/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Q21 E Quantitative noninvasive techniq... [FREE SOLUTION] | ÷ÈÓ°Ö±²¥

÷ÈÓ°Ö±²¥

Quantitative noninvasive techniques are needed for routinely assessing symptoms of peripheral neuropathies, such as carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The article "A Gap Detection Tactility Test for Sensory Deficits Associated with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome" (Ergonomics, \(1995: 2588 - 2601\)) reported on a test that involved sensing a tiny gap in an otherwise smooth surface by probing with a finger; this functionally resembles many work-related tactile activities, such as detecting scratches or surface defects. When finger probing was not allowed, the sample average gap detection threshold for\(m = 8\)normal subjects was\(1.71\;mm\), and the sample standard deviation was\(.53\); for\(n = 10\)CTS subjects, the sample mean and sample standard deviation were\(2.53\)and\(.87\), respectively. Does this data suggest that the true average gap detection threshold for CTS subjects exceeds that for normal subjects? State and test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of\(.01\).

Short Answer

Expert verified

where the probability can be found in the table in the appendix. Since

\(P = P(T \le - 2.46) = 0.013\)

do not reject null hypothesis at the given significance level. There is not enough evidence to claim that the true average for CTS subjects exceeds the true average for normal subjects.

Step by step solution

01

To find the test statistic value:

The hypotheses of interest are

\({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 0{\rm{ vs }}{H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} < 0\)

where\({\mu _1}\)is the true average gap for normal subjects, and\({\mu _2}\)is the true average for CTS subjects.

Given two normal distributions, the random variable (standardized)

\(T = \frac{{\bar X - \bar Y - \left( {{\mu _1} - {\mu _2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{S_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{S_2^2}}{n}} }}\)

has approximately students\(t\)distribution with degrees of freedom\(\nu \), where\(\nu \)is

\(\nu = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/m} \right)}^2}}}{{m - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/n} \right)}^2}}}{{n - 1}}}}\)

has to be rounded down to the nearest integer.

The test statistic value can be computed using the given value in the exercise as follows

\(\begin{array}{l}t = \frac{{\bar x - \bar y - \left( {{\mu _1} - {\mu _2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} }} = \frac{{1.71 - 2.53}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{0.53}}{8} + \frac{{2.53}}{{0.87}}} }}\\ = \frac{{ - 0.82}}{{\sqrt {0.035 + 0.076} }} = \frac{{ - 0.82}}{{0.333}}\\ = - 2.46\end{array}\)

02

To find the degrees of freedom:

The degrees of freedom can be computed by the given formula

\(\nu = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/m} \right)}^2}}}{{m - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/n} \right)}^2}}}{{n - 1}}}} = \frac{{{{(0.035 + 0.076)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{0.035}^2}}}{7} + \frac{{0.076}}{9}}} = 15.085\)\(P = P(T \le - 2.46) = 0.013\)

and the round down to the nearest integer is the needed degrees of freedom

\(\nu = 15\)

Since the alternative hypothesis is\({H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} < 0\), the corresponding\(P\)value is the probability to the left of\(t\)under the students\(T\)statistic with degrees of freedom 15 , therefore

where the probability can be found in the table in the appendix. Since

\(P = P(T \le - 2.46) = 0.013\)

do not reject null hypothesis at the given significance level. There is not enough evidence to claim that the true average for CTS subjects exceeds the true average for normal subjects.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with ÷ÈÓ°Ö±²¥!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Shoveling is not exactly a high-tech activity, but it will continue to be a required task even in our information age. The article "A Shovel with a Perforated Blade Reduces Energy Expenditure Required for Digging Wet Clay" (Human Factors, 2010: 492-502) reported on an experiment in which 13 workers were each provided with both a conventional shovel and a shovel whose blade was perforated with small holes. The authors of the cited article provided the following data on stable energy expenditure ((kcal/kg(subject)//b(clay)):

Worker : 1 2 3 4

Conventional : .0011 .0014 .0018 .0022

Perforated : .0011 .0010 .0019 .0013

Worker: 5 6 7

Conventional : .0010 .0016 .0028

Perforated : .0011 .0017 .0024

Worker 8 9 10

Conventional : .0020 .0015 .0014

Perforated : .0020 .0013 .0013

Worker: 11 12 13

Conventional : .0023 .0017 .0020

Perforated : .0017 .0015 .0013

a. Calculate a confidence interval at the 95 % confidence level for the true average difference between energy expenditure for the conventional shovel and the perforated shovel (the relevant normal probability plot shows a reasonably linear pattern). Based on this interval, does it appear that the shovels differ with respect to true average energy expenditure? Explain.

b. Carry out a test of hypotheses at significance level .05 to see if true average energy expenditure using the conventional shovel exceeds that using the perforated shovel.

Consider the accompanying data on breaking load (\(kg/25\;mm\)width) for various fabrics in both an unabraded condition and an abraded condition (\(^6\)The Effect of Wet Abrasive Wear on the Tensile Properties of Cotton and Polyester-Cotton Fabrics," J. Testing and Evaluation, \(\;1993:84 - 93\)). Use the paired\(t\)test, as did the authors of the cited article, to test\({H_0}:{\mu _D} = 0\)versus\({H_a}:{\mu _D} > 0\)at significance level . \(01\)

Recent incidents of food contamination have caused great concern among consumers. The article "How Safe Is That Chicken?" (Consumer Reports, Jan. 2010: 19-23) reported that 35 of 80 randomly selected Perdue brand broilers tested positively for either campylobacter or salmonella (or' both), the leading bacterial causes of food-borne disease, whereas 66 of 80 Tyson brand broilers tested positive.

  1. Does it appear that the true proportion of noncontaminated Perdue broilers differs from that for the Tyson brand? Carry out a test of hypotheses using a significance level .01.
  2. If the true proportions of non-contaminated chickens for the Perdue and Tyson brands are .50 and .25, respectively, how likely is it that the null hypothesis of equal proportions will be rejected when a .01 significance level is used and the sample sizes are both 80?

Example\(7.11\)gave data on the modulus of elasticity obtained\(1\)minute after loading in a certain configuration. The cited article also gave the values of modulus of elasticity obtained\(4\)weeks after loading for the same lumber specimens. The data is presented here. \(1\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{Observation}&{1 min}&{4 weeks}&{Difference}\\1&{10,490}&{9,110}&{1380}\\2&{16,620}&{13,250}&{3370}\\3&{17,300}&{14,720}&{2580}\\4&{15,480}&{12,740}&{2740}\\5&{12,970}&{10,120}&{2850}\\6&{17,260}&{14,570}&{2690}\\7&{13,400}&{11,220}&{2180}\\8&{13,900}&{11,100}&{2800}\\9&{13,630}&{11,420}&{2210}\\{10}&{13,260}&{10,910}&{2350}\\{11}&{14,370}&{12,110}&{2260}\\{12}&{11,700}&{8,620}&{3080}\\{13}&{15,470}&{12,590}&{2880}\\{14}&{17,840}&{15,090}&{2750}\\{15}&{14,070}&{10,550}&{3520}\\{16}&{14,760}&{12,230}&{2530}\end{array}\)

Calculate and interpret an upper confidence bound for the true average difference between\(1\)-minute modulus and\(4\)-week modulus; first check the plausibility of any necessary assumptions.

Refer to Example 9.7. Does the data suggest that the standard deviation of the strength distribution for fused specimens is smaller than that for not-fused specimens? Carry out a test at significance level .01.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.