Exercise #5: Two-Sample Hypothesis Testing

Sebastian Lacey
104020175
Dr. Alan Phipps
Basic Quantitative Methods
02-02-250-01
April 1st, 2015

Exercise Questions
1.
1.1: The 2014 selected sample or block of houses have a mean of -8.38%, a
standard deviation of 25.5% and a range of 157 according to their pHQ2014
percentages.
1.2: The 2014 neighborhood or entire population of houses have a mean of
-3.65%, a standard deviation of 28.4 and a range of 167 according to their
pHQ2014 percentages.
1.3: Comparing these three statistics, you can deduce that the block sample
mean (-8.38%) is a little worse than the mean of the entire neighborhood (3.65%). The block sample also has a slightly lower standard deviation (25.5)
than the neighborhood standard deviation (28.4) which means it has a lower
average variability. The block sample is also slightly narrower as it has a smaller
range of 157 compared to 167 of the entire neighborhood. This is due to that the
block sample does not include extreme cases or outliers that the population does
include.
1.4: The block sample has 151 houses and the neighborhood has 476 houses. By
dividing 476 by 151, you get 32%. Therefore, you can conclude that your sample
has roughly one third of all surveyed houses.
1.5: In this question, we will be using the framework of the distance from the
core hypothesis which states that houses nearest to the core are more poorly
maintained for many reasons. Therefore, those houses located in the core have
lower exterior quality than anywhere else in the neighborhood. My null
hypothesis is that there is no average difference between the sample and the
neighborhood or population overall exterior quality.
- Research Hypothesis: since it has to be two-tailed, it will state that there is
going to be significantly lower or higher average quality of homes on the
block than in the neighborhood as a whole.
2.
2.1: Firstly, the formula for finding the Zobs is: ((block mean pop. Mean)/pop.
SD/root of sample pop)). Therefore, the calculation is: (-8.38)-(3.65)/(28.4/root of
157) = (4.73)/(2.31) = -2.05.
2.2: Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis of no difference at alpha of 0.05.
This is due to because -2.05 is located in the tail of the curve and it is unusual.
2.3: The research hypothesis of worse or better maintained houses located near
the core is supported because the block sample had a lower pHQ than the
population as whole.
3.
3.1: The 2014 selected sample or block of houses have a mean of -5.9%, a
standard deviation of 29.1% and a range of 164 according to their pHQ2014
percentages.
3.2: The 2014 neighborhood or entire population of houses have a mean of
-2.49%, a standard deviation of 30.3 and a range of 184 according to their
pHQ2014 percentages.

3.3: Comparing these three statistics, you can deduce that the block sample
mean (-5.9%) is a little worse than the mean of the entire neighborhood (2.49%). The block sample also has a slightly lower standard deviation (29.1%)
than the neighborhood standard deviation (30.3%) which means it has a lower
average variability. The block sample is also slightly narrower as it has a smaller
range of 164 compared to 184 of the entire neighborhood. This is due to that the
block sample does not include extreme cases or outliers that the population does
include.
3.4: The block sample has 96 houses and the neighborhood has 305 houses. By
dividing 96 by 305, you get 31%. Therefore, you can conclude that your sample
has roughly one third of all surveyed houses.
3.5: In this question, we will be using the framework of the distance from the
core hypothesis which states that houses nearest to the core are more poorly
maintained for many reasons. Therefore, those houses located in the core have
lower exterior quality than anywhere else in the neighborhood. My null
hypothesis is that there is no average difference between the sample and the
neighborhood or population overall exterior quality.
- Research Hypothesis: since it has to be two-tailed, it will state that there is
going to be significantly lower or higher average quality of homes on the
block than in the neighborhood as a whole.

4.
4.1: Firstly, the formula for finding the Zobs is: ((block mean pop. Mean)/pop.
SD/root of sample pop)). Therefore, the calculation is: (-5.9)-(2.49)/(30.3/root of
96) = (-1.1)
4.2: Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis of no difference at alpha of 0.05.
This is due to because -2.05 is located in the tail of the curve and it is unusual.
4.3: The research hypothesis of worse or better maintained houses located near
the core is not supported because the pHQ block sample of 2009 was not worse
or better than that of 2014.
5.
5.1: Regarding the sample block in 2014, the mean of the pHQ percentage is
-9.76% and the standard deviation is 26.6%. The number of houses within in the
sample block is 151.
5.2: Regarding the sample block in 2009, the mean of the pHQ percentage is
-5.9% and the standard deviation is 29.1%. The number of houses within in the
sample block is 96.
5.3: By comparing the means in 2009 and 2014, you can conclude that the
overall exterior quality of the houses dropped a little due to the mean dropping
from -5.9% in 2009 to 9.76% in 2014. Additionally, in regards to the standard
deviation, 2009 is wider or has more variability due to a larger standard
deviation of 29.1% in 2009 to the 26.6% in 2014.
5.4: A research hypothesis explaining why a houses overall exterior quality may
change over time first must be two-tailed and the deterioration or renovation
hypothesis will be applied. Therefore, the hypothesis is that homes on the block
are deteriorating over time because owners are unable or unmotivated to repair
their homes or that houses on the block are improving through time because

owners are able or motivated to repair their homes. In general, houses on the
block are going to have better or worse overall exterior quality for 2014 than
earlier in 2009.
6.
6.1: Firstly, the formula for finding the Tobs: (block mean 2014-block mean
2009)/(standard error of mean). (The standard error of mean is found in the
chart) Therefore, the calculation is (9.76) (-5.9)/3.25 = -1.19 but getting rid of
the negative sign making it simply 1.19.
6.2: We begin by comparing with the T critical at alpha 0.05. Since you have 95
degrees of freedom (number of houses-1), the degrees of freedom in this
particular question is 1.990 at 90. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis
because it will change through time.
6.3: Furthermore, we observe that homes on the block in 2009 as well as 2014
are similar OEQ averages and this does not support our research hypothesis of
improving or deteriorating houses.
Statistics
2014 Overall

2009 Overall

Exterior Housing Exterior Housing

Valid

Quality as a

Quality as a

Percentage

Percentage

Above or Below

Above or Below

Normal.

Normal.
473

305

168

Mean

-3.65

-2.49

Median

-9.20

-6.75

28.362

30.297

1.431

1.035

.112

.140

3.081

1.634

Std. Error of Kurtosis

.224

.278

Range

167

184

Minimum

-67

-84

Maximum

100

100

Missing

Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of Skewness
Kurtosis

Statistics

2014 Overall

2009 Overall

Exterior Housing Exterior Housing

Valid

Quality as a

Quality as a

Percentage

Percentage

Above or Below

Above or Below

Normal.

Normal.
151

96

55

-8.38

-5.90

-11.96

-8.57

25.540

29.067

1.274

.933

.197

.246

2.893

2.056

Std. Error of Kurtosis

.392

.488

Range

157

164

Minimum

-67

-84

Maximum

90

80

Missing
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of Skewness
Kurtosis

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean
Pair 1

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

2014 Overall Exterior

Housing Quality as a
Percentage Above or Below

-9.76

96

26.572

2.712

-5.90

96

29.067

2.967

Normal.
2009 Overall Exterior
Housing Quality as a
Percentage Above or Below
Normal.

Paired Samples Correlations

N

Correlation

Sig.

Pair 1

2014 Overall Exterior

Housing Quality as a
Percentage Above or Below
Normal. & 2009 Overall

96

.348

.001

Exterior Housing Quality as

a Percentage Above or
Below Normal.

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Mean
Pair 1

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Lower

Upper

2014 Overall Exterior Housing

Quality as a Percentage Above
or Below Normal. - 2009
Overall Exterior Housing
Quality as a Percentage Above
or Below Normal.

-3.863

31.825

3.248

-10.311

2.58