TOMAS CLAUDIO COLLEGES

Second Semester SY 2017 – 2018

BQTR 202: Final Activity
I. Descriptive Statistics
1.) The result of the 40 item examination given to eight students in Statistics:
85, 74, 79, 88, 85, 86, 84, 83.

Range: Ri = H – L
Ri = 88 – 74
Ri = 14

Mean:

∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖
𝑥̅̅ =
𝑛

85 + 74 + 79 + 88 + 85 + 86 + 84 + 83
𝑥̅ =
8
664
𝑥̅ =
8
𝑥̅ = 83

Median:
74 79 83 84 85 85 86 88

𝑛 𝑛+2
𝑥̃ = 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
2 2
8 8+2
𝑥̃ = 𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ
2 2
𝑥̃ = 4𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 5𝑡ℎ
84 + 85
𝑥̃ =
2
𝑥̃ = 84.5

Mode:
𝑥̂ = 85

Standard Deviation:

𝒙𝒊 ̅
𝒙𝒊 − 𝒙 (𝒙𝒊 − 𝒙̅)𝟐
74 -9 81
79 -4 16
83 0 0
84 1 1
85 2 4
85 2 4
86 3 9
88 5 25
∑= 140
 ∑𝑛 (𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )2
𝑠 = √ 𝑖=1
𝑛−1

140
𝑠=√
8−1
𝑠 = √20
𝑠 = 4.472

2.) Compute for the weighted mean, the composite mean and give the verbal interpretation.

TLE Teachers Administrators

Mastery of the Subject Frequency Frequency
WX VI WX VI
5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
1. Present the lesson logically 9 81 48 3.72 A 8 2 3.80 A
2. Demonstrate an adequate knowledge
of content as reflected in the 76 60 2 3.54 A 1 9 4.10 A
organization of the lesson
3. Relates lessons to local/ national
27 79 32 2.96 U 6 4 3.60 A
issues
4. Provides explanations beyond the
3 71 61 3 3.54 A 5 5 3.50 A
content of the book.
5. Applies concepts and principles to
81 52 5 3.55 A 4 6 3.40 U
practical situations.
Composite Mean 6 67.2 60 10.5 3.46 U 1 6.4 4.25 3.68 A

Scale Range Verbal Interpretation

5 4.50 – 5.00 Strongly Agree (SA)
4 3.50 – 4.49 Agree (A)
3 2.50 – 3.49 Undecided (U)
2 1.50 – 2.49 Disagree (D)
1 1.00 – 1.49 Strongly Disagree (SD)

3.) The population of a certain study is composed of: 1,200 teachers; 800 nurses; 2,000 office workers; and 1,000
laborers.

Total population: N = 1,200 + 800 + 2,000 + 1,000

N = 5,000
a.) Slovin’s Formula:
𝑁
𝑛=
1 + 𝑁𝑒 2
5,000
𝑛 = 1+(5,000)(0.05)2

𝑛 = 370
 Stratified Sampling:

370
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: × 1,200 = 89
5,000
370
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: × 800 = 59
5,000
370
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: × 2,000 = 148
5,000
370
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: × 1,000 = 74
5000

Respondents # of Respondents Sample

Teachers 1,200 89
Nurses 800 59
Office Workers 2,000 148
Laborers 1,000 74
N = 5,000 n = 370
b.) Systematic Random Sampling – is a type of probability sampling technique where there is an equal chance of
selecting of selecting each unit from within the population when creating the sample.
To create a systemic random sample, there are seven steps: (a) defining the population; (b) choosing the sample
size; (c) listing the population; (d) assigning numbers to cases; (e) calculating the sampling fraction; (f) selecting
the first unit; and (g) selecting your sample.
(a) Define the population
N = 5,000
(b) Choose the sample size
Using Slovin’s formula, sample size is 370.
(c) List the population
Identify all 5,000 respondents
(d) Assign number to cases
Assign a consecutive number from 1 to N, next to each respondents.
(e) Calculate the sampling fraction
Sample size selected (expressed as n) divided by the population size (N).
𝑛 370 37
𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = = = (𝑖. 𝑒. 37 𝑖𝑛 500)
𝑁 5,000 500
(f) Select the first unit
To select 37 respondents in every 500 respondents, first use a random table to select the 37 respondents.
(g) Select the sample.

II. Inferential Statistics

Hypothesis Testing
1.) A random sample of 408 members of the senior class in a certain public secondary school was asked to answer
questions on their career plans. One question was the major of their choice if they enroll in business course. Use the
data below to decide whether there is a relationship between gender and choice of major. Use 5% significance level.
Sex
Majors
Female Male
Accounting 68 56
Management 91 40
Economics 15 18
Finance 61 59
 Critical Value Approach p-Value Approach
1. Ho ; µ1 = µ2 ; There is no relationship between 1. Ho ; µ1 = µ2 ; There is no relationship between
gender and choice of major. gender and choice of major.
Ha ; µ1 ≠ There is no relationship between Ha ; µ1 ≠ There is no relationship between
gender and choice of major. gender and choice of major.

2. α = 0.05 ; 2-T; z-comp = 0.838; z-critical = 2. α = 0.05 ; two tailed; p-value = 0.402; 2-T
1.960

3. Decision rule: 3. Decision rule: Reject Ho if p-Value (0.402) < α

Reject Ho if ||𝑍𝑐(0.838)| ≥ 𝑍𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 (1.960)|, (0.05)
that is if 0.838 ≥ 1.960
4. Decision: Do not reject Ho, because 0.838 < 4. Decision: Do not reject Ho , because p-Value
1.960 (0.402) > α (0.05)
5. Conclusion: I therefore conclude that there is no 5. Conclusion: I therefore conclude that there is no
relationship between gender and choice of major. relationship between gender and choice of major.

2. The data below were obtained from the study conducted by Sy and Utizurrum on the relationship between grades in
Algebra (x) and Computer 1 (y) of a sample 10 students

STUDENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X (Algebra) 3.00 2.50 2.00 3.00 1.75 2.75 2.50 2.00 1.75 3.00
Y (Computer 1) 3.00 2.00 2.75 5.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.50 1.50 3.00

Critical Value Approach p-Value Approach

1. Ho ; µ1 = µ2 ; There is no relationship between 1. Ho ; µ1 = µ2 ; There is no relationship between
Grades in Algebra and Computer 1 of a sample Grades in Algebra and Computer 1 of a sample
10 students. 10 students.
Ha ; µ1 ≠ µ2; There is a relationship between Ha ; µ1 ≠ µ2 ; There is a relationship between
Grades in Algebra and Computer 1 of a sample Grades in Algebra and Computer 1 of a sample
10 students. 10 students.

2. α = 0.05 ; 2-T; tc = -1.0278 2. α = 0.05 ; two tailed; p-value = 0.321493998 ;

2-T
3. Decision rule: 3. Decision rule: Reject Ho if p-Value
Reject Ho if ||𝑡𝑐 (−1.0278)| ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑏 = (0.321493998) < α (0.05)
(−2.145)|, that is if −1.0278 ≥ -2.145
4. Decision: Do not reject Ho, because -1.03 < -2.14 4. Decision: Do not reject Ho , because p-Value
(0.321493998) > α (0.05)
5. Conclusion: I therefore conclude that there is a 5. Conclusion: I therefore conclude that there is a
relationship between grades in Algebra and relationship between grades in Algebra and
Computer 1 of a sample 10 students. Computer 1 of a sample 10 students.
.
3.) Ten selected occupations are ranked according to salary and according to degree of stress experienced by the person. At
5% level of significance test to determine if a significant correlation exists between salary and stress.

Occupation Salary Rank Stress Rank

Stockbroker 2 2
Zoologist 6 7
Electrical Engineer 3 6
School Principal 5 4
Hotel Manager 7 5
Bank Officer 10 8
Safety Inspector 9 9
Home Economist 8 10
Psychologist 4 3
Airline Pilot 1 1

Critical Value Approach p-Value Approach

1. Ho ; µ1 = µ2 ; There is no significant correlation 1. Ho ; µ1 = µ2 ; There is no significant correlation
exists between salary and stress. exists between salary and stress.
Ha ; µ1 ≠ µ2; There is a significant correlation Ha ; µ1 ≠ µ2; There is a significant correlation
exists between salary and stress. exists between salary and stress.

2. α = 0.05 ; 2-T; rs = 0.85454 critical v = 0.648

2. α = 0.05 ; two tailed; p-value = 0.00164
; 2-T
3. Decision rule: Reject Ho if ||Rs (0.855)| ≥ 3. Decision rule: Reject Ho if p-Value (0.00164) <
𝑅𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 (0.648)|, that is if 0.855 ≥ 0.648 α (0.05)
4. Decision: Reject Ho, because 0.85454 > 0.648 4. Decision: Reject Ho , because p-Value (0.00164)
< α (0.05)
5. Conclusion: I therefore conclude that there is a 5. Conclusion: I therefore conclude that there is a
significant correlation exists between salary and significant correlation exists between salary and
stress. stress.

III.
1.) Demographic Profile of Teacher Respondents

F %
21 -30 5 25.0
31 – 40 9 45.0
Age 41 – 50 3 15.0
Above 50 3 15.0
Total 20 100.0
Female 14 70.0
Sex Male 6 30.0
Total 20 100.0
BSE 0 0.0
With MA Units 0 0.0
Educational Attainment Master’s Degree 3 15.0
Unspecified 17 85.0
Total 20.0 100.0
5 years below 12 60.0
6 – 10 years 5 25.0
Length of Service
11 – 15 years 3 15.0
Total 20 100.0
2.) Is there a significant difference on the perceptions of the teachers and students on the effectiveness of the Sports
Program?

Ho = There is no significant difference on the perceptions of the teachers and students on the effectiveness of the
Sports Program
Ha = There is a significant difference on the perceptions of the teachers and students on the effectiveness of the
Sports Program

RESPONDENTS

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.396 1 2.396 16.051 .000

Within Groups 7.165 48 .149
Total 9.561 49

α = 0.05 F0.05 (1, 48) = 4.04

Reject Ho because 16.051 > 4.04
The table shows that the computed F – statistics of the teachers and students exceed the critical value of F therefore,
there is a significant difference on the perceptions of the teachers and students on the effectiveness of the Sports
Program

3.) Is there a significant difference on the perceptions of the teachers on the effectiveness of the Sports Program in
terms of their profile?

Ho = There is no significant difference on the perceptions of the teachers on the effectiveness of the Sports Program
in terms of their profile.
Ha = There is a significant difference on the perceptions of the teachers on the effectiveness of the Sports Program
in terms of their profile.

AGE

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .119 4 .030 .588 .676

Within Groups .756 15 .050
Total .874 19

α = 0.05 F0.05 (4, 15) = 3.055

Do not reject Ho because 0.588 < 3.055
 SEX

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .080 1 .080 1.811 .195

Within Groups .795 18 .044
Total .874 19

α = 0.05 F0.05 (1, 18) = 4.414

Do not reject Ho because 1.811 < 4.414

LENGTH OF SERVICE

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .086 2 .043 .926 .415

Within Groups .789 17 .046
Total .874 19

α = 0.05 F0.05 (2, 17) = 3.592

Do not reject Ho because 0.926 < 3.592

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .005 1 .005 .110 .744

Within Groups .869 18 .048
Total .874 19

α = 0.05 F0.05 (1, 18) = 4.414

Do not reject Ho because 0.110 < 4.414

The table shows that the computed F – statistics of the teachers in terms of their profile has failed to exceed the critical value
of F, therefore there is no significant difference on the perceptions of the teachers on the effectiveness of the Sports Program.