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

2.  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

3.  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. http://www.onlineonversion.com/ring_size.htm  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

4. MaleColumn1FemaleColumn2 Shoe SizeRing SizeShoe SizeRing Size 1314910.75 1011.388.56.25 1112.586.25 11.5116.54.63 1010.6375.38 910.6375 1212.57.55.88 12 108.25 11 96.25 12 87 978.55 10.588.56 10 1/288.57 12.5118.55 9 1/29.58.56 7 108 7.56 107 9.59 119 7.59 107 86 97 12877 12.58.565 101276.5 9974.75 11876.5 15107.54.75 7.578.58 1211.51110 11.510.575 136.56 9.51178.5 11129.55.5 109.577 13106.58 910.565 11 1010.5 1277.5 9.5106.57 12135.55 1011.57.58 10.599.256 11.589.255.5 11.251096.5 1278.55.75 10.259.5 9 10.757.59.48 119.5106.5 11.510.59.54.5 1189.758 10.599.758.5 DATA

5.  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

6. HISTOGRAM

7. BOX PLOT (VAR1=MALE, VAR3=FEMALE)

8.  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

9. HISTOGRAM

10. BOX PLOT (VAR2-MALE, VAR4=FEMALE)

11. Linear Correlation Coefficient  For Males: R=0.2365  For Females: R=0.4801 Line of Regression  Males: y=0.317x+6.7573  Females: y=0.549x+2.2401 STATISTICS FOR TESTING CORRELATION

12. SCATTERPLOT- MALES

13. SCATTERPLOT- FEMALES

14.  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

15. HISTOGRAM

16. BOX PLOT

17.  Mean= 8.305  Standard Deviation= 2.351  Five Point Summary= {4.5, 6.375, 8, 10.25, 14}  Interquartile Range (IQR)= 3.875  Modes= {7,8}  Outliers= None (lower fence is.5625 and upper fence is 16.0625) SECOND QUANTITATIVE VARIABLE- RING SIZE

18. HISTOGRAM

19. BOX PLOT

20. Linear Correlation Coefficient  R= 0.6828 Line of Regression  Y= 0.8612x + 0.1655 STATISTICS FOR TESTING CORRELATION

21. SCATTERPLOT

22. 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

23.  For data combined:  When collecting data in the field we noticed a variety of different 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

24.  Combined:  There for we conclude that there is sufficient 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 sufficient evidence to support that there is a correlation between ring and shoe size for males, but there is sufficient 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

25.  Created presentation: Chelsie Guild  Combined data: David Smith  Collected data: Taylor Larsen, David Smith, Chelsie Guild, Mary Magee, and Curtis Wilcox  Turned in research question: Mary Magee THE END