In: Statistics and Probability
Dean Parmalee wished to know if the year-end grades assigned to Wright State University Medical School students are predictive of their second-year medical board scores. The following table shows, for 89 students, the year-end score (AVG, in percent of 100) and the score on the second year medical board (BOARD) examination (data: medscores.mtw).
AVG |
BOARD |
AVG |
BOARD |
AVG |
BOARD |
95.73 |
257 |
85.91 |
208 |
82.01 |
196 |
94.03 |
256 |
85.81 |
210 |
81.86 |
179 |
91.51 |
242 |
85.35 |
212 |
81.7 |
207 |
91.49 |
223 |
85.3 |
225 |
81.65 |
202 |
91.13 |
241 |
85.27 |
203 |
81.51 |
230 |
90.88 |
234 |
85.05 |
214 |
81.07 |
200 |
90.83 |
226 |
84.58 |
176 |
80.95 |
200 |
90.6 |
236 |
84.51 |
196 |
80.92 |
160 |
90.3 |
250 |
84.51 |
207 |
80.84 |
205 |
90.29 |
226 |
84.42 |
207 |
80.77 |
194 |
89.93 |
233 |
84.34 |
211 |
80.72 |
196 |
89.83 |
241 |
84.34 |
202 |
80.69 |
171 |
89.65 |
234 |
84.13 |
229 |
80.58 |
201 |
89.47 |
231 |
84.13 |
202 |
80.57 |
177 |
88.87 |
228 |
84.09 |
184 |
80.1 |
192 |
88.8 |
229 |
83.98 |
206 |
79.38 |
187 |
88.66 |
235 |
83.93 |
202 |
78.75 |
161 |
88.55 |
216 |
83.92 |
176 |
78.32 |
172 |
88.43 |
207 |
83.73 |
204 |
78.17 |
163 |
88.34 |
224 |
83.47 |
208 |
77.39 |
166 |
87.95 |
237 |
83.27 |
211 |
76.3 |
170 |
87.79 |
213 |
83.13 |
196 |
75.85 |
159 |
87.01 |
215 |
83.05 |
203 |
75.6 |
154 |
86.86 |
187 |
83.02 |
188 |
75.16 |
169 |
86.85 |
204 |
82.82 |
169 |
74.85 |
159 |
86.84 |
219 |
82.78 |
205 |
74.66 |
167 |
86.3 |
228 |
82.57 |
183 |
74.58 |
154 |
86.13 |
210 |
82.56 |
181 |
74.16 |
148 |
86.1 |
216 |
82.45 |
173 |
70.34 |
159 |
85.92 |
212 |
82.24 |
185 |
a) Create scatterplots of BOARD vs. AVG. Assess the nature of the relationship of these variables.
type in will be best:)
In order to solve this question I used R software.
R codes and output:
> d=read.table('data.csv',header=T,sep=',')
> head(d)
AVG BOARD
1 95.73 257
2 94.03 256
3 91.51 242
4 91.49 223
5 91.13 241
6 90.88 234
> attach(d)
> plot(AVG,BOARD)
> fit=lm(BOARD~AVG)
> summary(fit)
Call:
lm(formula = BOARD ~ AVG)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-28.931 -8.150 2.397 7.193 39.441
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -191.0296 22.9342 -8.329 1.06e-12 ***
AVG 4.6815 0.2727 17.169 < 2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 12.49 on 87 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.7721, Adjusted R-squared: 0.7695
F-statistic: 294.8 on 1 and 87 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
a.
Scatter plot:
b.
Estimates of the coefficients of your model:
Slope = 4.6815
Intercept = -191.0296
c.
Interpretation:
For intercept:
When AVG score of student is zero, then their second-year medical board scores is -191.0296
For slope:
When AVG score of student is increased by 1 then second-year medical board scores is increased by 4.6815
d.
R-square = 0.7721
It means 77.21% of variation in second-year medical board scores is explained by the average score.