Long Legs get you

Places Faster
Kelli Hoffer and Karlee Leithner
 Hoffer, Leithner 1

In this project, we are testing the length of a person’s right leg relative to

the speed at which they run. We hypothesize that if you have a longer right leg,

then you will run at a faster speed with a moderate positive correlation of

0.678. We used the method of experimentation to test our hypothesis. An

experiment deliberately imposes some treatment on individuals in order to

observe their responses. In our experiment, we first measured the length of the

person’s right leg, from top of hip bone to bottom of foot, of whom we are

testing. Then, we make them run the length of the gym, 1052 inches,

measuring the amount of time it took them running at their top speed.

In statistics, population is defined as the entire group of individuals

being studied. In our experiment, the population is the entire student body of

DuBois Area High School. The statistics definition of sample is a part of the

population from which we actually collect data. The sample we used in our

experiment is a random group of 25 students from the DuBois Area High

School. The definition in statistics of variable is any characteristic of an

individual. Explanatory variables cause change in another variable, the

response variable. In our experiment, the explanatory variable is the length of

the person’s right leg, while the response variable is the time it took them to

run the distance of the gym at their top speed. We chose the variables as

identified because the time it takes you to run across the gym depends upon

the length of your right leg, not the other way around.
Hoffer, Leithner 2
Hoffer, Leithner 3
 Hoffer, Leithner 4

One outlier is Hannah Ray because she ran at 7.04 seconds. This is an

outlier because the time is slower than most at the same range of leg length.

Another outlier is John Angelo because he ran at 4.23 seconds. This defines as

an outlier because it was abnormally quick for his leg length.

Correlation is defined as the description of the direction and strength of

a straight line relationship. The definition of coefficient of determination is

variation in the values of y that is explained by the least squares regression line

of y on x. There is a negative relationship between leg length and the time ran

which means that as leg length increases, time ran decreases. The correlation

of -0.155 means that this relationship is weak, meaning it is not valid. Since

r=-0.155, then r²=0.024 meaning any prediction has a 2.4% variation.

Least squares regression line is defined as the line that makes the sum of

the best squares of the vertical distance as small as possible. The equation for

our regression line is y=-0.042x+6.987.

 Hoffer, Leithner 5

y=-0.042x+6.987

y=-0.042(40)+6.987

y=-1.68+6.987

y=5.307

By plugging in 40 inches to our equation, we got an answer of 5.307 seconds. If

the leg length of an individual is 40 inches, then I predict the individual would

run at a time of 5.307 seconds with a 2.4% variation. Therefore our prediction

is invalid because the variation is 2.4% which is very low.

A lurking variable is a variable that has an important effect on the

relationship among variables but is not one of the explanatory variables. Two

lurking variables in our experiment could be restrictive footwear and

restrictive clothing. Our experiment is confounding because the leg length and

footwear can cause the time ran to change, however the time ran does not

affect the leg length.

Our hypothesis was that if you have a longer right leg, then you will run

at a faster speed with a moderate positive correlation of 0.678. Our hypothesis

was not correct because the correlation was not moderate or positive. Our

correlation in our experiment was -0.155 which is a weak negative correlation.

 Hoffer, Leithner 6

Works Cited

Andrulonis, Allyson. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Angelo, John. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Deemer, Antonio. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Desantis, Franco. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Ferdarko, Hayden. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Fischer, Jerica. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Gallina, Amber. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Gray, Madison. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Guiher, Abigail. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Hoffer, Kelli. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Kelly, Dylan. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Leithner, Karlee. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Marchioni, Julie. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Mccoy, Ian. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

McDonald, Elijah. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Miller, Taiyler. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Pearce, Micah. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Ray, Hannah. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Sedor, Jordan. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Shaffer-Doan, Austin. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

 Hoffer, Leithner 7

Smith, Taylor. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Tabacsko, Joelle. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Tate, Nicholas. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Weber, Amanda. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Zartman, Natalie. Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.