Statistics Analysis

Assignments # 1
Tables
Submitted By:
Submitted To:
Dr. Anum Rabbani
Riphah Institute of Clinical and Professional Psychology (RICPP),

Riphah International University, Gulberg Campus, Lahore

Demographic Table

Characteristic Full Sample

n %

Gender

Male 78 43.3

Female 102 56.7

Age

30 50 27.8

31 34 18.9

32 24 13.3

33 15 8.3

34 17 9.4

35 9 5.0
36 7 3.9

37 3 1.7

38 7 3.9

39 1 0.6

40 3 1.7

42 2 1.1

43 1 0.6

44 1 0.6

45 6 3.3

Educational Status

MA/M.Sc 34 18.9

MS/M.Phil 105 58.3

Phd 41 22.8

Monthly Income

30,000-80,000 128 71.1

31,000-130,000 50 27.8

131,000-180,000 2 1.1
 Designation

Lecturer 122 67.8

AP 55 30.6

Professor 3 1.7

Years of Experience

Less than 2 28 15.6

3-7 99 55.0

8-12 39 21.7

13-17 8 4.4

18-22 6 3.3

Marital Status

Married 132 73.3

Single 48 26.7

Psychometric Properties Table

 Reliability
 Scale M SD Range Cronbach’s α

RAS 25.29 4.313 9-30 .891

GO 74.11 10.838 21-90 .924

TI 38.24 13.027 18-66 .923

Notes: RAS=Role Ambiguity Scale, GO=Goal Orientation, TIS=Turnover Intervention Scale.

Interpretation: The table shows the reliability statistics of the assessment measures used in the

study, i.e. Role Ambiguity Scale, Goal Orientation, and Turnover Intervention Scale. The

Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient was used to find the internal reliabilities of the scales.

The Cronbach’s Alpha score for the three scales used was .89, .92, and .92 respectively.

T-tests

Independent Samples T-test

Scales Mean SD Mean SD T(df) p

RAS 25.18 4.92 25.38 3.80 -.312(178) .755

GO 72.81 12.54 75.10 9.28 -1.36(136.7) .178

TIS 40.10 13.43 36.22 12.40 2.422(178) .016

Notes: RAS=Role Ambiguity Scale, GO=Goal Orientation, TIS=Turnover Intervention Scale.

Interpretation: The table shows the t-test mean based comparison on the basis of gender. We

can see that there is no significant difference among the two genders for the RAS and GO scales.

There is a significant difference in the TIS scores among the two genders.

One Sample T-test

95% CI for Mean

Difference

t df p Mean Lower Upper Cohen’s d

Difference

GO 66.98 179 .001 54.11 52.51 55.70 10.84

TI 18.79 179 .001 18.24 16.33 20.16 13.03

RAS 16.47 179 .001 5.29 4.66 5.92 4.31

Notes: RAS=Role Ambiguity Scale, GO=Goal Orientation, TIS=Turnover Intervention Scale.

mean which was set to “20” for all three scales. The results are significant and prove that this is

true.

Paired Sample t test

Before After

Variable M SD M SD t(14) p r

Smoking1Smoking2 28.26 8.62 27.66 9.12 .88 .38 .95

Note: M=Mean, SD= Standard Deviation, BS= Before Smoking, AS=After Smoking, *p>0.5

Interpretation: The table shows the results for the paired samples t-test that was run to compare

the Smoking before and after the intervention. The results show that there was no significant

difference between the IV level 1 (M=28.26, SD=8.62) and IV level 2 (M=27.66, SD=9.12)

conditions; t(14) =.88, p=.38.

Correlation Table

Variable n M SD 1 2 3

1. RAS 180 25.30 4.31 - .691 -.269

2. GO 180 74.11 10.84 .18 - -.072

3. TIS 180 38.24 13.03 -.269 -.072 -

Notes: RAS=Role Ambiguity Scale, GO=Goal Orientation, TIS=Turnover Intervention Scale.

(r=0.69, p=0.001) and there is a significant negative correlation between RAS and TI (r-0.269,

p=0.001). There is no significant correlation between GO and TIS.

One – way Analyses of Variances

Measure Male Women F(180) η2

M SD M SD

GO 72.8077 12.53676 75.0980 9.27630 1.985 .011

Note: M= Mean, SD= Standard Deviation, GO= Goal orientation

Interpretation:

The table show the one- way anova mean based comparison on the basis of gender.

There is no significant difference in GO scores between men and women based on this analysis,

and the effect size indicates that any difference observed is very small.

Two – Way Analyses of Variances

Measures Married Single F η2

M SD M SD

GO

Male 74.1148 10.33618 68.1176 18.05160 .027 .027

Note: M- Mean, SD= Standard deviation, GO= Goal orientation

Interpretation:

The table shows the two-way anova means based comparison on the basis of marital

status. Males, although there is a difference in mean Goal Orientation scores between married

and single men, this difference is not statistically significant and has a very small effect size. And

also for females, the mean Goal Orientation scores between married and single women are very

close, with single women having a slightly higher score. The standard deviations indicate that

single women's scores are less variable. The small F-value and η² for males suggest that marital

status does not have a meaningful impact on Goal Orientation scores.

Regression Analysis Tables:

Linear regression analysis:

Variables B 95% CL for B SEB B

R²

LL UL

Constant 75.385 71.4 81.3 2.512

.005

TIS -.060 -.182 .063 .062 -.072

Interpretation:
The table shows that the analysis suggests that there is a very weak and possibly non-significant

negative relationship between TIS and the dependent variable. 95% confidence interval for TIS

(-0.182 to 0.063).There is non-significant negative relationship between GO and TIS.

Multiple regression:

Variables B 95% CL for B SEB β R²

ΔR²

LL UL

Constant 24.1 15.4 32.8 4.3 .492

.492

TIS .102 .011 .194 .046 .123

RAS 1.82 1.54 2. 09 .140 .724

Interpretation:

The table shows that TIS is a positive effect and RAS has a strong positive effect on the

dependent variable. TIS (0.102) RAS(1.82). there is positive relationship between dependent

variable.