Camilla Anson
CRJU 7712 Lab Assignment 2
Chapter 5 practice #2
a.
Pearson Correlation Coefficient: -.418
b.
According to table 5.3 of the textbook the general strength of the correlation is a moderate to strong negative correlation. This is an indirect correlation meaning as one variable increases the other decreases. It changes in opposite directions. The coefficient of determination is .175 which I got by squaring the correlation coefficient thus translating to 17.5 or 17.5% of the variance is represented. This means that the subject analysis compares with the value of r in sense that 17.5% of speed to complete a 50-yard swim can be explained by or is shared by the variance in strength. Chapter 5 practice #5
After correlating minutes of exercise with grade point average I found that the correlation is .492. This is a very moderately strong positive or direct correlation. This indicated to me that as the level of exercise increases so does one’s GPA. Vice versa as exercise decreases the GPA follows. Chapter 5 practice #5
The correlation between each variable demonstrates that age at injury and the level of treatment were not very consistent with one another at a correlation of .056. This number demonstrates that
the relationship is weak or not existent. This translates to me that there is no correlation between the age of an injury and the level of treatment considered. In accordance with the 12-month treatment score the correlation between the treatment score and level of treatment was a more moderate direct correlation than it was at of the age of injury. At the age of injury, the correlation between this and the 12-month treatment score was a weak indirect or negative correlation. This means to me that it does not really matter how old the injury is for a 12-month treatment plan, rather the level and severity of treatment matters most. Chapter 6 practice #5
The type of reliability that I would want to establish for the two tests in different formats administered on the same day is Parallel Forms Reliability. This is used when you want to examine the equivalence or similarity between two different forms of the same test. This is exactly what is being testing for the office of state employment program. The results showed that
Cronbach’s Alpha was -.196 and Pearson’s correlation was -.090. The coefficient was calculated nicely but the reliability of the test is still in question. Cronbach’s Alpha reliability is low indicating to me that there is a disparity within the data set. In turn both the Alpha and the Pearson correlation are weak. This indicates to me that there was not much correlation between the responses of both ID forms. The first form of the test did not product a strong correlation in responses in accordance to the second form. One did not affect the other and the answers did not align as much as hoped.
