Question

In: Math

At a gymnastics meet, three judges evaluate the balance beam performances of five gymnasts. The judges...

At a gymnastics meet, three judges evaluate the balance beam performances of five gymnasts. The judges use a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is a perfect score. A statistician wants to examine the objectivity and consistency of the judges. Assume scores are normally distributed. (You may find it useful to reference the q table.)

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3
Gymnast 1 7.9 8.7 7.6
Gymnast 2 6.5 7.8 8.6
Gymnast 3 7.8 7.7 7.8
Gymnast 4 9.4 9.4 8.3
Gymnast 5 6.4 6.6 7.0

a-1. Construct an ANOVA table. (Round intermediate calculations to at least 4 decimal places. Round "SS", "MS", "p-value" to 4 decimal places and "F" to 3 decimal places.)

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F p-value
Rows
Columns
Error
Total

a-2. If average scores differ by gymnast, use Tukey’s HSD method at the 5% significance level to determine which gymnasts’ performances differ. (Negative values should be indicated by a minus sign. Round intermediate calculations to at least 4 decimal places. Round your answers to 2 decimal places.)

Population Mean Difference Confidence Interval Does the mean score differ at the 5% significance level?
μ1 − μ2 [ , ]
μ1 − μ3 [ , ]
μ1 − μ4 [ , ]
μ1 − μ5 [ , ]
μ2 − μ3 [ , ]
μ2 − μ4 [ , ]
μ2 − μ5 [ , ]
μ3 − μ4 [ , ]
μ3 − μ5 [ , ]
μ4 − μ5 [ , ]

Solutions

Expert Solution

a-1)

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value
Rows 8.7000 4 2.1750 5.112 0.0242
Columns 0.4893 2 0.2447 0.575 0.5843
Error 3.4040 8 0.4255
Total 12.5933 14

a-2)

Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons
Sample Sample Absolute Critical confidence interval
Group Mean Size Comparison Difference Range Results lower bound upper bound
1: Gymnast 1 8.066667 3 Group 1 to Group 2 0.43 1.84 Means are not different -1.41 2.27
2: Gymnast 2 7.633333 3 Group 1 to Group 3 0.30 1.84 Means are not different -1.54 2.14
3: Gymnast 3 7.766667 3 Group 1 to Group 4 -0.97 1.84 Means are not different -2.81 0.87
4: Gymnast 4 9.033333 3 Group 1 to Group 5 1.40 1.84 Means are not different -0.44 3.24
5: Gymnast 5 6.666667 3 Group 2 to Group 3 -0.13 1.84 Means are not different -1.97 1.71
Group 2 to Group 4 -1.40 1.84 Means are not different -3.24 0.44
Other Data Group 2 to Group 5 0.97 1.84 Means are not different -0.87 2.81
Level of significance 0.05 Group 3 to Group 4 -1.27 1.84 Means are not different -3.11 0.57
Numerator d.f. 5 Group 3 to Group 5 1.10 1.84 Means are not different -0.74 2.94
Denominator d.f. 8 Group 4 to Group 5 2.37 1.84 Means are different 0.53 4.21
MSW 0.4255
Q Statistic 4.8858

please revert for doubts/....


Related Solutions

At a gymnastics meet, three judges evaluate the balance beam performances of five gymnasts. The judges...
At a gymnastics meet, three judges evaluate the balance beam performances of five gymnasts. The judges use a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is a perfect score. A statistician wants to examine the objectivity and consistency of the judges. Assume scores are normally distributed. (You may find it useful to reference the q table.)                                     Judge 1                        Judge 2                        Judge 3 Gymnast 1                   9.5                               8.0                               7.8 Gymnast 2                   9.5                               9.5                               9.2 Gymnast 3                   9.1                               8.4                               7.4 Gymnast 4                  ...
At a gymnastics meet, three judges evaluate the balance beam performances of five gymnasts. The judges...
At a gymnastics meet, three judges evaluate the balance beam performances of five gymnasts. The judges use a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is a perfect score. A statistician wants to examine the jobjectivity and consistency of the judges. Assume scores are normally distrbuted. Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Gymnast 1 8.0 8.5 8.2 Gymnast 2 9.5 9.2 9.7 Gymnast 3 7.3 7.5 7.7 Gymnast 4 8.3 8.7 8.5 Gymnast 5 8.8 9.2 9.0 At the 1%...
Suppose you wanted to evaluate the performance of the three judges in Smallville, Texas: Judge Adams,...
Suppose you wanted to evaluate the performance of the three judges in Smallville, Texas: Judge Adams, Judge Brown, and Judge Carter. Over a three-year period in Smallville, Judge Adams saw 26% of the cases, Judge Brown saw 33% of the cases, and Judge Carter saw the remainder of the cases. 3% of Judge Adams’ cases were appealed, 6% of Judge Brown’s cases were appealed, and 9% of Judge Carter’s cases were appealed. (See the case problem on pages 216-218 of...
Suppose you wanted to evaluate the performance of the three judges in Smallville, Texas: Judge Adams,...
Suppose you wanted to evaluate the performance of the three judges in Smallville, Texas: Judge Adams, Judge Brown, and Judge Carter. Over a three-year period in Smallville, Judge Adams saw 26% of the cases, Judge Brown saw 34% of the cases, and Judge Carter saw the remainder of the cases. 3% of Judge Adams’ cases were appealed, 6% of Judge Brown’s cases were appealed, and 9% of Judge Carter’s cases were appealed. Given the judge in a case from this...
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT