Decoding Z-Score Chart Accuracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter 60051
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reading
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the accuracy of a Z-score chart used in a textbook, specifically regarding the calculation of z0.025. The solutions manual indicates that z0.025 equals 1.96, but there is confusion over how this value is derived from the chart, which shows probabilities as decimals. It is clarified that z0.025 corresponds to a tail probability of 0.025, leading to a cumulative probability of 0.975, which can be found in the table. The participants note that rounding may have caused misunderstandings, as rounding 0.1985 to two decimal places results in 0.20, not 1.96. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly interpreting Z-score tables for accurate statistical analysis.
60051
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I made sure this chart is identical to the one in my textbook, so there are no discrepancies.

So in the solutions manual, they find alpha by subtracting the confidence coefficient from 1, then dividing that value by 2, and looking up that value in the table.

So for one example, they used that chart and found that z0.025 = 1.96. I just don't see this though. If you look up 0.025 in the chart, you get 0.1985. In fact, all the values in the chart are decimals, so how did they get 1.96?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The table is one of probabilities P(0 <= z <= n.nn), where n.n is one of the numbers down the left column and 0.0n is a number across the top row.

z0.025 is the z score for which the probability that z > some number is 0.025. Another way to say this is that the probability (or area) in the "tail" is 0.025. This means that the remaining probability is 0.975. Since the table gives probabilities for z values that are greater than or equal to 0, the probability you want is 0.475.

Look in the body of the table for 0.475. You will find this in the row that is marked 1.9, and in the column marked 0.06. What this is telling you is that P(0 <= z <= 1.96) = 0.475, or equivalently, P(z > 1.96) = 0.025.
 
How did you get 0.475? 0.95/2?
 
That will work, but you can also subtract .025 from .500.
 
60051 said:
I made sure this chart is identical to the one in my textbook, so there are no discrepancies.

So in the solutions manual, they find alpha by subtracting the confidence coefficient from 1, then dividing that value by 2, and looking up that value in the table.

So for one example, they used that chart and found that z0.025 = 1.96. I just don't see this though. If you look up 0.025 in the chart, you get 0.1985. In fact, all the values in the chart are decimals, so how did they get 1.96?
??They rounded off to two decimal places!
 
HoI, I think you missed that decimal point. If you round 0.1985 to two decimal places, you 0.20, not 1.96. My explanation is in post 2.
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...

Similar threads

Back
Top