SALAZAR COLLEGE OF SCIENCES AND INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

College of Teacher Education

Madridejos, Cebu
Activity 5

Full Name: JOSE GLENN D. BALONDRO Student ID: 2018130561

Email Address: balondrojoseglenn@gmail.com

Instructions:
Please accomplish the following tasks with patience and full understanding of individual difference:
A) Source or surf references that will assist the group in carrying out the tasks
B) Read and analyze well the given case before proceeding to the succeeding tasks
C) In solving the situational problem, make sure to establish the suggested steps in your solution
process.
C.1 State the hypothesis
C.2 Find the critical value (other references termed it as table of values
C.3 Compute the test value (this is the part when you compute, show the solution process ^ the
answer)
C.4 Decision(it is at this point where you either accept or reject the null hypothesis
C.5 Conclusion/Generalization
D) Compute the test value of the given case below using the F=test,One way ANOVA, Two way
ANOVA, Chi =square, person r, spearman rho manually
E) Provide the necessitated analyses and interpretations of the scientific results
F) Present your answers in soft copy and turn in in glassroom.

Situational Problem & Data Set:

Case no. 1 (F-test)
Does the level of job satisfaction among the in Service Teachers from the Department of
Education (DepED) differ according to their job classification? Consider the 0.05 level of significance.
DepED Job
Rating results from the survey conducted among the In-Service Teachers
Classification
Teacher III 73 82 86 89 79 78 84 85 83 77 NA NA
Teacher II 82 84 78 79 74 74 81 82 77 76 87 88
Teacher 1 81 78 77 82 80 79 84 86 74 75 77 82

Case no 2 (One way ANOVA)

The data in the table represent the number of hours of emotional relief after the counselling strategies
were distinctively facilitated by the Registered Guidance Counselors among the concerned students. The
clients were randomly divided into 5 groups where each group was processed using a particular strategy.
Hence, perform the analysis of variance, and test the hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance that the
mean number of hours of relief is the same for all five (5) counselling strategies.
Strategy A Strategy B Strategy C Strategy D Strategy E
5 hours 9 hours 3 hours 2 hours 7 hours
4 hours 7 hours 5 hours 3 hours 6 hours
8 hours 8 hours 2 hours 4 hours 9 hours
6 hours 6 hours 3 hours 1 hour 4 hours
3 hours 9 hours 7 hours 4 hours 7 hours
Case No. 3 (Chi-Square)
In a study of managers attempt to manage earnings, researchers analyzed a sample of 515 earnings –
management attempts from a surgery of experienced auditors. The frequency of effects is summarized in
the table shown. Research question: at alpha = 0.01, is the effect on earnings independent of the approach
used?
Current Period Income Effect of Four Earnings Management Approaches
Approach Used Increase Decrease No Clear Effect Row Total
Expenses and 133 113 23 269
other losses
Revenue and other 86 20 8 114
Gains
Business 12 22 33 67
combination
Other approaches 41 4 20 65
Col Total 272 159 84 515

Case no. 4 (Correlation)

Below are the top 20 US football teams in the seventh and eight weeks of the 2003 season, along with the
points awarded to each team by the ESPN/USA Today coach’s poll. Research question at alpha = 0.01,
based on this data, is there a significant rank correlation between these two variables?
Football Ratings in ESPN/USA today Coaches poll (n = 20)
Team This Week Last Week
Oklahoma 1575 1622
Southern Cal 1502 1470
Florida State 1412 1320
LSU 1337 1241
Virginia Tech 1281 1026
Miami 1263 1563
Ohio State 1208 1226
Michigan 1135 938
Georgia 951 1378
Iowa 932 762
Texas 881 605
TCU 875 727
Wash State 827 1260
Purdue 667 487
Michigan State 645 1041
Nebraska 558 924
Tennessee 544 449
Minnesota 490 149
Florida 480 246
Bowling Green 369 577

------------------------------------------------------ Nothing Follows ---------------------------------------------------

 Presentation of Outputs Starts Here:

Case no.1. (F-test)

Does the level of job satisfaction among the in Service Teachers from the Department of
Education (DepED) differ according to their job classification? Consider the 0.05 level of significance.
DepED Job
Rating results from the survey conducted among the In-Service Teachers
Classification
Teacher III 73 82 86 89 79 78 84 85 83 77 NA NA
Teacher II 82 84 78 79 74 74 81 82 77 76 87 88
Teacher 1 81 78 77 82 80 79 84 86 74 75 77 82

1. State the Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis: There is no level of job satisfaction among in the Service Teachers.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a level of job satisfaction among in the Service Teachers.

2. Critical Value
Alpha: 0.05
Critical Value: 3.3158

3. Compute the Test Value

Teacher I Teacher II Teacher III

2 1.56 2 3.35 2 73.96
81−79.75=1.25 82−80.17=1.83 73−81.6=−8.6
2 3.06 2 14.67 2 0.16
78−79.75=−1.75 84−80.17=3.83 83−81.6=0.4
2 7.56 2 4.71 2 19.36
77−79.75=−2.75 78−80.17=−2.17 86−81.6=4.4
2 5.06 2 1.37 2 54.76
82−79.75=2.25 79−80.17=−1.17 89−81.6=7.4
2 5.06 2 38.07 2 6.76
82−29.75=2.25 74−80.17=−6.17 79−81.6=−2.6
2 0.56 2 38.07 2 12.96
79−79.75=−0.75 74−80.17=−6.17 78−81.6=−3.6
2 18.06 2 0.69 2 5.76
84−79.75=4.25 81−80.17=0.83 84−81.6=2.4
2 39.06 2 3.35 2 11.56
86−79.75=6.25 82−80.17=1.83 85−81.6=3.4
2 33.06 2 10.05 2 1.96
74−7 9.75=−5.75 77−80.17=−3.17 83=81.6=1.4
2 22.56 2 17.39 2 21.16
75−79.75=−4.75 76−80.17=−4.17 77−81.6=−4.6
2 7.56 2 46.65 N/A
77−79.75=−2.75 87−80.17=6.83
2 5.06 2 61.31 N/A
82−79.75=2.25 88−80.17=7.83
x = 79.75 ∑ 148.22 x = 80.17 ∑ 239.68 x = 81.6 ∑ 208.4
∑ of Squares WithinGroups=148.22+ 239.86+208.4=596.3
SSW =596.3

Observation Mean Observation−Mean (Observation−Mean)

2

81 80.35 0.65 0.42

78 80.35 2.35 5.52
77 80.35 -3.35 11.22
82 80.35 1.65 2.72
 80 80.35 -0.35 0.12
79 80.35 -1.35 1.82
84 80.35 3.65 13.32
86 80.35 5.65 31.92
74 80.35 -6.35 40.32
75 80.35 -5.35 28.62
77 80.35 -3.35 11.22
82 80.35 1.65 2.72
82 80.35 1.65 2.72
84 80.35 3.65 13.32
78 80.35 -2.35 5.52
79 80.35 -1.35 1.82
74 80.35 -6.35 40.32
74 80.35 -6.35 40.32
81 80.35 0.65 0.42
82 80.35 1.65 2.72
77 80.35 -3.35 11.22
76 80.35 -4.35 18.92
86 80.35 5.65 31.92
88 80.35 7.65 58.52
73 80.35 -7.35 54.02
82 80.35 1.65 2.72
86 80.35 5.65 31.92
89 80.35 8.65 74.82
79 80.35 -1.35 1.82
78 80.35 -2.35 5.52
84 80.35 3.65 13.32
85 80.35 4.65 21.62
83 80.35 2.65 7.02
77 80.35 -3.35 11.22
x = 80.35 SST =619.7 ∑ 601.68
Sum of Squares between Groups
79.75 – 80.35 = 0.36 80.17 – 80.35 = 0.03 81.6 – 80.35 = 1.56
0.36+ 0.03+1.56=1.95
1.95 ×12=23.4

Total Sum of Squares = Sum of Squares between Groups + Sum of Squares within Groups
Total Sum of Squares = Sum of Squares between Groups + Sum of Squares within Groups

619.7 23.4 596.3

Final Calculations:
∑ of Squares between Groups = 23.4 =11.7
degrees of freedom 2
 ∑ of Squares withinGroups = 596.3 =18.07
degress of freedom 33
11.7
F= =0.65
18.07
F ( 2 , 33 )=0.65 , p<0.05
Critical Value: 3.3158 F=0.65

4. Decision
We accept the Null Hypothesis, and reject the alternative hypothesis.

5. Conclusion
Accept the Null Hypothesis which means there is no level of job satisfaction among in the
Service Teachers.

Case no 2 (One way ANOVA)

The data in the table represent the number of hours of emotional relief after the counselling strategies
were distinctively facilitated by the Registered Guidance Counselors among the concerned students. The
clients were randomly divided into 5 groups where each group was processed using a particular strategy.
Hence, perform the analysis of variance, and test the hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance that the
mean number of hours of relief is the same for all five (5) counselling strategies.
Strategy A Strategy B Strategy C Strategy D Strategy E
5 hours 9 hours 3 hours 2 hours 7 hours
4 hours 7 hours 5 hours 3 hours 6 hours
8 hours 8 hours 2 hours 4 hours 9 hours
6 hours 6 hours 3 hours 1 hour 4 hours
3 hours 9 hours 7 hours 4 hours 7 hours

1. State the Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis: There is no significance among the mean number of hours of relief is the same
for all five (5) counselling strategies.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significance among the mean number of hours of relief is the
same for all five (5) counselling strategies.

2. Critical Value
Alpha: 0.05
df between=K −1=5−1=4
df within=N−K =25−5=20
df total =24
F Crit =2.8661
3. Compute the Test Value
x A=5.2
x B =7.8
x C =4
x D =2.8
x E =6.6
 G 132
= =5.28
N 25
SSTotal =∑ ( x− x́ )
2

=
( 5−5.28 )2+ ( 4−5.28 )2 + ( 8−5.28 )2 + ( 6−5.28 )2 + ( 3−5.28 )2+ ( 9−5.28 )2 + ( 7−5.28 )2 + ( 8−5.28 )2+ ( 6−5.28 )2+ ( 9
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
¿ (−0.28 ) + (−1.28 ) + ( 2.72 ) + ( 0.72 ) + (−2.28 ) + ( 3.72 ) + (1.72 ) + ( 2.72 ) +0.72 + ( 3.72 ) + (−2.28 ) + (−0.28 )

¿ 0.08+1.64 +7.40+0.52+5.20+13.84 +2.96+7.40+ 0.52+13.84+5.20+ 0.08+10.76+5.20+2.96 +10.76+5

SSTotal =137.08

SSWithin =∑ ( x 1−x 1 ) + ¿ ( x2 −x2 ) + ( x 3−x 3 ) + ( x 4 −x 4 ) + ( x 5−x 5 ) ¿

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
SSWithin =( 5−5.2 ) + ( 4−5.2 ) + ( 8−5.2 ) + ( 6−5.2 ) + (3−5.2 ) + ( 9−7.8 ) + ( 7−7.8 ) + ( 8−7.8 ) + ( 6−7.8 ) + ( 9−
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
SSWithin =(−0.2 ) + (−1.2 ) + ( 2.8 ) + ( 0.8 ) + (−2.2 ) + ( 1.2 ) + (−0.8 ) + ( 0.2 ) + (−1.8 ) + ( 1.2 ) + (−1 ) + ( 1 ) + (−2 ) +

SSWithin =0.04+1.44 +7.84+ 0.64+ 4.84+1.44 +0.64+ 0.04+3.24 +1.44+1+1+ 4+1+9+ 0.64+ 0.04+1.44+ 3
SSWithin =57.6

SS Between=137.08−57.6=79.48

SS Between
MS Between =
df Between

79.48
MS Between = =19.87
4

SS Within
MS Within=
df within
57.6
MS Within= =2.88
20

MS Between
F=
MS Within

19.87
F= =6.9
2.88
We find that F 6.9> 2.8661
Reject the Null Hypothesis

4. Decision
Reject the Null Hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
 5. Conclusion
I concluded that the value of F=6.9 is greater than the F Crit =2.8661which means the Null
Hypothesis is rejected.

Case No. 3 (Chi-Square)

In a study of managers attempt to manage earnings, researchers analyzed a sample of 515 earnings –
management attempts from a surgery of experienced auditors. The frequency of effects is summarized in
the table shown. Research question: at alpha = 0.01, is the effect on earnings independent of the approach
used?
Current Period Income Effect of Four Earnings Management Approaches
Approach Used Increase Decrease No Clear Effect Row Total
Expenses and 133 113 23 269
other losses
Revenue and other 86 20 8 114
Gains
Business 12 22 33 67
combination
Other approaches 41 4 20 65
Col Total 272 159 84 515

1. State the Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis: There is no relation between the approach used and frequency of effects.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a relation between the approach used and frequency of
effects.

2. Critical Value
Alpha: 0.01
Df: (columns – 1) (rows – 1)
Df= (3 – 1) (4 – 1)
Df= (2) (3)
Df= 6
Critical Value of X 2 : 16.81

3. Compute the Test Value

Table of Expected Values

Approach Used Increase Decrease No Clear Effect
Expenses and others 142.07 83.05 43.88
losses
Revenue and other 60.21 35.20 18.59
Gains
Business Combination 35.39 20.69 10.93
Other Approaches 34.33 20.07 10.60
Calculation of X 2
Observed Values Expected Values (O−E) ( O−E )2 ( O−E )2
(O) (E)
E
133 142.07 -9.07 82.26 0.58
113 83.05 29.95 897.00 10.80
23 43.88 -20.88 435.97 9.94
86 60.21 25.79 665.12 11.05
20 35.20 -15.2 231.04 6.56
8 18.59 -10.59 112.15 6.03
12 35.39 -23.39 547.09 15.46
22 20.69 1.31 1.72 0.08
33 10.93 22.07 487.08 44.56
41 34.33 6.67 44.49 1.30
4 20.07 -16.07 258.24 12.87
20 10.60 9.4 88.36 8.34

Degrees of Freedom= (columns – 1) (rows – 1)

Degrees of Freedom= (3 – 1) (4 – 1)
Degrees of Freedom= (2) (3) = 6
2
x =173.11
2
x calculated =173.11

Significance of level ( ∝ ) = 0.01

2
x tabular =16.81
2
x calculated =173.11
x calculated > x 2tabular ( ¿ called a x 2critical )
2

4. Decision
We reject the Null Hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

5. Conclusion
Accept the Alternative Hypothesis which means there is a significant relation between the
approach used and frequency of effects.

Case no. 4 (Correlation)

Below are the top 20 US football teams in the seventh and eight weeks of the 2003 season, along with the
points awarded to each team by the ESPN/USA Today coach’s poll. Research question at alpha = 0.01,
based on this data, is there a significant rank correlation between these two variables?
Football Ratings in ESPN/USA today Coaches poll (n = 20)
Team This Week Last Week
Oklahoma 1575 1622
Southern Cal 1502 1470
Florida State 1412 1320
 LSU 1337 1241
Virginia Tech 1281 1026
Miami 1263 1563
Ohio State 1208 1226
Michigan 1135 938
Georgia 951 1378
Iowa 932 762
Texas 881 605
TCU 875 727
Wash State 827 1260
Purdue 667 487
Michigan State 645 1041
Nebraska 558 924
Tennessee 544 449
Minnesota 490 149
Florida 480 246
Bowling Green 369 577

1. State the Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant rank correlation between the two variables.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is no significant rank correlation between the two variables.

2. Critical Value
Alpha: 0.01
DF: 18
Critical Value of r = 0.515

3. Compute the Test Value

This Week Last Week xy x

2
y
2

1575 1622 2554650 2480625 2630884

1502 1470 2207940 2256004 2160900
1412 1320 1863840 1993744 1742400
1337 1241 1659217 1787569 1540081
1281 1026 1314306 1640961 1052676
1263 1563 1974069 1595169 2442969
1208 1226 1481008 1459264 1503076
1135 938 1064630 1288225 879844
951 1378 1310478 904401 1898884
932 762 710184 868624 580644
881 605 533005 776161 366025
875 727 636125 765625 528529
827 1260 1042020 683929 1587600
667 487 324829 444889 237169
645 1041 671445 416025 1083681
558 924 515592 311364 853776
544 449 244256 294936 201601
490 149 73010 240100 22201
480 246 118080 230400 60516
369 577 212913 136161 332929
∑ x =18932 ∑ y=19011 ∑ xy =20511597 ∑ x 2=20574176 ∑ y 2=21706285

N ∑ xy−∑ x ∑ y
r=
√ ¿¿ ¿
20 ( 20511587 )−( 18932 ) ( 19011)
r=
√ ¿ ¿¿
410231940−359916252
r=
√ ( 411483520−358420624 ) ( 434125700−361418121 )
50315688
r=
√ ( 53062896 ) ( 72707579 )
50315688
r=
√ 3858074702888784
50315688
r=
62113401.96
r =0.81

4. Decision
We reject the Null Hypothesis, and accept the alternative hypothesis.

5. Conclusion
Based on the strength of the R-values, 0.81 is greater than 0.70 which means there is a strong
relationship between the two variables.