACCREDITATION

Performance of the Mean- and Variance-Adjusted ML χ 2 Test Statistic with and without Satterthwaite df Correction

namibia UniVERSITY OF SCIEnCE AnD TECHnOLOGY FACULTY OF HEALTH AND APPLIED SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS MARKS: 100

Fall Hint: criterion? d) Based measure of spread? Solution. Page 1

MONTHLY NEW RESIDENTIAL SALES, SEPTEMBER 2018

Transcription:

Question 1a output Master of Applied Statistics Applied Statistics Comprehensive Exam Computer Output January 2018 Question 1f output Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean -2.32429 Std Deviation 3.85208 Median -3.11000 Variance 14.83852 Mode. Range 10.34000 Interquartile Range 7.16000 Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic p Value Student's t t -2.25766 Pr > t 0.0418 Sign M -1 Pr >= M 0.7905 Signed Rank S -28.5 Pr >= S 0.0785 Page 1 of 9

Question 3 Output The SAS System Dependent Variable: WebCAPE DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 1.28178188 0.64089094 2.91 0.0600 Error 87 19.18809056 0.22055277 Corrected Total 89 20.46987244 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WebCAPE Mean 0.062618 14.40838 0.469630 3.259426 DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Level 2 1.28178188 0.64089094 2.91 0.0600 DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Level 2 1.28178188 0.64089094 2.91 0.0600 Level Least Squares Means Adjustment for Multiple Comparisons: Tukey-Kramer WebCAPE LSMEAN LSMEAN Number Elementary 3.26824698 1 Intermediate 2.93572528 2 Novice 3.34057118 3 Least Squares Means for effect Level Pr > t for H0: LSMean(i)=LSMean(j) Dependent Variable: WebCAPE i/j 1 2 3 1 0.1122 0.7738 2 0.1122 0.0477 3 0.7738 0.0477 Page 2 of 9

Question 3 Output Continued Level Least Squares Means Adjustment for Multiple Comparisons: Bonferroni WebCAPE LSMEAN LSMEAN Number Elementary 3.26824698 1 Intermediate 2.93572528 2 Novice 3.34057118 3 Least Squares Means for effect Level Pr > t for H0: LSMean(i)=LSMean(j) Dependent Variable: WebCAPE i/j 1 2 3 1 0.1377 1.0000 2 0.1377 0.0550 3 1.0000 0.0550 Level Least Squares Means Adjustment for Multiple Comparisons: Scheffe WebCAPE LSMEAN LSMEAN Number Elementary 3.26824698 1 Intermediate 2.93572528 2 Novice 3.34057118 3 Least Squares Means for effect Level Pr > t for H0: LSMean(i)=LSMean(j) Dependent Variable: WebCAPE i/j 1 2 3 1 0.1348 0.7923 2 0.1348 0.0609 3 0.7923 0.0609 Page 3 of 9

Question 4 Output DATA crop_yield; INPUT variety $ fertilizer $ yield @@; CARDS; var_a fert_1 519.3 var_a fert_2 314.6 var_a fert_1 468.1 var_a fert_2 280.6 var_a fert_1 475.8 var_a fert_2 373.9 var_b fert_1 564.1 var_b fert_2 348.1 var_b fert_1 554.4 var_b fert_2 351.4 var_b fert_1 531.8 var_b fert_2 372.6 var_c fert_1 612.9 var_c fert_2 391.0 var_c fert_1 569.7 var_c fert_2 401.5 var_c fert_1 585.3 var_c fert_2 389.4 ; PROC GLM DATA=crop_yield ORDER=DATA; CLASS variety fertilizer; MODEL yield = variety fertilizer variety*fertilizer; RUN; Dependent Variable: yield DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 5 176067.3983 35213.4797 53.29 <.0001 Error 12 7929.8867 660.8239 Corrected Total 17 183997.2850 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE yield Mean 0.956902 5.709383 25.70650 450.2500 DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F variety 2 22426.3900 11213.1950 16.97 0.0003 fertilizer 1 152775.4939 152775.4939 231.19 <.0001 variety*fertilizer 2 865.5144 432.7572 0.65 0.5371 DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F variety 2 22426.3900 11213.1950 16.97 0.0003 fertilizer 1 152775.4939 152775.4939 231.19 <.0001 variety*fertilizer 2 865.5144 432.7572 0.65 0.5371 Page 4 of 9

Question 4 Output Continued RANDOM fertilizer variety*fertilizer; Type III Expected Mean Square variety Var(Error) + 3 Var(variety*fertilizer) + Q(variety) fertilizer Var(Error) + 3 Var(variety*fertilizer) + 9 Var(fertilizer) variety*fertilizer Var(Error) + 3 Var(variety*fertilizer) RANDOM variety variety*fertilizer; Type III Expected Mean Square variety Var(Error) + 3 Var(variety*fertilizer) + 6 Var(variety) fertilizer Var(Error) + 3 Var(variety*fertilizer) + Q(fertilizer) variety*fertilizer Var(Error) + 3 Var(variety*fertilizer) RANDOM variety fertilizer variety*fertilizer; Type III Expected Mean Square variety Var(Error) + 3 Var(variety*fertilizer) + 6 Var(variety) fertilizer Var(Error) + 3 Var(variety*fertilizer) + 9 Var(fertilizer) variety*fertilizer Var(Error) + 3 Var(variety*fertilizer) Page 5 of 9

Question 5 Output DATA brains; INPUT logbrain logweight gest litter species $; CARDS; -0.65392647-4.07454193 24 5.0 Deer_mouse_III -0.37106368-3.72970145 24 5.0 Deer_mouse_IV -0.79850770-3.72970145 19 5.0 House_mouse -0.46203546-3.64965874 23 5.0 Deer_mouse_II -0.38566248-3.61191841 23 3.7 Deer_mouse_I -0.40047757-3.32423634 21 4.6 Hampster_I 0.13102826-3.01593498 51 1.5 Elephant_shrew_I -0.32850407-2.99573227 23 7.3 Rat_I 0.63657683-2.95651156 40 3.1 Flying_squirrel 0.31481074-2.74887220 46 1.5 Elephant_shrew_II 0.03922071-2.73336801 21 4.0 Pygmy_gerbil 0.11332869-2.04022083 16 6.3 Hampster_II 1.14740245-1.89711998 46 3.0 Tree_shrew 0.16551444-1.89711998 27 5.6 Hopping_mouse 2.05412373-1.51412773 145 2.0 Gentle_lemur 1.82937633-1.10866262 38 3.0 Tree_squirrel 0.86710049-1.07880966 21 8.0 Rat_II 1.65822808-0.84397007 110 2.0 Chinchilla 2.29253476-0.35667494 135 1.0 Bush_baby 2.29253476-0.24846136 98 1.2 Acouchis 1.25276297-0.07257069 34 4.6 Hedgehog 1.45395301-0.03045921 67 2.6 Guinea_pig 2.54944517 0.18232156 90 1.2 Slow_loris 3.44041809 0.69314718 77 1.1 Linkajou 3.09104245 0.74193734 135 1.0 Lemur 2.26176310 0.78845736 31 5.0 Aardvark 3.34638915 0.91629073 63 4.0 Domestic_cat 3.01062089 1.02961942 104 1.3 Agoutis 2.58776404 1.06471074 41 2.5 Jack_rabbit 3.34990409 1.16315081 65 4.0 Bat-eared_fox 2.86220088 1.25276297 26 1.0 Quokka 4.29045944 1.30833282 180 1.0 Ring-tail_monkey 2.48490665 1.30833282 120 4.0 Long-nose_armadillo 3.61899333 1.33500107 63 3.7 Gray_fox 3.02042489 1.33500107 225 2.4 Hyrax 4.20469262 1.52605630 195 1.0 Vervet_guenon 3.13549422 1.60943791 132 5.5 Nutria 3.72810017 1.66770682 63 3.5 Raccoon 4.62497281 1.70474809 210 1.0 White_handed_gibbon 4.18205014 1.75785792 168 1.0 Leaf_monkey 4.43793427 1.79175947 175 1.0 Rhesus_monkey_I 3.87120101 1.79175947 52 4.0 Red_fox 3.97029191 1.79175947 60 2.2 Badger 3.17805383 1.88706965 113 1.0 Porcupine_III 3.98898405 2.04122033 139 1.0 Howler_monkey 4.69134788 2.04122033 140 1.0 Spider_monkey_II 4.25134831 2.14006616 63 4.0 Dog 4.67282883 2.16332303 165 1.1 Rhesus_monkey_II 4.73619845 2.20827441 140 1.0 Spider_monkey_I 3.61091791 2.39789527 112 1.2 Porcupine_I 4.31748811 2.48490665 60 2.5 Lynx 4.53259949 2.56494936 120 1.0 Duikers 3.61091791 2.63905733 112 1.2 Porcupine_II 4.82028157 2.77258872 183 1.1 Barking_deer Page 6 of 9

Question 5 Output Continued 3.68887945 2.99573227 128 2.9 Canadian_beaver 5.20948615 3.04452244 180 1.0 Hamadryas_baboon 3.80666249 3.21887582 128 4.0 Beaver 4.33073334 3.40119738 123 3.0 Capybara 4.66343909 3.40119738 151 2.0 Domestic_goat 5.18738581 3.46573590 180 1.0 Western_baboon 5.83773045 3.61091791 270 1.0 Orangutan 5.29831737 3.66356165 180 1.0 Black_buck_antilope 5.88610403 3.80666249 230 1.0 Chimpanzee 5.28826703 3.80666249 300 1.1 Vicuna 5.05624581 3.82864140 92 2.5 Leopard 4.82831374 3.89182030 150 2.4 Domestic_sheep ; PROC GLM DATA=brains; MODEL logbrain = logweight; RUN; Dependent Variable: logbrain DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 1 214.0790114 214.0790114 777.13 <.0001 Error 64 17.6302634 0.2754729 Corrected Total 65 231.7092748 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE logbrain Mean 0.923912 18.19256 0.524855 2.884999 DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F logweight 1 214.0790114 214.0790114 777.13 <.0001 DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F logweight 1 214.0790114 214.0790114 777.13 <.0001 Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > t Intercept 2.336114718 0.06753891 34.59 <.0001 logweight 0.777758697 0.02789955 27.88 <.0001 Page 7 of 9

Question 5 Output Continued PROC GLM DATA=brains; MODEL logbrain = logweight litter gest; RUN; Dependent Variable: logbrain DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 3 220.4734130 73.4911377 405.53 <.0001 Error 62 11.2358618 0.1812236 Corrected Total 65 231.7092748 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE logbrain Mean 0.951509 14.75576 0.425704 2.884999 DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F logweight 1 214.0790114 214.0790114 1181.30 <.0001 litter 1 5.1876598 5.1876598 28.63 <.0001 gest 1 1.2067418 1.2067418 6.66 0.0122 DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F logweight 1 76.56957726 76.56957726 422.51 <.0001 litter 1 2.22972727 2.22972727 12.30 0.0008 gest 1 1.20674176 1.20674176 6.66 0.0122 Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > t Intercept 2.466735756 0.20098112 12.27 <.0001 logweight 0.656619545 0.03194427 20.56 <.0001 litter -0.139471449 0.03976187-3.51 0.0008 gest 0.003166034 0.00122692 2.58 0.0122 Page 8 of 9

Question 6 Output Parameter DF Estimate Standard Error Analysis Of Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates Wald 95% Confidence Limits Wald Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1-1.0133 1.1110-3.1910 1.1643 0.83 0.3617 Minutes 1 0.0262 0.0131 0.0005 0.0518 4.00 0.0456 Scale 0 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Page 9 of 9