
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.
teststatistic =
Last edited by baller1; 11022011 at 05:23 PM.

Re: stat 226 gurus...
Originally Posted by baller1
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.
teststatistic =
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

Re: stat 226 gurus...
You sure the SD isn't 5.5%?

Re: stat 226 gurus...
Originally Posted by mike4cy
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."
Originally Posted by im4cyclones
[Anything] is easy if you are content to suck at it.

Re: stat 226 gurus...
Originally Posted by isukendall
You sure the SD isn't 5.5%?
Yeah, it says s=55% and xhat = 6.9%. I don't understand how I am suppose to do the equation with the information given.

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!
“I told you, I don’t care if you’re black or white. I don’t care if you’re rich or poor. I don’t care where you come from, whether it’s Texas, Florida, California, or right here in the state of Iowa, I don’t care about any of that… But what I did care about is moving forward from that day on, that we were one team." Paul Rhoads

Re: stat 226 gurus...
Originally Posted by baller1
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.
teststatistic =
Here's a big hint: It's the same 104 CEOs, so you are doing a repeated measures difference test.

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
xbar (mean) = 6.9%
sd = 55%
What we need is a classic ztest.
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 Xbar  mu divided by the standard error will give you a zstatistic (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 teststatistic equal to 1.28 thus far below the critical value of 1.86 for a twotail and 1.66 for a one tail. Thus, it is not significant at the .05 level for a onetail 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.

Re: stat 226 gurus...
Originally Posted by optimuslott
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
xbar (mean) = 6.9%
sd = 55%
What we need is a classic ztest.
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 Xbar  mu divided by the standard error will give you a zstatistic (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 teststatistic equal to 1.28 thus far below the critical value of 1.86 for a twotail and 1.66 for a one tail. Thus, it is not significant at the .05 level for a onetail 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.

Re: stat 226 gurus...
Originally Posted by optimuslott
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
xbar (mean) = 6.9%
sd = 55%
What we need is a classic ztest.
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 Xbar  mu divided by the standard error will give you a zstatistic (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 teststatistic equal to 1.28 thus far below the critical value of 1.86 for a twotail and 1.66 for a one tail. Thus, it is not significant at the .05 level for a onetail 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

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

Forum Rules
 

Bookmarks