Research Question
Is there an association between the way the issue of water contamination that is presented (area of contamination) affect an individual’s perception of the water that they consume.
Description
The explanatory variable will be the treatment groups. The response variables are two different resources explaining water contamination that is local and in another area/region They are categorical data. The first treatment will be the local presented water contamination and the second treatment will be water contamination presented in a different region. The way the response variable is going to be measured is by tallying the amount of responses about their perspective on water contamination.
- Type of test statistic: 2 Proportion Z- test
- SRS (Simple Random Sample)
- 20 Subjects (Students of Social Justice): 10 male, 10 female
-p1: Different region treatment group
-p2 Local region treatment group
|
|
Data
Treatment Group 1
(Different region informational video) “Are you concerned about water contamination?” Yes XX (Count:2) No XXXXXXXX (Count:8) |
“Do you think the water provided to your home is safe?” Yes XXXXXXX (Count:7) No XXX (Count:3) |
Treatment Group 2
(Local informational video) “Are you concerned about water contamination?” Yes XXXXX (Count:5) No XXXXX (Count:5) |
"Do you think the water provided to your home is safe?” Yes XXXXXX (Count:6) No XXXX (Count:4) |
4-Step Method
Treatment Group 1
Null and Alternative Hypothesis: 2 Proportion Z-test p1: proportion of students say "yes" to concern of water contamination.(Different Region) p2: proportion of students say "yes" to concern of water contamination.(Local Region) Ho:p1=p2 Ha:p1≠p2 Alpha:0.05 Confidence: 95% Conditions: Random: Simple Random Sample (SRS) Normal: 10>10 Independent: 10(10)=100 Math Box: Z= -1.40642 P-value=0.159599 p̂ 1=0.2 p ̂ 2=0.5 p̂=0.35 n1=10 n2=10 Conclusion: We fail to reject the null hypothesis at a alpha level of 0.05. Meaning there is significant evidence of importance of water in different regions. |
Treatment Group 2
Null and Alternative Hypothesis: 2 Proportion Z-test p1: proportion of students say "yes" to water provided to home is safe.(Different Region) p2: proportion of students say "yes" to water provided to home is safe.(Local Region) Ho:p1=p2 Ha:p1≠p2 Alpha:0.05 Confidence:95% Conditions: Random: Simple Random Sample (SRS) Normal: 10>10 Independent: 10(10)=100 Math Box: Z=0.468807 P-value=0.639207 p̂1=0.7 p̂2=0.6 p̂=0.65 n1=10 n2=10 Conclusion: We fail to reject the null hypothesis at a alpha level of 0.05. Meaning there is significant evidence of importance of water locally. |
Conclusion:
Based on the results of the first survey question, there is significant evidence of importance of water contamination locally and in a different region where water contamination is present.
Based from the results of the second survey question, there is significant evidence of importance of the safety of water consuming in the subjects home due to the presented contamination
Based from the results of the second survey question, there is significant evidence of importance of the safety of water consuming in the subjects home due to the presented contamination