Chelsie Guild, Taylor Larsen, Mary Magee, David Smith, Curtis Wilcox TERM PROJECT- VISUAL PRESENTATION.

Chelsie Guild, Taylor Larsen, Mary Magee, David Smith, Curtis Wilcox

TERM PROJECT- VISUAL

PRESENTATION

Topic: Does shoe size correlate with ring size?The purpose of our study was to see if adult males

and females shoe size relates to their ring size.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Each person in our group asked about 20 individuals, over the age of 18, their shoe and ring size.

If the shoe size was unknown, we measured the person’s foot in inches. If the ring size was unknown, we measures the person’s left ring finger in millimeters. Ring sizes are not measured in millimeters, so we used an online converter, http://www.onlineonversion.com/ring_size.htm, to convert millimeter to U.S. ring size accordingly.

Of the 20 individuals, it was decided we measure 10 female and 10 male ring and shoe sizes- with an estimated sample size of 100

STUDY DESIGN

Male Column1 Female Column2

Shoe Size Ring Size Shoe Size Ring Size

13 14 9 10.7510 11.38 8.5 6.2511 12.5 8 6.25

11.5 11 6.5 4.6310 10.63 7 5.38

9 10.63 7 512 12.5 7.5 5.8812 12 10 8.25

11 11 9 6.2512 12 8 7

9 7 8.5 510.5 8 8.5 6

10 1/2 8 8.5 712.5 11 8.5 5

9 1/2 9.5 8.5 68.5 710 8

7.5 610 7

9.5 911 9

7.5 9

10 7

8 6

9 7

12 8 7 7

12.5 8.5 6 5

10 12 7 6.5

9 9 7 4.75

11 8 7 6.5

15 10 7.5 4.75

7.5 7 8.5 8

12 11.5 11 10

11.5 10.5 7 5

10.5 13 6.5 6

9.5 11 7 8.5

11 12 9.5 5.5

10 9.5 7 7

13 10 6.5 8

9 10.5 6 5

11 11 10 10.5

10.5 12 7 7.5

9.5 10 6.5 7

12 13 5.5 5

10 11.5 7.5 8

10.5 9 9.25 6

11.5 8 9.25 5.5

11.25 10 9 6.5

12 7 8.5 5.75

10.25 9.5 9.5 9

10.75 7.5 9.4 8

11 9.5 10 6.5

11.5 10.5 9.5 4.5

11 8 9.75 8

10.5 9 9.75 8.5

DATA

Mean: Male- 10.89. Female- 8.27 Standard Deviation: Male- 1.33. Female- 1.35 Five-Number Summary: Male-(7.5, 10, 11, 12, 15).

Female-(5.5, 7, 8.5, 9.5, 11) Range: Male- 7.5. Female- 5.5 Mode: Male- 11, 12. Female- 7 Outliers: Male- No Outliers. Female- No Outliers.

FIRST QUANTITATIVE VARIABLE: SHOE SIZES

HISTOGRAM

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 450

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Male Shoe SizeFemale Shoe Size

BOX PLOT(VAR1=MALE, VAR3=FEMALE)

Mean: Male- 10.16. Female- 6.79 Standard Deviation: Male- 1.80. Female- 1.55 Five-Number Summary: Male-(7, 8.75, 10.5, 11.5, 14).

Female-(4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 8, 10.75). Range: Male- 7. Female- 6.25 Mode: Male- 8. Female- 9 Outliers: Male- No Outliers. Female- No Outliers.

SECOND QUANTITATIVE VARIABLE: RING SIZE

HISTOGRAM

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 450

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

M-Ring SizeF-Ring Size

BOX PLOT (VAR2-MALE, VAR4=FEMALE)

Linear Correlation Coeffi cient

For Males: R=0.2365For Females:

R=0.4801

Line of Regression

Males: y=0.317x+6.7573

Females: y=0.549x+2.2401

STATISTICS FOR TESTING CORRELATION

SCATTERPLOT- MALES

SCATTERPLOT- FEMALES

Mean= 9.4515

Standard Deviation= 1.8640

Five Number Summary= { 5.5, 8, 9.5, 11, 15 }

Interquartile Range (IQR)= 3

Mode= 10

Outliers= none (lower fence is 3.5 and upper fence is 15.5)

FIRST QUANTITATIVE VARIABLE- SHOE SIZE

HISTOGRAM

BOX PLOT

Mean= 8.305

Standard Deviati on= 2.351

Five Point Summary= {4.5, 6.375, 8, 10.25, 14}

Interquarti le Range (IQR)= 3.875

Modes= {7,8}

Outliers= None (lower fence is .5625 and upper fence is 16.0625)

SECOND QUANTITATIVE VARIABLE-RING SIZE

HISTOGRAM

BOX PLOT

Linear Correlation Coeffi cient

R= 0.6828

Line of Regression

Y= 0.8612x + 0.1655

STATISTICS FOR TESTING CORRELATION

SCATTERPLOT

Male vs. Female

C.V. with a .05 level of significance: Male = 0.288>0.2365,

which means no correlation.

Female= 0.273< 0.4801, which means there is correlation.

Combined

C.V. with a .05 level of significance: .6828>.195, which

means there is correlation.

(absolute value of) r>C.V= correlation

ANALYSIS

For data combined: When collecting data in the field

we noticed a variety of diff erent people. There were several tall women with really thin fingers and extremely large feet. There were also several people that had extremely small feet and really wide fingers. With the sample size encountered we were not expecting to see a correlation when one does exist. Some members of our groups calculations were based on both men and female measurements together, therefore it is possible that there may be lurking variables that have not been identified primarily due to gender.

For separated data: When the data is

separated, one can see that the Males and Females correlation are different. A better understanding of how the genders differentiate are displayed. The sample size was quite extensive and separating the genders made the process longer, but more exact.

DIFFICULTIES/ SURPRISES ENCOUNTERED

Combined: There for we conclude

that there is suffi cient evidence to support that there is a correlation between ring size and shoe size, however further analysis is needed to further solidify these findings. Suggestions for further studies would be to analyze male and female data separately to see if similar results appear or if any outliers may exist.

Separate: There for we conclude

that there is not suffi cient evidence to support that there is a correlation between ring and shoe size for males, but there is suffi cient evidence to support that there is a correlation between ring and shoe size for females. The further analyses of the genders made our results more solidified than the data combined.

CONCLUSION

Created presentation: Chelsie GuildCombined data: David SmithCollected data: Taylor Larsen, David Smith, Chelsie

Guild, Mary Magee, and Curtis WilcoxTurned in research question: Mary Magee

THE END