Case Study

Explain how the software's output and the hand-calculation method are conceptually aligned to lead to the identical statistical conclusion of retaining the null hypothesis.

Case context: A health psychologist is investigating the correlation between people's calorie estimates and their weight. Having no directional expectation, she conducts a two-tailed test. For a sample of 2222 students, she computes Pearson's rr as .21-.21. She analyzes the data using two different methods: first using statistical software which outputs a pp-value of .348.348, and second by hand, finding a critical value of .444.444 for 2020 degrees of freedom.

Question: Explain how the software's output and the hand-calculation method are conceptually aligned to lead to the identical statistical conclusion of retaining the null hypothesis.

Sample answer: The software and hand-calculation methods are conceptually aligned because they use equivalent decision rules to assess statistical significance. The software calculates a pp-value (.348.348) and compares it to the standard alpha level of .05.05. Because the pp-value is greater than .05.05, the null hypothesis is retained. The hand-calculation compares the calculated Pearson's rr (.21-.21) to the critical value (.444.444). Since the calculated correlation is less extreme than the critical value, it mathematically confirms that the probability of obtaining this result under the null hypothesis is greater than .05.05. Both rules indicate that the relationship is not statistically significant, resulting in retaining the null hypothesis.

Key points:

  • Software method retains the null hypothesis because the pp-value (.348.348) is greater than the alpha level (.05.05).
  • Hand-calculation method retains the null hypothesis because the absolute value of Pearson's rr (.21-.21) is less extreme than the critical value (.444.444).
  • The comparison of a calculated value to a critical value is mathematically aligned with comparing a pp-value to an alpha level, leading to the same decision.

Rubric: The response must explain the decision rule for the software approach (comparing p=.348p = .348 to alpha = .05.05) and the hand-calculation approach (comparing calculated r=.21r = -.21 to critical value = .444.444). It must show comprehension that a correlation less extreme than the critical value corresponds to a pp-value greater than alpha, leading to the same conclusion.

0

1

Updated 2026-05-27

Contributors are:

Who are from:

Tags

KPU

Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition @ KPU

Related