11-2 Contingency Tables 601 by O’Malley, Shults, and Eaton, Pediatrics, Vol. 131, No. 6). Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim of independence between texting while driving and driving when drinking alcohol. Are those two risky behaviors independent of each other? Drove When Drinking Alcohol? Yes No Texted While Driving 731 3054 No Texting While Driving 156 4564 8. Accuracy of Fingerprint Identifications An experiment was conducted to compare the accuracy of fingerprint experts to the accuracy of novices (based on data from “Identifying Fingerprint Expertise,” by Tangen, Thompson, and McCarthy, Psychological Science, Vol. 22, No. 8). The data in the table are based on trials in which the evaluators were given matching fingerprints. Use a 0.05 significance level to determine whether correct identification is independent of whether the evaluator is an expert or a novice. Correct Wrong Novice 331 113 Expert 409 35 9. Four Quarters the Same as $1? In a study of the “denomination effect,” 43 college students were each given one dollar in the form of four quarters, while 46 other college students were each given one dollar in the form of a dollar bill. All of the students were then given two choices: (1) keep the money; (2) spend the money on gum. The results are given in the accompanying table (based on “The Denomination Effect,” by Priya Raghubir and Joydeep Srivastava, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36.) Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that whether students purchased gum or kept the money is independent of whether they were given four quarters or a $1 bill. Is there a “denomination effect”? Purchased Gum Kept the Money Students Given Four Quarters 27 16 Students Given a $1 Bill 12 34 10. Effect of the Football Overtime Coin Toss The accompanying table lists results of overtime football games before and after the overtime rule was changed in the National Football League in 2011. The data are current as of this writing. Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim of independence between winning an overtime game and whether playing under the old rule or the new rule. What do the results suggest about the effectiveness of the rule change? Before Rule Change After Rule Change Overtime Coin Toss Winner Won the Game 252 59 Overtime Coin Toss Winner Lost the Game 208 52 11. Hawk-Eye and Tennis Challenges In 2006, use of the Hawk-Eye computer system was initiated at U.S. Open tennis matches. Players could challenge chair umpire and line judge calls, and the Hawk-Eye system was used to decide whether the call was correct or wrong. The table below shows results of player challenges in men’s and women’s singles games in which the Hawk-Eye system was used. The data are current at the time of this writing. Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that the gender of the tennis player is independent of whether the call is overturned. Do players of either gender appear to be better at challenging calls? Was the Challenge to the Call Successful? Yes No Men 1757 4279 Women 887 2440
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NjM5ODQ=