Assessment Cover Sheet
ASSESSMENT DETAILS
Unit title Foundations of Statistics
Unit code STA10003 Due date 29/03/2026
Assignment title Assignment Part 2
STUDENT DETAILS
Student Name Student ID Number
DƯƠNG THOẠI NHƯ 105011463
DECLARATION AND STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
1. I have not impersonated, or allowed myself to be impersonated by any person for the purposes of this assessment.
2. This assessment is all my original work. I have not copied or used another student’s work. All the answers are all my own work.
3. No part of this assessment has been written or made using any form of Generative AI (genAI).
4. I understand that the use of generative AI is a breach of Academic Integrity and will result in an Academic Misconduct
investigation.
5. No part of this assessment has been written for me by any other person.
6. I have not previously submitted this work for this or any other course/unit.
7. I understand that plagiarism is the presentation of the work, idea or creation of another person as though it is your own. It is a
form of cheating and is a very serious academic offence that may lead to exclusion from the University. Plagiarised material
can be drawn from, and presented in, written, graphic and visual form, including electronic data and oral presentations.
Plagiarism occurs when the origin of the material used is not appropriately cited.
8. I give permission for my assessment response to be reproduced, communicated, compared and archived for plagiarism
detection, benchmarking, or for educational purposes.
Student signature
Please put either your signature or your typed name into the box below. By placing either your signature or your typed name into the
box below you declare that you have read and understood the declaration and statement of authorship.
NHU
Further information relating to the penalties for plagiarism, which range from a formal caution to expulsion from the University is contained on the Current
Students website at [Link]
Q1 - One-Sample t-test
A researcher at the Department of Health Victoria investigated internal self-perception.
They predicted that there is a difference in internal self-perception between Australians and
Europeans (whose average score is 6.3).
In a random sample of 722 clients, the average internal self-perception score was 5.87 (s =
3.78). This is, in fact, lower than the average score for Europeans (6.3), and a one-sample
t-test shows that this difference is significant, t(721) = -3.04, p = .002. The 95% confidence
interval indicates that the average internal self-perception score is between 0.15 and 0.70
lower than it is for Europeans.
As predicted, there is a difference in internal self-perception between Australians and
Europeans. Australians, on average, have a lower internal self-perception score than
Europeans.
Question 2a - Independent-samples t-test & Assumptions
A researcher at the Department of Health Victoria predicted that males have a lower level
of external self-perception than females.
In a random sample of 653 clients, the average external self-perception score for males (M
= 7.03, s = 4.47, n = 336) was actually higher than the average score for females (M = 5.59,
s = 3.77, n = 317). An independent samples t-test shows that this difference is significant,
t(643.02) = 4.44, p < .001. The 95% confidence interval indicates that the mean score for
males is between 0.80 and 2.07 higher than for females.
There is insufficient evidence to support the prediction that males have a lower level of
external self-perception than females. In fact, males have a significantly higher score than
females.
Question 2b: Assumption Checking
Assumptions:
• The assumption of independence of observations has been met. The sample was a
random sample of clients.
• The assumption of normality has been met. Because the sample sizes are very
large (336 males and 317 females), we can assume the data is normally distributed.
• The assumption of homogeneity of variances has not been met. The Levene's test
was significant (p < .001).
• Recommendation: The results of the independent samples t-test (using the
"Equal variances not assumed" row) can be used.
Question 3a: Paired samples t-test Report
A researcher at the Department of Health Victoria predicted that participants would have
better anxiety coping after completing the intervention program.
In a random sample of 635 clients, the average anxiety coping score at the end of the
program (M = 11.19, s = 4.47) was higher than the score at the beginning of the program
(M = 7.96, s = 4.17).
A paired samples t-test shows that this difference (MD = -3.23, sD = 5.03) is significant,
t(634) = -16.19, p < .001. The 95% confidence interval indicates that the mean anxiety
coping score after the intervention is between 2.84 and 3.63 higher than before the
intervention.
As predicted, participants have better anxiety coping after completing the intervention
program.
Question 3b: Assumption Checking
Assumptions:
• The assumption of independence of observations has been met. The sample was a
random sample of clients.
• The assumption of normality has been met. The boxplot shows the distribution of
the difference scores is approximately normal, and the sample size is large enough
(N = 635) to assume normality.
• Recommendation: The results of the paired samples t-test can be used.
Question 4: Short Answer Questions
(a) What type of statistical test should the call center manager use to investigate the
hypothesis?
• Answer: A One-Sample t-test.
(b) Explain why this statistical test would be appropriate?
• Answer: This test is appropriate because the manager wants to compare the mean
of a single continuous variable (the average number of phone calls taken by the
sample of staff) against a specific, known test value (24 phone calls per day).
(c) If a Type I Error occurred what specific conclusion would the call center manager
make?
• Answer: A Type I error happens when we incorrectly reject a true null hypothesis.
In this specific scenario, the manager would incorrectly conclude that the average
number of phone calls per day is different from 24, when in reality, the true
average is exactly 24.
(d) Is this conclusion valid or not valid? Explain why this conclusion is valid or not
valid.
• Answer: This conclusion is not valid.
• Explanation: The p-value of 0.052 is greater than the standard significance level
of 0.05 (𝛼= 0.05). Because p > 0.05, the manager must fail to reject the null
hypothesis. The correct conclusion should be: "There is insufficient evidence to
suggest that the number of phone calls is different from 24." The manager's
double-negative statement ("no evidence to suggest... is not different") is logically
confusing and contradicts the statistical result.