Question

QUESTION 14

1. Questions 14 through 18 refer to the following:

   The following table is a summary of randomly chosen student evaluations of faculty at a university over a three-year period. The researcher is interested in whether the distribution of evaluations differs by faculty rank.

   	Rank
   Evaluation	Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Professor	Total
   Above Average	42	39	36	117
   Below Average	38	31	54	123
   Total	80	70	90	240

   If faculty rank and evaluation are independent, how many assistant professors would have been expected to receive above average evaluations?

1 points   

QUESTION 15

1. What's the value of the test statistic?

1 points   

QUESTION 16

1. What's the critical value if the significance level is .05?

1 points   

QUESTION 17

1. What's the p-value (any value in your range if you used a table)?

1 points   

QUESTION 18

1. Do the data provide significant evidence at the .05 level that faculty rank and evaluation are dependent?

   		yes
   		no
   		socks
   		light bulb

Answer 1

Ans:

	Observed(fo)
Evaluation	Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Professor	Total
Above Average	42	39	36	117
Below Average	38	31	54	123
Total	80	70	90	240
	Expected(fe)
Evaluation	Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Professor	Total
Above Average	39	34.125	43.875	117
Below Average	41	35.875	46.125	123
Total	80	70	90	240
	Chi square=(fo-fe)^2/fe
Evaluation	Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Professor	Total
Above Average	0.231	0.696	1.413	2.341
Below Average	0.220	0.662	1.345	2.226
Total	0.450	1.359	2.758	4.567

Expected count for Assistant professor above average=80*117/240=39

Test statistic:

Chi square=4.567

df=(2-1)*(3-1)=2

critical chi square=CHIINV(0.05,2)=5.99

p-value=CHIDIST(4.567,2)=0.1019

As,p-value>0.05,we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that faculty rank and evaluation are dependent.

(No)