Chapter 8

Section A
These exercises make it clear to the student that d is just the number of standard deviations that separate
two population means, and g is the number of standard deviations (based on pooling the sample
variances and taking the square-root) separating the sample means. Exercise 9 requires students to draw
the connection between a calculated t and delta; large t's are usually associated with large deltas, and
small t's usually with small deltas. Of course, the alternate hypothesis distribution shows that t can
occasionally come out very differently from delta.
1. a) .35

b) .04

c) .88

d) .55

2. d = (75 72) / 10 = .3
3. d = (510 490)/100 = 20/100 = .2
4. = .3 28 / 2 = 1.12; is less than the critical value required for significance, so the results are
expected to be significant less than half of the time.
5. d = (75 72)/10 = .3; = .3 112/ 2 = 2.24; the expected t is twice as large after multiplying the
number of subjects by 4. In general, if N is multiplied by k, is multiplied by k .
6. d = 1.5; = 4.74
7. d = 3; = 3 20 / 2 = 9.49; Doubling d resulted in a doubling (within rounding error) of ;
In general, if d is multiplied by k (and N remains the same), then is also multiplied by k.
8. a) g = .70

b) g = 1.70

9. d. The expected t was probably large. Having obtained a t value with a magnitude of 23, it is not
likely that the expected t was very much less than 23 -- and a anywhere near 23 would be
considered extremely large (either b or c could account for a large delta, but neither is necessary).
10. d. All of the above reduce Type II errors (but "a" reduces Type II errors by increasing Type I
errors)
Section B
The most important purpose of these exercises is not to prepare students for power analyses of their own
future experiments (although that is one of the purposes), but to deepen students' understanding of null
hypothesis testing, and increase their appreciation for the need to supplement hypothesis testing with
estimates of effect size or confidence intervals. Some students get confused when they realize that an
estimate of power is only as good as the estimate of effect size upon which it is based, but that
determining the effect size is usually the purpose (or should be) of the experiment. These exercises
show that power analysis can help you make an informed decision by allowing you to determine the
effect size required for a given power with fixed sample sizes, or the sample size required for a given
power with a possible lower or upper limit to effect size. It is also hoped that instructors will use the
alternative hypothesis distribution to show that the t value obtained for a particular experiment is related
to delta, but that there is an entire distribution of possibilities that can occur for any particular
experiment. The center of the AHD (i.e., delta) is determined by both the true effect size and the sample
sizes.

1. a) = .68, power = .32; = .29, power = .71

b) = .86, power = .14; = .53, power = .47;
reducing alpha (i.e. the Type I error rate) causes an increase in (i.e. the Type II error rate).
c) 1.7; 3.25
2. a) = .9 30 / 2 = 3.5; power is about .94
b) (from table) = 2.63; d = 2.63 2 / 30 = .68 (at the least)
3. a) 2 (3.1/.7)2 = 39.2; 40 subjects are required in each group
b) 54 subjects per group
4.

(from table) = 3.1; n = (3.1/.7)2 = 19.6 (at least 20 subjects);

(from table) = 3.61; n = (3.61/.7)2 = 26.6 (at least 27 subjects); In both cases, half as many subjects
are required per group, and there are half as many groups (one rather than two), so only one-fourth as
many subjects are required to have the same power as in the two-group case (this is the advantage of
having a known population mean and known -- or assumed -- variance to test against).

5. a) N = 138

b) N = 224

6. a) d = 8/6 = 1.33; = 1.33 15 / 2 = 3.65; power = .86

b) (from table) = 4.22; n = 2(4.22/1.33)2 = 20.1; at least 21 subjects per group.
7. a) 15; 13.33
b) harmonic mean = 13.33; power = .54 (approx.); the experiment is probably not worth doing.
8.

(from table) = 2.63; d = 2.63 2 / 13.33 = 2.63 (.387) = 1.02 (at the least)

9. a) 16 subjects per group

b) d = 1.32

(from table) = 2.48; n = (2.48/.2)2 = 153.8 (there would never be a need to use more than 154
subjects)
b) (from table) = 2.8; n = (2.8/.8)2 = 12.25 (you would never use fewer than 13 subjects per group)

10. a)

11. a) harmonic mean = 8.24; = 2.23; power = .60 (approx.)

b) harmonic mean = 2(12)(20)/(12 + 20) = 480/32 = 15; (from table) = 2.48; d = 2.48 2 / 15 =
2.48 (.365) = .91 (at the least).
12. a) g = 2.4 * (15 / 50) = 2.4 (.5477) = 1.315

b) g = 2.4 * (60 / 800) = 2.4 (.274) = .657

Section C
These exercises are concerned with refining students abilities to estimate the power of a study already
conducted. Although there are no exercises addressing the controversy surrounding null hypothesis
testing, I hope that instructors will provoke some discussion about when null hypothesis testing is
informative, and when it should be replaced by a more quantitative approach. There are many

stimulating articles on this subject that could be distributed to the students as a springboard for
discussion.
1. a) less-biased g = .665

b) less-biased g = 1.657

2. a) less-biased g = .941 * 1.315 = 1.238

b) less-biased g = .987 * .657 = .648

3. a) about .46

b) about .58
3
4. a) est. d = .4856 ( 1
) = .486 (.994) = .483; = est. d 30 = .483 * 5.48 = 2.65; so,
4 (118) 1
retrospective power is a little over .75 for a .05, two-tailed test.
3
b) est. d = 1.70 ( 1
) = 1.70 (.975) = 1.65; = est. d 7.5 = 1.65 * 2.74 = 4.52; so,
4 (30) 1
retrospective power is about .99 for a .05, two-tailed test.
5. a) The approx. CI for d goes from .077 to .964

b) The approx. CI for d goes from .7 to 2.7.

6. Note: In the first printing of the third edition, this exercise referred to exercises 7C1 and 7C2, which
was incorrect; part a should be based on Exercise 7C5, and part b on Exercise 7C6.
a) sp = 5.945 = 2.438; g(robust g) = .642 (12.167 10.833) / 2.438 = .642 (.5467) = .351.
b) s2p = (4 * 11.143 + 6 * 49.25) / 10 = 34.0; sp = 18.44; g = .642 (20.86 14.8) / 18.44 =
.642 (.3286) = .21. Note that this value for g is based on pooling very different variances
(even after Winsorizing), and therefore should be regarded with caution.

Chapter 9
Section A
Exercises 3 through 6, and 8 highlight the importance of drawing a scatterplot before calculating (and
especially before trying to interpret) a correlation coefficient. These exercises test for the understanding
of factors that affect the magnitude of linear correlation in a population or a sample. Exercise 9 is tricky
in that students first must know that there is a perfect negative correlation between a test score and the
number of points taken off the total (part a), and then must realize that if variables X and Y have a
perfect negative correlation, the correlation between Y and some variable Z will be the same in
magnitude (and opposite in sign) as the correlation between X and Z (part b). Exercise 10 prepares
students for linear regression by asking them to make "predictions" in a case of perfect (negative)
correlation. Also, this exercise encourages students to look at correlation in terms of z-scores.
3. a) The general trend is toward a positive correlation.
b) Misleading because of the outlier at (4, 50)
4. a) Low; the points do not come close to fitting on one straight line.
b) Misleading; the degree of linear correlation is low, but there appears to be a meaningful
(curvilinear) relationship between anxiety and number of details recalled.
5. a) Negative; points slope down as you move to the right in the scatterplot
b) Moderate; the trend is noticeable, but there is considerable scatter with respect to any straight line.

6.
100

90

EXAM

80

70
-2

10

12

PHOBIA

a) The trend in the scatterplot indicates a fairly high negative correlation. b) The trend is slightly
curvilinear due to the fact that the highest exam score is associated with a middle phobia rating of 5.
7. a. One or both of the variables has a restricted range. (It is likely that all of the architecture students
would be at least average in their ability to mentally rotate objects, thus restricting the range.)
8.
4.0

3.5

3.0

GPA

2.5

2.0
300

V_SAT

400

500

600

700

a) The trend in the scatterplot indicates a moderate to fairly high positive correlation.
b) The scatterplot includes two slightly outlying points: 2.1, 510 and 3.5, 680.
9. a) 1.0

b) .45

10. a) z = (10 30)/10 = 2; given the perfect negative correlation, this implies z = +2 for score;
+2 = (Y 70)/14, therefore Y = 98.
b) z = (49 70)/14 = 21/14 = 1.5, so z = +1.5 for time; +1.5 = (X 30)/10, so X = 45 seconds.
Section B
These exercises give students practice calculating correlation coefficients and testing them for statistical
significance. Exercise 3 demonstrates that the use of very different looking formulas can lead to the
same result. Small discrepancies due to rounding off can be tolerated, but students should be cautioned
that maintaining fewer than four digits to the right of the decimal point in intermediate calculations can
lead to large errors in the value of r. Exercise 4 (and to a lesser extent, exercise 9) points out the
susceptibility of Pearson's r to bivariate outliers. Other exercises illustrate the use of Pearson's r for
different types of reliability, or to analyze the results of a true experiment (exercises 9 and 10). An
instructor who wants to compare Pearson's r to the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient at this
point can ask students to read the relevant portion of Chapter 21, Section B.
1. a) r = (122,000/20 75 80)/(10 12) = (6100 - 6000)/120 = .83
b) Yes, rcalc > rcrit = .561 (df = 18)
c) There is a high degree of linear relationship
965
2. r = 8

t=

( 26 .625 )( 4.625 )
(9.58 )(1.8)

( .146) 8 2
2

120 .625 123 .141

= .146
17.24

2.45( .146 )
= .36
.9893

1 ( .146)
The t value is obviously not significant, so the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

3. a) r = N 1

( XY
sx s y

NXY )

1
[12,375 6 ( 53.5) (38.67) ]
7 .4
= 5
=
= .533
13 .875
(1.87)(7.42)

b) Fifty points were subtracted from each depression score before the following calculations were
made:
6 (775) (21) (232)
222
N XY ( X )( Y )
=
=
= .533
2
2
173,460
[ 6 ( 91) 21 ][6 ( 9246) 232 ]
[ N X 2 ( X ) 2 ][N Y 2 ( Y ) 2 ]
c) If both formulas were calculated correctly, any slight discrepancy in the answers is due to
rounding off.
4. a) rcalc = 1/8(2029 9 6 34.56)/(2.74 11.39) = .653 < rcrit = .666; accept null
b) rcalc = .957 > rcrit = .707; reject null

c) You find out that the person with four years at the company is related to the president of the
company.
5. a) rcalc = 1/9(1267 10 6.7 20.4)/(3.23 5.13) = .669
b) reject null; | rcalc | > rcrit = .632
6. a) rcalc = .845

b) reject null; rcalc > rcrit = .805; no, rcalc < rcrit = .878

670
(7.5)( 9.4)
74 .44 71 .36
9
7. r =
=
= .478
( 2.06 )( 3.13)
6.45

8. a) rcalc = 1/5(140 6 3.33 4.83)/(3.33 2.86) = .91

b) reject null; rcalc > rcrit = .882
9. a) rcalc = .718
b) reject null; rcalc > rcrit = .707
c) Because subjects were randomly assigned to exercise durations, we can conclude that an increase
in exercise duration (within the limits of the study) causes a lowering of serum cholesterol level.
1
( 46,451 .8 45,495 )
86 .98
10. r = 11
=
= .795; reject the null hypothesis; rcalc > r.05(10) = .576
(1.17 )( 93 .53)
109 .43

11. rcalc = .709; the correlation is significant at the .05 level, and just barely at the .01 level.
12. r(VSAT/GPA) = 1/9 (16,701 10 522 3.13) / (91.87 .6634) = 1/9 (362.4 / 60.95) = .6607;
r.05 = .632 < .6607 < r.01 = .765, so rcalc is significant at the .05 level, but not at the .01 level.
Section C
The exercises in this section will help students apply power analysis and confidence interval
construction to correlational problems. Students will probably need to be reminded to convert their CI
limits back to r's, especially when none of these limits is greater than 1.0, which makes the limits easy to
mistake for rs rather than Zs. Exercise 7 will show that when comparing two r's from two different
samples, a larger discrepancy is required for significance than most students would guess. On the topic
of power, students should be reminded that the population correlation plays the same role as d in the
two-group case; it serves as a measure of effect size. It is also useful to emphasize that even tiny r's can
become statistically significant when very large sample sizes are used, but that even large r's can fail to
attain significance when small samples are used. Also, it can be noted that, when not dealing with
measures of reliability or validity, Pearson r's of .5 can be considered quite large and values as low as .2
are often considered meaningful.
1. must be at least .905 in magnitude.
2.

(from Table A.4) = 3.97; N = (3.97/.6607)2 + 1 = 36.1 + 1 = 37.1 (either 37 or 38 students would
be a reasonable answer).

3. a) .05
i) .245

b) .1
j) .46

c) .31
k) .74

d) .549
l) .835

e) .867
m) .922

f) 1.472
n) .987

g) 1.832
o) .987

h) 2.647

4. a) The discrepancy widens.

b) Values below r = .2 (or even below .3)

5. a) = .5 9 = 1.5; power = .32

b)
2
c) N = (3.24/.669) + 1 = 24.5; 25 schizophrenics

1
= .81 + 1.96
N 3
lower Z = .81 .74 = .07

6. a) upper Z = Zr + zcrit

1
7

= .669 9 = 2.0; power = .52

= .81 + .74 = 1.55

Converting Z back to r, the 95% CI ranges from = .07 to .914.

1
b) upper Z = .81 + 2.58
= .81 + .975 = 1.785
7
lower Z = .81 .975 = .165
Converting Z back to r, the 99% CI ranges from = .164 to .945; No, because = 0 falls within
the 99% CI, the null hypothesis that = 0 cannot be rejected at the .01 level (two-tailed).
7. no, it is not: zcalc = (.81 .203)/ 1 / 7 1 / 12 = 1.28 < zcrit = 1.96
2

2.8
1=
8. a) (from Table A.4) = 2.8; N =
.1
A
No more than 785 subjects should be used.
b)

(from table) = 3.1; =

N 1

A;

so A =

N 1

1 = 282 + 1 = 78

3 .1
= .56 (at the least)
31

9. a) no, zcalc = (.549 .424)/ 1 / 77 = 1.10 < zcrit = 1.96

b) no, zcalc = (.549 .31)/ 1/ 77 1/ 117 = 1.63 < zcrit = 1.96

1
= 1.099 + .286 = 1.38
47
lower Z = 1.099 .286 = .813
Converting Z back to r, the 95% CI ranges from = .671 to .881.

10. a) upper Z = 1.099 + 1.96

1
= 1.099 + .14 = 1.239
197
lower Z = 1.099 .14 = .959
Converting Z back to r, the 95% CI ranges from = .744 to .845.

b) upper Z = 1.099 + 1.96

c) Increasing the sample size (all else remaining equal), causes the width of the CI to decrease.
Multiplying the sample size by k, causes the width of the CI to be divided by k (approximately),
if r is not very close to 1 or 1.