Dominion Training Survey

BADM 621

October 19,2005

Shawn Miller

Kylee Fink

Soumya Prasad

Thomas O’Neill

Casey Brown

Area Explanation

Statistic Southern Western Northeastern Central

Count 30 17 24 14

Mean 8.70 8.76 8.04 9.14

Median 9 9 8 9

Standard Deviation 1.09 0.97 1.16 0.77

Variance 1.18 0.94 1.34 0.59

Region

Descriptive Statistics - Test Scores

Geographic Location & Test Scores

• Ho – There is no difference in test scores when comparing the four geographic locations.

• P-value = 0.01338

• F = 3.79354, F crit = 2.71734

• Conclusion – There is a difference (Ha).

Location/Test Score Detail

• Central performed significantly higher in comparison to the sample average.

– Mean = 9.142857, P-value = 0.015935

• Northeastern performed significantly lower in comparison to the sample average.

– Mean = 8.041667, P-value = 0.015724

Practice makes perfect?

• Hypothesis: Talks given in the Northeastern and Central regions were better because the instructors had given the talk at least twice already, at the Southern and Western regions.

Cont…

• 2 columns: Early sessions (Southern + Western) vs. later ones (Northeastern + Central).

• 2 categories (early vs. late) compared on a continuous variable (test score, quality score): Use t-test.

Test score:

• F-test gives a p-value of 0.26 => Equal variances;

• T-test: p-value: 0.25

• Statistically speaking…Test score did not show that the instructors “practice” had helped.

Quality score:

• F-test gives a p-value of 0.44=> Equal variances;

• T-test: p-value: 0.163

• Statistically speaking…The quality score did not show that the instructors “practice” had helped.

Quality Score (cont.)

• In theory, practice should improve scores.• Perhaps:

(a) The time period between the early and late sessions (1 week) was not adequate.(b) Inherent difference in quality of speakers.(c) Inherent difference in quality of audiences.

Why did some people fare better?

• Hypothesis: Perception of having enough time resulted in a better test score.

• Relationship between the 2 continuous variables of time and test score: Correlation function

• Correlation = 0.19; Yes, there is a positive linear correlation between perception of having enough time and final test score.

Cont…

• Did the perception of having time predict a better test score? Use simple linear regression.

• Dependent variable = Test score, independent variable = perception of time.

• Regression: P-value: 0.08• Perception of more time did not predict a

better test score.

Supporting Evidence

• Hypothesis: Perception of higher knowledge before training resulted in a better test score.

• Correlation = 0.22; Yes, there is a positive linear correlation between perception of knowledge base and final test score.

Helpful talks?

• Was there a relationship between perception of base knowledge and gain in knowledge from the talks?

• Correlation: r=0.69, positive linear correlation exists.

Cont..

• Does the perceived higher base knowledge predict a higher post-talk knowledge?

• Regression: Dependent variable = knowledge after, independent = base knowledge.

• P-value= 1.26E-13, almost 0• Knowledge after = knowledge before (0.43) + 5.53

• R square = 0.48

• 48% of the variance in the data can be explained by this regression; “Goodness of fit” is high.

Self Assessment Scores

• Is there a relationship between self assessment scores and actual test scores?

• At first glance, individuals in the Northeastern Area indicated they learned more than others during the training – an average increase of 2.95 on a 10 point scale.

• Northeastern had the poorest test scores.

Self Assessment Scores (cont.)

• Is this significant?

• F-test yields p value of 0.34

• T-test (for equal variances) yields P value of 0.99 – not significantly different from

the mean across all areas.

Questions?