Chi-Square Worksheet
Description
This worksheet will provide you with experience in calculating (by hand or using Microsoft®Excel®) the formulas from the weekly readings. Using these formulas and performing these calculations will provide with you an understanding of how and why statistical formulas work and what they mean. This worksheet also provides you the opportunity to interpret results in the context of specific problems, which in turn provides experience that will assist you in critically evaluating current research in your field.
Chi-Square Worksheet PSYCH/625 Version 5 University of Phoenix Material Chi-Square Worksheet Part 1: Interpret Chi-Square Results Review the following output from a chi-square test, and answer the questions below. Chi-Square Test Frequencies: Preference Observed N Expected N Residual Nuts & Grits 9 20.0 -11.0 Bacon Surprise 27 20.0 7.0 Dimples 16 20.0 -4.0 Froggy 17 20.0 -3.0 31 20.0 11.0 Chocolate Delight Total 100 Test Statistics Preference a Chi-Square 15.800a df 4 Asymp. Sig. .003 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 20.0. Answer the following questions about this chi-square output in one to two sentences each: 1. How many categories are listed for analysis? 2. What is the expected N size? Copyright © 2018 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved. 1 Chi-Square Worksheet PSYCH/625 Version 5 3. What is the chi-square value? 4. How many degrees of freedom are there? 5. What it the test statistic and what does it tell you about the probability? Part 2: Conduct a Chi-Square Test Imagine you are the manager of a non-profit business, and you are looking to hire a recent college graduate. You list the position as paying $20,000/year. After interviewing candidates you decide that some will be offered the expected salary, while some will be offered more because of experience and interviewing skills. Others will be offered less than expected until they can demonstrate competence and their salary will increase when they are fully qualified. Using Microsoft® Excel®, run a chi square Goodness of Fit test to determine whether these observed starting salaries are significantly different. What do the findings tell you? Write a 75- to 100-word summary to describe your results. Paste your Microsoft® Excel® output below your summary. Expected Salaries Observed Salaries Applicant 1 $20,000 $17,500 Applicant 2 $20,000 $20,000 Applicant 3 $20,000 $22,000 Applicant 4 $20,000 $20,500 Applicant 5 $20,000 $20,000 Copyright © 2018 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved. 2
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||