Module 8 assignment

 ANOVA test 

stress <- factor(rep(c("High","Moderate","Low"), each=6)) 

reaction <- c(10,9,8,9,10,8, 8,10,6,7,8,8, 4,6,6,4,2,2) 

anova <- aov(reaction ~ stress) 

summary(anova) 

The results showed an F value of approximately 9.71 and a p value of 0.0023. Since the p value was less than 0.05, it could be taken to mean that there was a statistically significant difference in reaction times for the groups of stress. This does not, mean that it could be interpreted that stress was influencing how people reacted to this drug. The greater the stress, the slower the reaction was. 

Zelazo 

library(ISwR) 

data("zelazo") 

zelazo_df <- stack(zelazo) 

anova2 <- aov(values ~ ind, data=zelazo_df) 

summary(anova2) 

The ANOVA with values given by the Zelazo material show an F value of about 1.78 and a p-value of .175. This is greater than .05 so that there is no real difference between the four groups. There is so much difference between the means that any difference between them might be due to chance and not have produced any real effect. 

Summary 

In fact the drug and shock tests show a positive correlation between the stress and the time of reaction, that is, that as the amount of stress on the subject increases, the time of reaction with that subject is increased. On the other hand the results of the Zelazo test did not show very much at all. The differences in those groups were so little that they are of 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Module 10

 lm(cystfibr$spemax ~ age + weight + bmp + fev1, data=cystfibr) anova(lm(cystfibr$spemax ~ age + weight + bmp + fev1, data=cystfibr))   I used the cystfibr dataset from the ISwR package In completing this assignment. I ran a regression on spemax Based on the predictor variables age, weight, BMI an FEV 1 with spemex is being predicted. My results indicated that my overall model model was statistically significant. Therefore, at least one of the predictor variables is significantly associated with spemax .   Based upon the coefficients produced in this analysis, I examined age. Since the coefficient for age was negative, it can be concluded that the age increases spemex We'll decrease while controlling for the effects of the other predictor variables. This indicates that older patients generally exhibit lower maximum specific power.  
Read more

basic graph

Image
 For this assignment I created a histogram in R using the built in mtcars dataset to show the distribution of miles per gallon (mpg). The visualization makes it easy to see that most cars fall between about 15 and 25 mpg, with only a few vehicles above 30 mpg. This fits with Few’s and Yau’s discussion on basic descriptive visualization because it focuses on clarity and simplicity rather than decoration. The chart communicates one clear message about the spread of the data and avoids unnecessary visual elements. Overall, it works well as a basic example of descriptive analysis in R.
Read more

Module 3 assignemnt

  1. Central Tendency Set #1: 10, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5 Mean = 4.0 Median = 3.0 Mode = 2 Set #2: 20, 12, 13, 12, 14, 12, 15 Mean = 14.0 Median = 13.0 Mode = 12 2. Variation Set #1 Range = 8 IQR = 2.5 Variance = 8.33 Standard Deviation = 2.89 Set #2 Range = 8 IQR = 2.5 Variance = 8.33 Standard Deviation = 2.89 3. Comparison Set #1 stays pretty low overall with an average of 4, a median of 3, and a mode of 2. Set #2 is higher across the board with an average around 14, a median of 13, and a mode of 12. Basically, Set #2 looks like Set #1 just shifted up by about 10 points. The spread is the same in both sets though. They have the exact same range, IQR, variance, and standard deviation. That means the consistency of the data is identical, even though one set has smaller values and the other has larger ones. So overall, the difference is just where the numbers sit . Set #1 clusters around lower values, while Set #2 clusters higher...
Read more