|
3 articles trouvés pour ce sujet.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A box-and-whisker plot with one whisker |
2014-01-09 |
|
Susan pose la question :
Question from Susan, a teacher:
I read your answer to the question about could a box & whisker have NO whiskers.
It made sense to me. However I am preparing for my advanced class and I have a sample graph comparing box plots of data.
Several of the box have only 1 whisker. There is no explanation for this. Can you help me out. I cannot think of a data set that would produce this. Thanks!
Penny Nom lui répond. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A box-and-whisker plot with no whiskers |
2007-04-18 |
|
Paula pose la question :
Is it possible for a box-and-whisker plot to have no whiskers? 3 whiskers?
Penny Nom lui répond. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Box and Whisker plots |
2001-11-19 |
|
Rod pose la question :
In our Prealgebra course, we have been studying Box and Whisker plots. Recently, we learned how to decide whether a data point is an outlier or not. The book (Math Thematics, McDougall Littell) gave a process by which we find the interquartile range, then multiply by 1.5. We add this number to the upper quartile, and any points above this are considered to be outliers. We also subtract the number from the lower quartile for the same effect. My question: where does this 1.5 originate? Is this the standard for locating outliers, or can we choose any number (that seems reasonable, like 2 or 1.8 for example) to multiply with the Interquartile range? If it is a standard, were outliers simply defined via this process, or did statisticians use empirical evidence to suggest that 1.5 is somehow optimal for deciding whether data points are valid or not?
Penny Nom lui répond. |
|
|
|
