Recall the distracted driving study from example 22

Info icon This preview shows pages 314–316. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Recall the Distracted Driving study from Example 2.2. The reaction times (in milliseconds) for 16 students appear below and in the file driving.txt . Subject A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Cell 636 623 615 672 601 600 542 554 543 520 609 559 595 565 573 554 Control 604 556 540 522 459 544 513 470 556 531 599 537 619 536 554 467 (a) Analyze the differences in reaction times (cell phone minus control) for these subjects. Include numerical and graphical summaries of the distribution of differences. Comment on what this descriptive analysis reveals about whether talking on a cell phone tends to produce slower reaction times. (b) State the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses to be tested, in order to investigate the research question of whether talking on a cell phone tends to produce slower reaction times. (c) Conduct a simulation analysis of a randomization test for testing these hypotheses. Report the empirical p-value. Summarize the conclusion that you would draw from this analysis. (d) Comment on whether the conditions for applying a paired t -test and t -interval are satisfied for these data. (e) Conduct a paired t -test of these hypotheses. Report the value of the test statistic and the p-value. Indicate your test decision at the 0.05 and 0.01 significance levels, and summarize your conclusion. (f) Produce and interpret a 95% t -confidence interval for the population mean difference. Also produce and interpret a 95% prediction interval. Comment on how these two intervals compare. (g) Compare these analyses to that in Example 2.2. Which analysis would you recommend and why?
Image of page 314

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chance/Rossman, 2015 ISCAM III Example 4.3 314 Analysis (a) Analyzing the differences The sample mean difference in reaction times (cell minus control) is d x = 47.125 milliseconds, with a standard deviation of s d = 51.331 milliseconds. The dotplot reveals that most of the differences are positive, suggesting that subjects talking on a cell phone tend to take longer to react than subjects listening to a book-on-tape. (b) The null hypothesis says that the mean reaction time is the same among cell phone users as among book-on-tape listeners (H 0 : P cell P control = 0). The alternative says that the mean reaction time is larger among cell phone users than among book-on-tape listeners (H a : P cell P control > 0). (c) We can carry out the simulation easily with the applet or with R. Copying and pasting the data into the Matched Pairs applet with 1,000 repetitions we get the results shown here. Using R to carry out the simulation instead: MeanDiffs=0 for (i in 1:10000){ multiplier=sample(c(-1,1), 16, + replace=TRUE) RandomizedData=differences*multiplier MeanDiffs[i]=mean(RandomizedData) } From R: The empirical p-value is the proportion of these 10,000 repetitions in which the mean difference is 47.125 or more, because 47.125 is the value of the sample mean difference from the actual experimental data. None of the 10,000 repetitions produced such a large mean difference, so the empirical p-value is 0. The simulation therefore shows that we would almost never get a result as extreme as the actual experiment did, if there were really no difference between reactions to cell phone
Image of page 315
Image of page 316
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern