No problem - but if you want to easiest best software I would buy SPC XL and DOE Pro. (Not associated with me) But it's the software I use every day. Minitab is too big and complicated and most of Minitab you'll never use. A waste of £1000....
Hi Paul! Based on the p-value obtained, another way to conclude is: The temperature is a variable that does affect the outcome ´Y´ of the process. Is it right to put it into these words?
Claudia - In a practical sense you are right. the statisticians would put it in very mathematical language though. remember though in order for your statement to be correct, you would repeat the trial a second time, this known as a confirmation test. Then your statment is correct...
@@paulallen5321 Thank so Much for your reply Paul!! Ok, I see. So in order to support statistically this, it would better to use an ANOVA analysis to get an accurate statement. Once again.... Than you!
You have suggested to used "Difference ≠ hypothesized difference" option as it is recognized as the strongest test, although I put your table (values) in minitab and use ´´ options too just to see what happened. With option ´Difference < hypothesized difference´ pvalue is 0.018 while in ´>´ option pvalue is 0.982 .....I was just wondering, if with ´
Claudia - the reason i use that choice is that I don't know whether the new result would be higher or lower. I just want to know if my test has moved the result. And that choice will give a good result whatever happens...
Thanks for doing this in Minitab! very useful!
No problem - but if you want to easiest best software I would buy SPC XL and DOE Pro. (Not associated with me) But it's the software I use every day. Minitab is too big and complicated and most of Minitab you'll never use. A waste of £1000....
Hi Paul! Based on the p-value obtained, another way to conclude is: The temperature is a variable that does affect the outcome ´Y´ of the process. Is it right to put it into these words?
Claudia - In a practical sense you are right. the statisticians would put it in very mathematical language though. remember though in order for your statement to be correct, you would repeat the trial a second time, this known as a confirmation test. Then your statment is correct...
@@paulallen5321 Thank so Much for your reply Paul!! Ok, I see. So in order to support statistically this, it would better to use an ANOVA analysis to get an accurate statement. Once again.... Than you!
Hi Claudia - actually no need to any statistical analysis the 2nd time. You're just provinig beyond doubt that test one wasn't just a lucky result....
@@paulallen5321 Got it! Thank U
You have suggested to used "Difference ≠ hypothesized difference" option as it is recognized as the strongest test, although I put your table (values) in minitab and use ´´ options too just to see what happened. With option ´Difference < hypothesized difference´ pvalue is 0.018 while in ´>´ option pvalue is 0.982 .....I was just wondering, if with ´
Claudia - the reason i use that choice is that I don't know whether the new result would be higher or lower. I just want to know if my test has moved the result. And that choice will give a good result whatever happens...
@@paulallen5321 Ok I got it! I had not seen it from that point of view! Thanks