Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Starter
    Points: 20,810, Level: 44
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 840
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassVeteran10000 Experience Points
    baller1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ames
    Posts
    779
    Points
    20,810
    Level
    44
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3
    Given: 2

    stat 226 gurus...

    Can anyone help me with this??

    2. CEO pay. A study of the pay of corporate chief executive ocers (CEOs) examined the increase in cash compensation of the CEOs of 104 companies, adjusted for inflation, in a recent year. The mean increase in real compensation was x = 6.9 percent and the standard deviation of the increases was s = 55 percent. Is this good evidence that the mean real compensation of all CEOs increased that year? To answer this question conduct a hypothesis test of the above situation using a signicance level of = 0.05:
    (a) State the null and the alternative hypothesis.

    H0 :

    HA :

    (b) Calculate the value of the test statistic.

    test-statistic =



    Last edited by baller1; 11-02-2011 at 05:23 PM.

  2. #2
    Pro
    Points: 43,230, Level: 64
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 1,020
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    mike4cy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Urbandale
    Posts
    2,585
    Points
    43,230
    Level
    64
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 24
    Given: 0

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    Quote Originally Posted by baller1 View Post
    Can anyone help me with this??


    2. CEO pay. A study of the pay of corporate chief executive ocers (CEOs) examined the increase in cash compensation of the CEOs of 104 companies, adjusted for ination, in a recent year. The mean increase in real compensation was x = 6.9 percent and the standard deviation of the increases was s = 55 percent. Is this good evidence that the mean real compensation of all CEOs increased that year? To answer this question conduct a hypothesis test of the above situation using a signicance level of = 0.05:
    (a) State the null and the alternative hypothesis.

    H0 :

    HA :

    (b) Calculate the value of the test statistic.

    test-statistic =


    It is equal to the squareroot of thank God I never have to do another Stats problem + if you think that is fun just wait until you get to 326


    --Luck of the Cyrish--






  3. #3
    All-Star
    Points: 51,723, Level: 70
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 827
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    isukendall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,860
    Points
    51,723
    Level
    70
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 33
    Given: 88

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    You sure the SD isn't 5.5%?



  4. #4
    Pro
    Points: 150,805, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    iahawkhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Grimes, IA
    Posts
    2,768
    Points
    150,805
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 11
    Given: 15

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    Quote Originally Posted by mike4cy View Post
    It is equal to the squareroot of thank God I never have to do another Stats problem + if you think that is fun just wait until you get to 326


    Reminds me of something my major professor told me: "A statistician's favorite dataset is 3 points. He can find a mean, median, mode, variance/standard deviation, fit a curve, and throw away 2 outliers."


    Quote Originally Posted by im4cyclones View Post
    [Anything] is easy if you are content to suck at it.

  5. #5
    Starter
    Points: 20,810, Level: 44
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 840
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassVeteran10000 Experience Points
    baller1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ames
    Posts
    779
    Points
    20,810
    Level
    44
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3
    Given: 2

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    Quote Originally Posted by isukendall View Post
    You sure the SD isn't 5.5%?
    Yeah, it says s=55% and x-hat = 6.9%. I don't understand how I am suppose to do the equation with the information given.



  6. #6
    Addict
    Points: 110,989, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 55.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    CysRage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,969
    Points
    110,989
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 408
    Given: 326

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    I took this in Junior year of high school (dual credit). They told me it probably wouldn't transfer to Iowa State but I needed a class anyways so I took it. Lucky me that it transferred as Stat 226! I am now a junior in college and I cannot remember any of this or otherwise I would help you. Sorry!


    ďI told you, I donít care if youíre black or white. I donít care if youíre rich or poor. I donít care where you come from, whether itís Texas, Florida, California, or right here in the state of Iowa, I donít care about any of thatÖ But what I did care about is moving forward from that day on, that we were one team." -Paul Rhoads

  7. #7
    All-Star
    Points: 33,485, Level: 56
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 765
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Cyclophile1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    1,633
    Points
    33,485
    Level
    56
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 71
    Given: 10

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    Quote Originally Posted by baller1 View Post
    Can anyone help me with this??

    2. CEO pay. A study of the pay of corporate chief executive ocers (CEOs) examined the increase in cash compensation of the CEOs of 104 companies, adjusted for inflation, in a recent year. The mean increase in real compensation was x = 6.9 percent and the standard deviation of the increases was s = 55 percent. Is this good evidence that the mean real compensation of all CEOs increased that year? To answer this question conduct a hypothesis test of the above situation using a signicance level of = 0.05:
    (a) State the null and the alternative hypothesis.

    H0 :

    HA :

    (b) Calculate the value of the test statistic.

    test-statistic =

    Here's a big hint: It's the same 104 CEOs, so you are doing a repeated measures difference test.



  8. #8
    Walk On
    Points: 10,270, Level: 30
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 280
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered10000 Experience Points
    optimuslott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ames, IA
    Posts
    152
    Points
    10,270
    Level
    30
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    This is not a repeated measures test as you are only assessing 104 ceo's once. Repeated measures would be assessing ceo's twice. So.....Here is what we have:

    n=104
    x-bar (mean) = 6.9%
    sd = 55%

    What we need is a classic z-test.

    First, we need the standard error. Take 55% divided by the square root of 104. You should get a value of 5.393. Hold onto this information.

    Second, the equation X-bar - mu divided by the standard error will give you a z-statistic (or your test statistic). In this case, mu = 0 (or we presume it to be equal to 0 as we do not know a population level mean). Thus, that leaves taking 6.9% divided by 5.393 (or the standard error). The end result is a test-statistic equal to 1.28 thus far below the critical value of 1.86 for a two-tail and 1.66 for a one tail. Thus, it is not significant at the .05 level for a one-tail directional hypothesis (such as an increase).

    H0: The mean real compensation didn't increase or remained 0 (null)
    Ha: The mean real compensation doesn't equal 0 and significantly increased.

    enjoy and i may be wrong.



  9. #9
    Starter
    Points: 20,810, Level: 44
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 840
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassVeteran10000 Experience Points
    baller1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ames
    Posts
    779
    Points
    20,810
    Level
    44
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3
    Given: 2

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    Quote Originally Posted by optimuslott View Post
    This is not a repeated measures test as you are only assessing 104 ceo's once. Repeated measures would be assessing ceo's twice. So.....Here is what we have:

    n=104
    x-bar (mean) = 6.9%
    sd = 55%

    What we need is a classic z-test.

    First, we need the standard error. Take 55% divided by the square root of 104. You should get a value of 5.393. Hold onto this information.

    Second, the equation X-bar - mu divided by the standard error will give you a z-statistic (or your test statistic). In this case, mu = 0 (or we presume it to be equal to 0 as we do not know a population level mean). Thus, that leaves taking 6.9% divided by 5.393 (or the standard error). The end result is a test-statistic equal to 1.28 thus far below the critical value of 1.86 for a two-tail and 1.66 for a one tail. Thus, it is not significant at the .05 level for a one-tail directional hypothesis (such as an increase).

    H0: The mean real compensation didn't increase or remained 0 (null)
    Ha: The mean real compensation doesn't equal 0 and significantly increased.

    enjoy and i may be wrong.
    Thank you! It looks good to me I appreciate the help.



  10. #10
    Pro
    Points: 43,230, Level: 64
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 1,020
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    mike4cy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Urbandale
    Posts
    2,585
    Points
    43,230
    Level
    64
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 24
    Given: 0

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    Quote Originally Posted by optimuslott View Post
    This is not a repeated measures test as you are only assessing 104 ceo's once. Repeated measures would be assessing ceo's twice. So.....Here is what we have:

    n=104
    x-bar (mean) = 6.9%
    sd = 55%

    What we need is a classic z-test.

    First, we need the standard error. Take 55% divided by the square root of 104. You should get a value of 5.393. Hold onto this information.

    Second, the equation X-bar - mu divided by the standard error will give you a z-statistic (or your test statistic). In this case, mu = 0 (or we presume it to be equal to 0 as we do not know a population level mean). Thus, that leaves taking 6.9% divided by 5.393 (or the standard error). The end result is a test-statistic equal to 1.28 thus far below the critical value of 1.86 for a two-tail and 1.66 for a one tail. Thus, it is not significant at the .05 level for a one-tail directional hypothesis (such as an increase).

    H0: The mean real compensation didn't increase or remained 0 (null)
    Ha: The mean real compensation doesn't equal 0 and significantly increased.

    enjoy and i may be wrong.
    Crap, you beat me to it. I was just about to type that all into my keyboard


    --Luck of the Cyrish--






  11. #11
    Hall-Of-Famer
    Points: 84,644, Level: 90
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 906
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsCreated Album pictures
    azepp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ankeny
    Posts
    3,963
    Points
    84,644
    Level
    90
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 183
    Given: 128

    Re: stat 226 gurus...

    OMG my eyeballs are bleeding.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • TV: FOX
  • Iowa State vs. Baylor
  • September 27, 2014
  • 07:20 PM