Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Biostatistics

    Uploaded by

    Sid Ra Rajpoot
    This document discusses two t-tests: a one sample t-test to compare food insecurity prevalence to zero, and a paired t-test to compare "before" and "after" measurements of food insecurity prevalence in different regions of Pakistan. The one sample t-test found a statistically significant difference between the observed prevalence and zero, with an average prevalence of 15.84%. The paired t-test also found a statistically significant difference between before and after measurements, with an average increase in prevalence of 13.86% from before to after. Both tests assumed the data met t-test assumptions such as normality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Biostatistics

    Uploaded by

    Sid Ra Rajpoot
    6 views3 pages
    This document discusses two t-tests: a one sample t-test to compare food insecurity prevalence to zero, and a paired t-test to compare "before" and "after" measurements of food insecurity prevalence in different regions of Pakistan. The one sample t-test found a statistically significant difference between the observed prevalence and zero, with an average prevalence of 15.84%. The paired t-test also found a statistically significant difference between before and after measurements, with an average increase in prevalence of 13.86% from before to after. Both tests assumed the data met t-test assumptions such as normality.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses two t-tests: a one sample t-test to compare food insecurity prevalence to zero, and a paired t-test to compare "before" and "after" measurements of food insecurity prevalence in different regions of Pakistan. The one sample t-test found a statistically significant difference between the observed prevalence and zero, with an average prevalence of 15.84%. The paired t-test also found a statistically significant difference between before and after measurements, with an average increase in prevalence of 13.86% from before to after. Both tests assumed the data met t-test assumptions such as normality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    6 views3 pages

    Biostatistics

    Uploaded by

    Sid Ra Rajpoot
    This document discusses two t-tests: a one sample t-test to compare food insecurity prevalence to zero, and a paired t-test to compare "before" and "after" measurements of food insecurity prevalence in different regions of Pakistan. The one sample t-test found a statistically significant difference between the observed prevalence and zero, with an average prevalence of 15.84%. The paired t-test also found a statistically significant difference between before and after measurements, with an average increase in prevalence of 13.86% from before to after. Both tests assumed the data met t-test assumptions such as normality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    One Sample T- Test & Paired Sample T-

    Test
    moderate=c(9.22,19.96,14.43,19.51,16.73,15.18)
    severe=c(1.24,3.05,3.06,1.55,0.90,2.05)
    one sample t test
    > shapiro.test(moderate)

    Shapiro-Wilk normality test

    data: moderate
    W = 0.92552, p-value = 0.546

    > t.test(moderate)

    One Sample t-test

    data: moderate
    t = 9.8552, df = 5, p-value = 0.0001833
    alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0
    95 percent confidence interval:
    11.70714 19.96953
    sample estimates:
    mean of x
    15.83833
    Interpretation:
    Since the p-value is less than the common significance level of 0.05, we can reject the null
    hypothesis, which states that the true mean food insecurity prevalence is equal to 0. Therefore,
    based on this t-test, there is a significant difference between the food insecurity prevalence and
    zero.
    The 95% confidence interval (11.70714 to 19.96953) provides a range of values within which we
    are 95% confident that the true population mean of food insecurity prevalence lies.
    The sample mean estimate (15.83833) is the average food insecurity prevalence in the sample.
    Overall, this t-test indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the food insecurity
    prevalence in different regions of the province of Pakistan, and the estimated average prevalence
    is approximately 15.84. However, keep in mind that this interpretation is based on the
    assumption that the data used in the t-test is representative and meets the assumptions of the t-
    test. It is essential to have domain knowledge and understand the context of the data to make
    meaningful conclusions and predictions based on the results.

    paired sample t test


    > before=moderate
    > after=severe
    > d=before-after
    >d
    [1] 7.98 16.91 11.37 17.96 15.83 13.13
    > shapiro.test(d)
    Shapiro-Wilk normality test
    data: d
    W = 0.94541, p-value = 0.7031

    Interpretation:
    Since the p-value of the Shapiro-Wilk test is 0.7031 (greater than 0.05), we fail to reject the null
    hypothesis. This means that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the differences "d" are
    significantly different from a normal distribution. Therefore, we can assume that the differences
    follow a roughly normal distribution.
    > t.test(before,after,paired = TRUE)
    Paired t-test
    data: before and after
    t = 8.9925, df = 5, p-value = 0.0002838
    alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
    95 percent confidence interval:
    9.900391 17.826276
    sample estimates:
    mean difference
    13.86333
    Interpretation:
    The p-value (0.0002838) is less than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that there
    is strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a
    statistically significant difference between the "before" and "after" measurements of food
    insecurity prevalence in the different regions of the province.
    The 95% confidence interval (9.900391 to 17.826276) provides a range of values within which
    we are 95% confident that the true mean difference between "before" and "after" lies.
    The sample mean difference (13.86333) represents the average increase (or decrease) in food
    insecurity prevalence from "before" to "after" in the paired regions.
    Overall, this paired t-test suggests that there is a significant difference in food insecurity
    prevalence between the "before" and "after" measurements, and on average, there is an increase
    of approximately 13.86 in food insecurity prevalence from the "before" to the "after" situation or
    time point.

    You might also like