Laboratory Exercise 3
Laboratory Exercise 3
Laboratory Exercise 3
Laboratory Exercise #3
Hypothesis
Score:
NAME: Marione Alia Fauni____________________ DATE: October 13, 2021
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.
1. There is no significant difference among the level of job satisfaction of the employees when they are grouped
according to
1.1 gender
2. There is no significant difference among the level of job performance of the employees when they are grouped
according to
1.1 gender
WHAT TO DO?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.