Kendall's tau-b relates two ordinal variables, income bracket and self-rated health, for PHLT 8032 Week 8, with coding direction untangled before the relationship is put in plain words. Searches like "phlt 8032 week 8 assignment example", "phlt8032 week 8 sample" and "phlt 8032 week 8 example" land here.
What a finished PHLT 8032 Week 8 association run looks like
A crosstab and one table of ordinal measures anchor two to three pages. The crosstab places income brackets in rows and self-rated health in columns, with row percentages, so a reader can watch the share reporting fair or poor health fall as income rises. The Symmetric Measures output supplies Kendall's tau-b, reported with its approximate significance. The coefficient is negative, and a coding paragraph explains why: health is coded with 1 for excellent, so higher income paired with lower codes means better reported health. The everyday sentence follows: respondents in higher income brackets tended to rate their health more favorably, a modest tendency rather than a rule. Then the choice of tau-b over Spearman's rho and gamma, is argued, given the many tied values two short ordinal scales produce.
How a PHLT 8032 Week 8 example is structured
The run is organized so the plain sentence arrives only after everything that could flip its meaning has been checked. Its first paragraph poses the question and introduces the two variables, each with its coding direction written out. The crosstab comes next, because the percentages show the pattern before any coefficient summarizes it. The measure section reports tau-b and explains the choice among ordinal measures, noting that gamma ignores tied pairs and tends to run larger. Then the coding paragraph reconciles the negative sign with the pattern in the percentages. The everyday sentence follows, checked against the table. A strength paragraph describes the size of the association without leaning on labels. The run ends on what the association cannot establish: it does not show that income improves health, and age may shape both variables.
Two codings written out
Income runs from the lowest bracket at 1 upward; health runs from 1 for excellent to 5 for poor. Writing both directions at the top means the coefficient's sign can be read correctly before it ever appears.
The pattern before the number
Row percentages in the crosstab show the fair-or-poor share shrinking across brackets. Presenting them first lets the coefficient summarize something the reader has already seen, rather than stand in for it.
Why tau-b
Five health categories and several income brackets produce heavy ties. Tau-b adjusts for ties in both variables; gamma discards tied pairs and overstates strength; Spearman's rho is reported as a check, and the run notes that the two agree.
A negative sign, translated
The coefficient is negative because better health carries lower codes. The plain sentence says higher income went with better reported health, and the run shows how that follows from the sign and the coding together.
Neither cause nor rule
A modest association leaves many low-income respondents in excellent health and many high-income respondents in poor health. The closing paragraph says so, then names age as a variable that could shape both income and health.
Where marks go in PHLT 8032 Week 8
The plain sentence is judged against the table, and a sentence that gets the direction backward costs more here than any other mistake. Graders check the coding paragraph for evidence that the author reconciled the sign with the value labels; a run reporting a negative association between income and health as though poorer health came with higher income has misread its own output. Choice of measure is marked for fit with ordinal data, and Pearson's r on bracket codes draws comment. Crosstab percentages are expected, in the direction that answers the question. Strength language is scrutinized: calling a modest coefficient strong, or leaning on a label with no context, overstates it. The cause paragraph carries a share of its own, and a recommendation premised on income causing health loses it.
Get a PHLT 8032 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk the two variables your run relates and how each is coded, along with the Week 8 prompt and rubric. Within 24-48h, first request free, an association run arrives whose plain sentence is checked against the coding. Its crosstab is invented for the purpose.
PHLT 8032 Week 8 questions, answered
Why not use Pearson's correlation for income and health?
Pearson's r assumes both variables are measured on interval scales and related linearly. Income brackets of unequal width and a five-category health rating meet neither condition well, and the bracket codes are ranks rather than quantities. An ordinal measure such as tau-b uses only the ordering, which is what the data support. Reporting Pearson's r alongside, labeled as a rough check, is acceptable in some sections.
How should the strength of tau-b be described?
In words tied to the table rather than generic labels. The run can say the association is modest and point to the crosstab, where the fair-or-poor share falls across brackets but remains substantial at the top. Conventional labels exist, but they vary by source and field. Describing what the coefficient means for these respondents is more defensible than borrowing a word from a chart.
Does a significant association mean income affects health?
No. The run establishes that the two variables move together among respondents. Income could shape health, poor health could reduce income, and age, employment or chronic illness could shape both. Survey data collected at a single point in time cannot separate those paths. The run says so plainly, and that sentence earns credit of its own this week.