Ok so I started this debate with my teacher. It is about this formula for finding the Quartiles of grouped data. Let's take a look at this data:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

With ungrouped data, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12, for example, we solve for Q1 as (at least that's what she taught us):

Q1 = 1(12) / 4

Q1 = 3

Q1 = [ 3rd + 4th ] / 2

Q1 = [3 + 4] / 2

Q1 = 3.5

which makes sense, with this formula, Q4 is not possible:

Q4 = 4(12) /4

Q4 = 12

Q4 = [12th + 13th] / 2

Q4 = doesn't exist

If kn / 4 results in a whole number, get the value between the (kn / 4)th and (kn / 4 + 1)th term. Else, if it is a decimal, round it up to the nearest whole number.

With grouped data:

Class Interval f <F

17-24 3 3

25-32 9 12

33-40 10 22

41-48 18 40

49-56 9 49

57-64 6 55

65-72 5 60

-----

n=60

She uses the formula,

Qk = L + [ (( kn / 4 ) - <F) / f ] * s,

where Qk is the kth quartile, 'L' is the lower boudary of the class of Qk, 'n' is the total frequency, '<F' is the cumulative frequency below L, 's' for the size of each class, 'f' for

the frequency of the class of Qk.

My grounds:

How the formula is evaluated is wrong because:

- Data, grouped or not, can only have 3 Quartiles. Quartiles by definition are those 3 values that together divide the data into 4 equal parts. So there can't be a 4th one.

Solving for Q4:

Q4 = 64.5 + [ ( ( 4 * 60 / 4 ) - 55 ) / 5 ] * 8

Q4 = 64.5 + [ ( 60 - 55 ) / 5 ] * 8

Q4 = 64.5 + [ 5 / 5 ] * 8

Q4 = 64.5 + 8

Q4 = 72.5

72.5 is the upper limit of the 65 - 72 class, therefore Q4 exists which contradicts the definition of quartiles. So this approach is wrong.

My proposal:

Leave the formula as is but evaluate it differently.

kn / 4 is the part that tells us in which class Qk lies in.

kn / 4 should be consistent with how we get Qk with ungrouped data since data, grouped or not, doesn't change the definition of quartiles.

so if kn / 4 is a whole number, get [(kn/4)th + (kn/4 + 1)th] / 2

else round it to the nearest whole number

So solving for Q4:

this is Q4's position:

Q4 = 4 ( 60 ) / 4

Q4 = [60th + 61st] / 2 -> 61st data doesn't exist, therefore Q4 doesn't exist.

pretending 61st data exists....

Q4 = 60.5

So:

Q4 = 64.5 + [ (60.5 - 55) / 5 ] * 8

Q4 = 64.5 + [ 5.5 / 5 ] * 8

Q4 = 64.5 + (1.1) * 8

Q4 = 64.5 + 8.8

Q4 = 73.3

which agrees with the definition of quartiles. There is no Q4 with this evaluation, which is True.

She insists that references ( books ) are more reliable than this "proof" and that we should follow their formulas.

I don't know what to do when exams come asking for quartiles. I insist in using what I believe is right, though.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Questionable statistics formula?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**