MHB Is Z-Score Testing Appropriate for Comparing These Population Proportions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chadwae
  • Start date Start date
chadwae
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
So I have a sample population made up of:

59 people 20-24 years old
69 people 25-29 years old
TOTAL 128

to compare to the US population which was:

21,585,999 people 20-24 years old
21,101,849 people 20-29 years old

Then I have in the same groups

35 males (US pop 21,649,767)
93 females (US pop 21,038,081)

I used z-scores to compare them for similarity, but I'm thinking there may be a better way to do it. I thought maybe of a chi-square analysis for each, but I can't get that to work... Is z-score testing appropriate here or is there a better way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
chadwae said:
So I have a sample population made up of:

59 people 20-24 years old
69 people 25-29 years old
TOTAL 128

to compare to the US population which was:

21,585,999 people 20-24 years old
21,101,849 people 20-29 years old

Then I have in the same groups

35 males (US pop 21,649,767)
93 females (US pop 21,038,081)

I used z-scores to compare them for similarity, but I'm thinking there may be a better way to do it. I thought maybe of a chi-square analysis for each, but I can't get that to work... Is z-score testing appropriate here or is there a better way?

Hi chadwae! Welcome to MHB! ;)

We're comparing 2 population proportions here.
The standard test for that is a z-test.
See for instance here or here.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top