Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Laboratory Exercise 3

    Uploaded by

    alia fauni
    8 views9 pages
    The document describes a study conducted by an HR department that examined the job performance and satisfaction of 120 employees. It collected data on employee gender, job status, education, and length of service. It then lists the null and alternative hypotheses for analyzing whether these factors significantly impact job satisfaction and performance. The tasks section provides instructions to test each hypothesis using appropriate statistical tests like t-tests and ANOVA and state conclusions.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Laboratory exercise 3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document describes a study conducted by an HR department that examined the job performance and satisfaction of 120 employees. It collected data on employee gender, job status, education, and length of service. It then lists the null and alternative hypotheses for analyzing whether these factors significantly impact job satisfaction and performance. The tasks section provides instructions to test each hypothesis using appropriate statistical tests like t-tests and ANOVA and state conclusions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    8 views9 pages

    Laboratory Exercise 3

    Uploaded by

    alia fauni
    The document describes a study conducted by an HR department that examined the job performance and satisfaction of 120 employees. It collected data on employee gender, job status, education, and length of service. It then lists the null and alternative hypotheses for analyzing whether these factors significantly impact job satisfaction and performance. The tasks section provides instructions to test each hypothesis using appropriate statistical tests like t-tests and ANOVA and state conclusions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 9

    De La Salle University – Dasmariñas

    COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND COMPUTER STUDIES


    MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT
    City of Dasmariñas, Cavite

    Laboratory Exercise #3
    Hypothesis
    Score:
    NAME: Marione Alia Fauni____________________ DATE: October 13, 2021

    COURSE/YEAR & SECTION: BSA23_____________ PROF.: Ms. Carmela Z. Reyes__

    TASKS

    The HR department of ABC Company studied the Job Performance and Job satisfaction of 120 employees.

    The information such as gender, job status, educational attainment and length of service in years were collected.

    Given below are the hypotheses of the study

    1. There is no significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are grouped
    according to

    1.1 gender

    1.2 job status

    1.3 educational attainment

    1.4 length of service

    2. There is no significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are grouped
    according to

    1.1 gender

    1.2 job status

    1.3 educational attainment

    1.4 length of service

    WHAT TO DO?

    1. Perform hypothesis testing using the following steps

    1. State the null and alternative hypotheses

    2. Identify the test statistic

    3. Show Computation and Solution (Excel Solution must be included)

    4. Decision and Conclusion

    JOB SATISFACTION – GENDER

    Hypothesis
    Null Hypothesis Ho: µx = µy
    Alternative Hypothesis Ha: µx ≠ µy

    Ho: There is no significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are group
    according to gender.
    Ha: There is a significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are group
    according to gender.
    Level of Significance
    a = 0.05
    n1 = 60
    n2 = 60

    Test Statistics
    t-test (Unequal Variances)

    Critical Region
    Reject Ho if tc < 1.98 or tc > 1.98, otherwise failed to
    reject Ho.

    Computation
    F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

    Female Male
    Mean 4.2815 4.035166667
    Variance 0.11474178 0.317191497
    Observations 60 60
    df 59 59
    F 0.361742924
    P(F<=f) one-tail 6.9540E-05
    F Critical one-tail 0.649368947

    t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

    Female Male
    Mean 4.2815 4.035166667
    Variance 0.11474178 0.317191497
    Observations 60 60
    Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
    df 97
    t Stat 2.903290392
    P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002285862
    t Critical one-tail 1.66071461
    P(T<=t) two-tail 0.004571724 0.05
    t Critical two-tail 1.984723186

    Decision
    We reject the Ho since 2.90 > 1.98 or 0.004 < 0.05.

    Conclusion
    There is a significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are grouped according
    to gender.

    JOB SATISFACTION – JOB STATUS

    Hypothesis
    Null Hypothesis Ho: µx = µy
    Alternative Hypothesis Ha: µx ≠ µy
    Ho: There is no significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are group
    according to job status.
    Ha: There is a significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are group
    according to job status.

    Level of Significance
    a = 0.05
    n1 = 60
    n2 = 60

    Test Statistics
    t-test (Unequal Variances)

    Critical Region
    Reject Ho if tc < 1.98 or tc > 1.98, otherwise failed to reject Ho.

    Computation
    F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

    Outsourced Regular
    Mean 4.017333333 4.299333333
    Variance 0.291724972 0.130626667
    Observations 60 60
    df 59 59
    F 2.233272724
    P(F<=f) one-tail 0.001210632
    F Critical one-tail 1.539956607

    t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

    Outsourced Regular
    Mean 4.017333333 4.299333333
    Variance 0.291724972 0.130626667
    Observations 60 60
    Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
    df 103
    t Stat -3.361148046
    P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000544973
    t Critical one-tail 1.659782273
    P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001089947 0.05
    t Critical two-tail 1.983264145

    Decision
    We reject the Ho since -3.36 < 1.98 or 0.001 < 0.05

    Conclusion
    There is a significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are grouped according
    to job status.
    JOB SATISFACTION – EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

    Hypothesis
    Null Hypothesis Ho: µx = µy
    Alternative Hypothesis Ha: µx ≠ µy

    Ho: There is no significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are group
    according to educational attainment.
    Ha: There is a significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are group
    according to educational attainment.

    Level of Significance
    a= 0.05
    n1 = 40
    n2 = 40
    n3 = 40

    Test Statistics
    ANOVA

    Critical Region
    Reject Ho if f computed > f-critical or p=value < 0.05, otherwise failed to reject Ho.

    Computation
    Anova: Single Factor

    SUMMARY
    Groups Count Sum Average Variance
    BS/AB 40 163.33 4.08325 0.21194558
    with MA units 40 165.75 4.14375 0.30275224
    MA graduate 40 169.92 4.248 0.17117026

    ANOVA
    Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
    Between Groups 0.55561167 2 0.27780583 1.21512799 0.30038806 3.0737629
    Within Groups 26.748855 117 0.22862269 > 0.05
    Fail to reject Ho.
    Total 27.3044667 119

    Decision
    We fail to reject the Ho since 0.30 > 0.05.

    Conclusion
    There is no significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are grouped
    according to educational attainment.
    JOB SATISFACTION – LENGTH OF SERVICE

    Hypothesis
    Null Hypothesis Ho: µx = µy
    Alternative Hypothesis Ha: µx ≠ µy

    Ho: There is no significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are group
    according to length of service.
    Ha: There is a significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are group
    according to length of service.

    Level of
    Significance
    a= 0.05
    n1 = 30
    n2 = 30
    n3 = 30
    n4 = 30

    Test Statistics
    ANOVA

    Critical Region
    Reject Ho if f computed > f-critical or p=value < 0.05, otherwise failed to reject Ho.

    Computation
    Anova: Single Factor

    SUMMARY
    Groups Count Sum Average Variance
    7 and below 30 126.44 4.21466667 0.10470851
    8 - 15 years 30 119.14 3.97133333 0.23277057
    16 - 23 years 30 123.69 4.123 0.21497345
    24 - 31 years 30 129.73 4.32433333 0.3198254

    ANOVA
    Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
    Between Groups 2.00840667 3 0.66946889 3.06997972 0.03064468 2.68280941
    Within Groups 25.29606 116 0.21806948 < 0.05
    Reject Ho.
    Total 27.3044667 119

    Decision
    We reject the Ho since 0.03 < 0.05.

    Conclusion
    There is a significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are grouped according
    to length of service.
    JOB PERFORMANCE – GENDER

    Hypothesis
    Null Hypothesis Ho: µx = µy
    Alternative Hypothesis Ha: µx ≠ µy

    Ho: There is no significant difference among the level of jobperformance of the employees when they are group
    according to gender.
    Ha: There is a significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are group
    according to gender.

    Level of Significance
    a = 0.05
    n1 = 60
    n2 = 60

    Test Statistics
    t-test (Equal Variances)

    Critical Region
    Reject Ho if tc < 1.98 or tc > 1.98, otherwise failed to reject Ho.

    Computation
    F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

    Female Male
    Mean 3.927666667 3.705666667
    Variance 0.233319887 0.340804633
    Observations 60 60
    df 59 59
    F 0.684614775
    P(F<=f) one-tail 0.074263295
    F Critical one-tail 0.649368947

    t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

    Female Male
    Mean 3.927666667 3.705666667
    Variance 0.233319887 0.340804633
    Observations 60 60
    Pooled Variance 0.28706226
    Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
    df 118
    t Stat 2.269475779
    P(T<=t) one-tail 0.012527783
    t Critical one-tail 1.657869522
    P(T<=t) two-tail 0.025055566 0.05
    t Critical two-tail 1.980272249

    Decision
    We reject the Ho since 2.27 > 1.98 or 0.025 < 0.05.
    Conclusion
    There is a significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are grouped
    according to gender.

    JOB PERFORMANCE – JOB STATUS

    Hypothesis
    Null Hypothesis Ho: µx = µy
    Alternative Hypothesis Ha: µx ≠ µy

    Ho: There is no significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are group
    according to job status.
    Ha: There is a significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are group
    according to job status.

    Level of Significance
    a = 0.05
    n1 = 60
    n2 = 60

    Test Statistics
    t-test (Equal Variances)

    Critical Region
    Reject Ho if tc < 1.98 or tc > 1.98, otherwise failed to reject Ho.

    Computation
    F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

    Outsourced Regular
    Mean 3.682833333 3.9505
    Variance 0.29642065 0.266333644
    Observations 60 60
    df 59 59
    F 1.112967349
    P(F<=f) one-tail 0.341188999
    F Critical one-tail 1.539956607

    t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

    Outsourced Regular
    Mean 3.682833333 3.9505
    Variance 0.29642065 0.266333644
    Observations 60 60
    Pooled Variance 0.281377147
    Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
    df 118
    t Stat -2.763824785
    P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003315076
    t Critical one-tail 1.657869522
    P(T<=t) two-tail 0.006630152 0.05
    t Critical two-tail 1.980272249
    Decision
    We reject the Ho since -2.76 < 1.98 or 0.006 < 0.05.

    Conclusion
    There is a significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are grouped
    according to job status.

    JOB PERFORMANCE – EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

    Hypothesis
    Null Hypothesis Ho: µx = µy
    Alternative Hypothesis Ha: µx ≠ µy

    Ho: There is no significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are group
    according to educational attainment.
    Ha: There is a significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are group
    according to educational attainment.

    Level of Significance
    a= 0.05
    n1 = 40
    n2 = 40
    n3 = 40

    Test Statistics
    ANOVA

    Critical Region
    Reject Ho if f computed > f-critical or p=value < 0.05, otherwise failed to reject Ho.

    Computation
    Anova: Single Factor

    SUMMARY
    Groups Count Sum Average Variance
    BS/AB 40 145.07 3.62675 0.26835071
    with MA units 40 153.74 3.8435 0.30134128
    MA graduate 40 159.19 3.97975 0.27175635

    ANOVA
    Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
    Between Groups 2.53538167 2 1.26769083 4.51967441 0.01286066 3.0737629
    Within Groups 32.816485 117 0.28048278 < 0.05
    Reject Ho
    Total 35.3518667 119

    Decision
    We reject the Ho since 0.01 < 0.05.
    Conclusion
    There is a significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are grouped
    according to educational attainment.

    JOB PERFORMANCE – LENGTH OF SERVICE

    Hypothesis
    Null Hypothesis Ho: µx = µy
    Alternative Hypothesis Ha: µx ≠ µy

    Ho: There is no significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are group
    according to length of service.
    Ha: There is a significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are group
    according to length of service.

    Level of Significance
    a= 0.05
    n1 = 30
    n2 = 30
    n3 = 30
    n4 = 30

    Test Statistics
    ANOVA

    Critical Region
    Reject Ho if f computed > f-critical or p=value < 0.05, otherwise failed to reject Ho.

    Computation
    Anova: Single Factor

    SUMMARY
    Groups Count Sum Average Variance
    7 and below 30 113.63 3.78766667 0.1920392
    8 - 15 years 30 106.72 3.55733333 0.28354437
    16 - 23 years 30 117.92 3.93066667 0.23113057
    24 - 31 years 30 119.73 3.991 0.39698862

    ANOVA
    Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
    Between Groups 3.34448667 3 1.11482889 4.04032292 0.00897898 2.68280941
    Within Groups 32.00738 116 0.27592569 < 0.05 Fail
    Total 35.3518667 119

    Decision
    We reject the Ho since 0.008 < 0.05.

    Conclusion
    There is a significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are grouped
    according to length of service.

    You might also like