CHI-SQUARE TEST

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Age group * reason 95 100.0% 0 0.0% 95 100.0%
conducting
performance appraisal

Age group * reason conducting performance appraisal Cross

tabulation
Count
reason conducting performance Total
appraisal
always sometimes never
20-30 3 9 12 24
Age 31-40 5 12 7 24
group 41-50 5 9 10 24
51-60 5 10 8 23
Total 18 40 37 95

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.809a 6 .832
Likelihood Ratio 2.860 6 .826
Linear-by-Linear .808 1 .369
Association
N of Valid Cases 95
a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 4.36.

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx.
Sig.
Nominal by Contingency .169 .832
Nominal Coefficient
N of Valid Cases 95

ANALYSIS

the P-value is the probability that a chi-square statistic having 6 degrees of freedom is more
extreme than 33.3.We use the Chi-Square Distribution Calculator to find P(2 > 33.3) = 0.832

INTERPRETATION RESULTS.

Since the P-value (0.832) is less than the significance level (0.05), we cannot accept the null
hypothesis. Thus, we conclude that there is an Age group and reason conducting performance
appraisal.

ANOVA
Recognize the competence and potential
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
 Between 68.093 4 17.023 12.275 .000
Groups
Within Groups 124.813 90 1.387
Total 192.905 94

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Recognize the competence and potential
Tukey HSD
(I) training and (J) training and Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence
development needs of development needs of Difference (I- Error Interval
employee employee J) Lower Upper
Bound Bound
agree -.63818 .34425 .350 -1.5965 .3202
neutral -1.11818 .44913 .102 -2.3685 .1321
strongly agree disagree -1.56818* .38693 .001 -2.6453 -.4910
-2.31818* .35507 .000 -3.3066 -
strongly disagree
1.3297
strongly agree .63818 .34425 .350 -.3202 1.5965
neutral -.48000 .44063 .812 -1.7066 .7466
agree
disagree -.93000 .37702 .108 -1.9796 .1196
strongly disagree -1.68000* .34425 .000 -2.6383 -.7217
strongly agree 1.11818 .44913 .102 -.1321 2.3685
agree .48000 .44063 .812 -.7466 1.7066
neutral
disagree -.45000 .47472 .877 -1.7715 .8715
strongly disagree -1.20000 .44913 .066 -2.4503 .0503
strongly agree 1.56818* .38693 .001 .4910 2.6453
agree .93000 .37702 .108 -.1196 1.9796
disagree
neutral .45000 .47472 .877 -.8715 1.7715
strongly disagree -.75000 .38693 .305 -1.8271 .3271
 strongly agree 2.31818* .35507 .000 1.3297 3.3066
agree 1.68000* .34425 .000 .7217 2.6383
strongly disagree
neutral 1.20000 .44913 .066 -.0503 2.4503
disagree .75000 .38693 .305 -.3271 1.8271
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

recognizethecompetenceandpotential
Tukey HSDa,b
training and N Subset for alpha = 0.05
development needs of 1 2 3
employee
strongly agree 22 1.6818
agree 25 2.3200 2.3200
neutral 10 2.8000 2.8000
disagree 16 3.2500 3.2500
strongly disagree 22 4.0000
Sig. .052 .153 .347
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 17.041.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group
sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

INTERPRETATION

A one-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age on
criminal thinking style scores. There was a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.05 level
in criminal thinking scores for three age groups F (12.275) =17.235, p < 0.15. Despite reaching
statistical significance, the actual difference in mean scores between groups was quite small. The
effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .05. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD
test indicated that the mean score for young offenders (M =17.041, SD =17.235) was
significantly different .There was no statistically significant difference in Recognize the
competence and potential and training and development needs of employee

CORRELATION METHOD

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Qualification of the 95 100.0% 0 0.0% 95 100.0%
respondent *
employees happy with
the assessment

Qualification of the respondent * employees happy with the assessment Cross tabulation
Count
employees happy with the assessment T
strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly
disagree
secondary 6 11 4 2 1 2
Qualification of the higher secondary 6 3 4 4 7 2
respondent graduate 3 11 3 5 2 2
post graduate 4 6 2 3 8 2
Total 19 31 13 14 18 9

Symmetric Measures
 Value Asymp. Std. Approx. Approx.
Errora Tb Sig.
Nominal by Contingency .398 .119
Nominal Coefficient
Interval by .202 .097 1.993 .049c
Pearson's R
Interval
Spearman .191 .099 1.875 .064c
Ordinal by Ordinal
Correlation
N of Valid Cases 95
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.