Please review if I answered the 4th question in write up section correctly and let me know if I need to change something I also need help answering the fifth question Also, If you find any other mistakes, I will aprreciate the help God bless II DEPENDENT t Test Research question is there statistically significant weight loss (pre vs post) for people who exercised in a hot environment Assumptions Testing Data level of measurement what was the level of measurement for the data used in this case study The level of measurement for the variables hot was nominal, and for the variable pre post workout, it was interval 2 Would the amount of skewness and kurtosis in these variables affect the analysis How do you know Give numerical values to support your conclusion The skewness and kurtosis in these variables did not affect the analysis because the skewness for pre workout was calculated as 1 870 687 2 721, and the kurtosis was calculated as 3 122 1 334 2 340 for post workout, skewness was calculated as 1 885 687 2 743, and the kurtosis was calculated as 3 195 1 334 2 395 They did not fall between 1 96 and 1 96 intervals Table 1 PASTE TABLE with skewness and kurtosis BELOW Descriptives Statistic Std Error Pre Body Weight Mean 85 890 4 3502 95 Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 76 049 Upper Bound 95 731 5 Trimmed Mean 84 644 Median 81 800 Variance 189 245 Std Deviation 13 7567 Minimum 75 7 Maximum 118 5 Range 42 8 Interquartile Range 13 3 Skewness 1 870 687 Kurtosis 3 122 1 334 Post Body Weight Mean 84 840 4 4152 95 Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 74 852 Upper Bound 94 828 5 Trimmed Mean 83 656 Median 80 950 Variance 194 943 Std Deviation 13 9622 Minimum 73 0 Maximum 118 0 Range 45 0 Interquartile Range 11 3 Skewness 1 885 687 Kurtosis 3 195 1 334 3 Was the assumption of normality met and how do you know The assumption of normality was not met because the p value for Pre Post Body Weight 003, which is less than the alpha value of 05 Table 2 PASTE Tests of NORMALITY table BELOW Tests of Normality Kolmogorov Smirnov a Shapiro Wilk Statistic df Sig Statistic df Sig Pre Body Weight 306 10 009 744 10 003 Post Body Weight 352 10 749 10 003 a Lilliefors Significance Correction Figure 1 PASTE Histogram with normal curve for each variable BELOW f fNormal Q Q Plot of Pre Body Weight 3 2 O Expected Normal 1 2 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Observed ValueExpected Normal 60 Normal Q Q Plot of Post Body Weight a0 100 Observed Value 120 fPaired Samples Test Paired Differences Significance 95 Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Lower Upper t df One Sided p Two Sided p Pair 1 Pre Body Weight 1 0500 9022 2853 4046 1 6954 3 680 9 003 005 Post Body Weight

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Answered step by step

Verified Expert Solution

Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Oct 11, 2024

Please review if I answered the 4th question in write up section correctly and let me know if I need to change something. I also

Please review if I answered the 4th question in write up section correctly and let me know if I need to change something. I also need help answering the fifth question. Also, If you find any other mistakes, I will aprreciate the help. God bless!!

II DEPENDENT t-Test

Research question: "is there statistically significant weight loss (pre vs. post) for people who exercised in a hot environment?"

Assumptions Testing

Data level of measurement-what was the level of measurement for the data used in this case study?

The level of measurement for the variables hot was nominal, and for the variable pre/post workout, it was interval.

2. Would the amount of skewness and kurtosis in these variables affect the analysis? How do you know? Give numerical values to support your conclusion.

The skewness and kurtosis in these variables did not affect the analysis because the skewness for pre-workout was calculated as 1.870/. 687=2.721, and the kurtosis was calculated as 3.122/1.334=2.340; for post-workout, skewness was calculated as 1.885/. 687=2.743, and the kurtosis was calculated as 3.195/1.334=2.395. They did not fall between -.1.96 and 1.96 intervals.

Table 1. PASTE TABLE with skewness and kurtosis BELOW

Descriptives
	Statistic	Std. Error
Pre_Body_Weight	Mean	85.890	4.3502
95% Confidence Interval for Mean	Lower Bound	76.049
Upper Bound	95.731
5% Trimmed Mean	84.644
Median	81.800
Variance	189.245
Std. Deviation	13.7567
Minimum	75.7
Maximum	118.5
Range	42.8
Interquartile Range	13.3
Skewness	1.870	.687
Kurtosis	3.122	1.334
Post_Body_Weight	Mean	84.840	4.4152
95% Confidence Interval for Mean	Lower Bound	74.852
Upper Bound	94.828
5% Trimmed Mean	83.656
Median	80.950
Variance	194.943
Std. Deviation	13.9622
Minimum	73.0
Maximum	118.0
Range	45.0
Interquartile Range	11.3
Skewness	1.885	.687
Kurtosis	3.195	1.334

3. Was the assumption of normality met and how do you know?

The assumption of normality was not met because the p-value for Pre/Post Body Weight = .003, which is less than the alpha value of .05.

Table 2. PASTE Tests of NORMALITY table BELOW

Tests of Normality
	Kolmogorov-Smirnov^a	Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Pre_Body_Weight	.306	10	.009	.744	10	.003
Post_Body_Weight	.352	10	<.001>	.749	10	.003
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Figure 1. PASTE Histogram with normal curve for each variable BELOW

\f\fNormal Q-Q Plot of Pre_Body_Weight 3 2 O Expected Normal -1 -2 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Observed ValueExpected Normal 60 Normal Q-Q Plot of Post_Body_Weight a0 100 Observed Value 120 \fPaired Samples Test Paired Differences Significance 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df One-Sided p Two-Sided p Pair 1 Pre_Body_Weight - 1.0500 9022 2853 4046 1.6954 3.680 9 003 005 Post_Body_Weight