In: Statistics and Probability
Appendix Table 1 Chi-Square Values by Alpha Level and Degrees of Freedom
Df |
0.5 |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.02 |
0.01 |
0.001 |
1 |
0.455 |
2.706 |
3.841 |
5.412 |
6.635 |
10.827 |
2 |
1.386 |
4.605 |
5.991 |
7.824 |
9.210 |
13.815 |
3 |
2.366 |
6.251 |
7.815 |
9.837 |
11.345 |
16.268 |
4 |
3.357 |
7.779 |
9.488 |
11.668 |
13.277 |
18.465 |
5 |
4.351 |
9.236 |
11.070 |
13.388 |
15.086 |
20.510 |
Appendix Table 2 Patient Satisfaction, by Insurer, Same Day of Appointment, Prescription Coverage and Level of Co-pay
Gender |
Age |
Convenience Satisfaction |
Insurer |
Same day appointment? |
Rx coverage |
Co-pay ($) |
M |
22 |
5 |
Select |
Y |
Y |
15 |
M |
24 |
4 |
Select |
Y |
N |
15 |
F |
45 |
5 |
Select |
Y |
Y |
10 |
F |
38 |
5 |
Select |
Y |
Y |
10 |
F |
48 |
3 |
Select |
Y |
N |
10 |
F |
50 |
4 |
Select |
Y |
Y |
20 |
M |
67 |
4 |
Medicare |
Y |
Y |
5 |
F |
23 |
5 |
Tri-state |
N |
Y |
10 |
F |
19 |
5 |
Tri-state |
N |
Y |
15 |
M |
14 |
3 |
Tri-state |
Y |
Y |
20 |
F |
27 |
5 |
Reliant |
Y |
N |
15 |
M |
33 |
3 |
Reliant |
N |
N |
0 |
F |
39 |
4 |
Reliant |
N |
N |
5 |
F |
47 |
4 |
Tri-state |
N |
Y |
5 |
M |
42 |
5 |
Tri-state |
N |
N |
5 |
M |
31 |
5 |
Reliant |
N |
N |
15 |
M |
20 |
4 |
Reliant |
N |
Y |
15 |
F |
72 |
5 |
Medicare |
Y |
Y |
15 |
F |
44 |
4 |
Tri-state |
N |
N |
20 |
M |
45 |
5 |
Select |
Y |
N |
20 |
F |
60 |
3 |
Reliant |
Y |
Y |
20 |
M |
63 |
5 |
Tri-state |
Y |
Y |
5 |
F |
27 |
5 |
Tri-state |
Y |
Y |
5 |
M |
68 |
5 |
Medicare |
N |
Y |
5 |
F |
33 |
5 |
Reliant |
N |
Y |
10 |
F |
38 |
3 |
Reliant |
N |
Y |
15 |
F |
55 |
4 |
Medicare |
N |
Y |
15 |
M |
51 |
5 |
Select |
Y |
Y |
15 |
F |
48 |
4 |
Tri-state |
Y |
Y |
20 |
M |
49 |
5 |
Tri-state |
Y |
Y |
0 |
M |
55 |
5 |
Select |
N |
Y |
5 |
F |
61 |
4 |
Reliant |
Y |
N |
0 |
F |
23 |
5 |
Medicare |
Y |
N |
0 |
M |
69 |
5 |
Medicare |
N |
Y |
20 |
F |
41 |
4 |
Tri-state |
Y |
N |
5 |
F |
14 |
4 |
Medicare |
Y |
N |
0 |
2-1
Gender-nominally
Age-ordinally
Convenience Satisfaction-ordinally
Insurer-nominally
Same day apt-nominally
Rx coverage-nominally
Co-pay ($)-interval/ratio
2-2
a) we will use a bar graph to summarise the variable of age.
group |
age range |
no of patients |
1 |
0-10 |
0 |
2 |
11 to 20 |
4 |
3 |
21-30 |
6 |
4 |
31-40 |
6 |
5 |
41-50 |
10 |
6 |
51-60 |
4 |
7 |
61-70 |
5 |
8 |
71-80 |
1 |
b) for gender
for convenience satisfaction, again using a bar graph
2-3
to test whether satisfaction scoring differed by the amount the individual paid as a co-pay, the following hypothesis will be made
H0: Satisfaction scoring doesn’t differ because of the amount the individual pays as a co-pay.
H1: Satisfaction scoring does differ by the amount the individual pays as a co-pay.
we will use the chi-square test to test this difference in the satisfaction
2-4
Step 1.LAY OUT THE DATA IN A TABLE
OBSERVED FREQUENCY |
|||
CO PAY\ SATISFACTION LEVEL |
3 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
10 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
15 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
20 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
Step 2. Select the appropriate test statistic.
The formula for the test statistic is:
In the test statistic, O = observed frequency and E=expected frequency in each of the response categories
The condition for appropriate use of the above test statistic is that each expected frequency is at least 5. In Step 4 we will compute the expected frequencies and we will ensure that the condition is met.
Step3: Add up rows and columns:
CO PAY\ SATISFACTION LEVEL |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
9 |
10 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
15 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
10 |
20 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
5 |
12 |
19 |
36 |
Which gives us:
Step4: Calculate "Expected Value" for each
entry
Multiply each row total by each column total and divide by the
overall total
EXPECTED FREQUENCY |
|||
CO PAY\ SATISFACTION LEVEL |
3 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
0.6944 |
1.666 |
2.63 |
5 |
1.25 |
3 |
4.75 |
10 |
0.69 |
1.67 |
2.63 |
15 |
1.38 |
3.33 |
5.27 |
20 |
0.97 |
2.34 |
3.694 |
now Subtract expected from observed, square it, then divide by expected:
In other words, use formula (O−E)2 /E where
Which gets us the respective chi-square values
CHI SQUARE VALUES |
|||
COPAY \ SATISFACTION LEVEL |
3 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
0.134444 |
0.0666667 |
0.154678 |
5 |
1.25 |
0.333333 |
0.0131579 |
10 |
0.134444 |
1.66667 |
0.702047 |
15 |
0.108889 |
0.0333333 |
0.0988304 |
20 |
1.08651 |
0.190476 |
0.777151 |
WE ADD ALL THE Chi-Squared Values of the table
Chi-Square is = 6.75063
Step 5. Set up decision rule.
The decision rule depends on the level of significance and the degrees of freedom, defined as df = (r-1)(c-1), where r and c are the numbers of rows and columns in the two-way data table.
The row variable is the cut off pay which is 5, thus r=5. The column variable is satisfaction level and 3 responses are considered, thus c=3. For this test, df=(5-1)(3-1)=8.
With tests, there are no upper, lower, or two-tailed tests. If the null hypothesis is true, the observed and expected frequencies will be close in value and the statistic will be close to zero. If the null hypothesis is false, then the statistic will be large.
this value is found using chi-square table
The rejection region for the χ2 test of independence is always in the upper (right-hand) tail of the distribution. For df=8 and a 5% level of significance, the appropriate critical value is 15.51 and the decision rule is as follows: Fail to reject H0 if chi 2 <15.51
Step 6. Conclusion
since chi square= 6.75< 15.51
Thus we fail to reject the null hypothesis at 5% level of significance and hence we conclude that Satisfaction scoring doesn’t differ because of the amount the individual pays as a co-pay.