High School Understanding the Differences between Quartiles and Percentiles

  • Thread starter Thread starter YouAreAwesome
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the first quartile (Q1) of a set of 18 scores using two methods: a formulaic approach and a logical approach. The formulaic method yields Q1 as 3.75, while the logical method identifies Q1 as the median of the lower half of the data, resulting in a value of 4. There is no universally accepted "correct" method, as both approaches can be valid depending on the context. The conversation also touches on the need to refer to specific educational standards, such as the Australian NSW syllabus, for clarity on expectations. Understanding these differences is crucial for accurate statistical analysis and education.
YouAreAwesome
Gold Member
Messages
70
Reaction score
33
TL;DR
Which way of calculating Q1 is correct, by formula or by logic?
Set of 18 scores = [2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10]

Find Q1 by formula
Q1 is the (n+1)/4 th term (where n is the number of scores)
Q1 is the 19/4 th term, or the 4.75 th score.
Q1 is 0.75 of the way between scores 3 and 4 (the 4th and 5th scores in the set).
Q1=3.75
See https://www.hackmath.net/en/calculator/quartile-q1-q3

Find Q1 by logic
Q1 is the median of the "lower set" of scores - that is, if we split the scores into two equal sets at the median, the median of the lower of these is Q1.
The median of the of the Set provided above is 6.
The median of the lower Set provided above is 4.
See https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/statistics/quartile-calculator.php

My question is, which of these methods is correct? And if both are correct but for different purposes, what are those purposes?

Thanks
YAA
 
Physics news on Phys.org
YouAreAwesome said:
Thanks. Now I have to go looking for what the Australian, NSW syllabus specifically wants from its students I suppose.
You could ask them about percentiles for a small sample while you're at it!
 
  • Like
Likes YouAreAwesome
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
25K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K