chapter-4 testing of hypothesis -...

223

CHAPTER-4

TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS

224

Chapter - IV

Testing of Hypothesis

Before getting into testing of Hypothesis, the data being collected was tested for its

reliability measuring Cronbach‘s Alpha value of eight crucial items determining the

business performances of respondents under study. The eight items being considered

for the reliability were market orientation and its three sub items i.e. market

intelligence generation, market intelligence dissemination and market responsiveness,

financial performance indicators such as return on investment (ROI), net profit and

sales growth, and overall non-financial performance scores of both MOVERS and

Non-MOVERS. During this test the Cronbach‘s Alpha value was found to be 0.860

indicating and conferring that the data is of more reliable.

In the present study hypotheses made were purely research hypotheses, instead of

statistical hypotheses. Hence on going through hypotheses one can find that they are

the possible outcomes, not necessarily being statistically defined, many a times

referred as assumptions made at the beginning of the study being undertaken.

Hypotheses were tested by using simple quantitative methods like mean, average and

percentages. In addition to these quantitative methods, some statistical tests were also

made used to confirm the significance and reliability. During statistical tests mainly

two tests were used i.e. z-test and paired t-tests, both at 5% level of significance or

95% confidence level, and their formulas are as below.

z - test:

z = [X - ]

/ n

225

Where, zcal = Calculated ‗z‘ value

X = Sample Mean

= Population Mean

= Standard Deviation

n = Sample Size

/n = Standard Error

Paired t - test:

tcal = d

(sd n)

Where, tcal = Calculated‗t‘ value

d = Mean Difference

sd = Standard Deviation

n = Sample Size

sd/n = Standard Error

Now, from here onwards we will go through the testing of the individual hypothesis

of the study.

4.1. Testing of Hypothesis - 1:

H01: There is no significant impact of MOVE on its trainees.

H11: There is a significant impact of MOVE on its trainees.

The above hypothesis is divided into two sub-hypotheses depending on the criteria

being selected i.e. impact being measured in two parts as, personal factors and

knowledge levels. As it is to check the impact using before and after data, a paired t-

test was undertaken to check out the significance. The above hypothesis can be

statistically defined at 95% confidence level as below,

H01: Sig > 0.05

H11: Sig ≤ 0.05

226

Here, H01 says, if value of Sig. is greater than 0.05, it indicates that there is no

significant impact of MOVE on its trainees.

On the other hand, H11 says, if value of Sig. is less than or equal to 0.05 it indicates

that there is a significant impact of MOVE on its trainees.

The above hypothesis is divided into two sub-hypotheses depending on the criteria

being selected i.e. impact being measured in two parts as, personal factors and

knowledge levels.

H01.1

: There is no significant impact of MOVE on personal life of its trainees.

H11.1

: There is a significant impact of MOVE on personal life of its trainees.

The above sub-hypothesis was tested on the trainees posing the questions on their

perception towards the changes in their personal life as an impact of MOVE training

had on them. The data collected was post training response on before and after the

training using the likert scale wherein they were asked to give scores for each factors

mentioned with options as 1- Zero level, 2-Low, 3-Moderate, 4-High, 5-Very high.

The following tables shows the data thus collected as the response from the

respondents.

Table 4-01: Impact of MOVE on its trainees (Personal factors)

Variables

(Before and After) Mean

Life Style LB 1.41

LA 3.13

Confidence Level CB 1.13

CA 3.32

Social Status SB 1.17

SA 3.19

227

Family Status FB 1.70

FA 3.18

Asset Level AB 1.53

AA 2.93

Income Level IB 1.07

IA 2.75

Expenditure Level EB 1.44

EA 2.72

Fig. 4-01: Impact of MOVE on its trainees (Personal factors)

Source: Data Compiled from Field Survey

Further, as it is to check the impact using before and after data, a paired t-test was

undertaken to check out the significance level as below.

Table 4-02: Statistics of Paired t-test (Personal factors)

Paired Differences t df Sig.(2-tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 LB - LA 1.71667 0.80108 0.07313 23.475 119 0.000

Pair 2 CB - CA 2.19167 1.04757 0.09563 22.918 119 0.000

Pair 3 SB - SA 2.02500 1.08823 0.09934 20.384 119 0.000

Pair 4 FB - FA 1.47500 0.99547 0.09087 16.231 119 0.000

Pair 5 AB - AA 1.40000 0.91118 0.08318 16.831 119 0.000

Pair 6 IB - IA 1.68333 1.03699 0.09466 17.782 119 0.000

Pair 7 EB - EA 1.27500 0.87891 0.08023 15.891 119 0.000

1.41

3.13

1.13

3.32

1.17

3.19

1.70

3.18

1.53

2.93

1.07

2.75

1.44

2.72

0.001.002.003.004.00

LB LA CB CA SB SA FB FA AB AA IB IA EB EA

Life StyleConfidence LevelSocial StatusFamily StatusAsset LevelIncome LevelExpenditure Level

Me

an S

core

s

Variables (Before and After)

Impact of MOVE on its trainees(4-Very high, 3-high, 2-moderate, 1-low, 0-Zero level)

228

The above table show that the significance level (last column of the table) is less than

0.05 indicating that there exists a significant paired difference between the

variables/factors on before and after the training. Hence, we hereby reject the null

hypothesis (H01.1

) and accept the alternative hypothesis (H11.1

), stating that there is

a significant impact of MOVE on personal life of its trainees.

H01.2

: There is no significant impact of MOVE on level of business and marketing

knowledge of its trainees.

H11.2

: There is a significant impact of MOVE on level of business and marketing


Similarly, the above sub-hypothesis was tested on the trainees posing the questions on

their perception towards the changes in their knowledge levels as an impact of MOVE

training had on them. The data collected was post training response on before and

after the training using the likert scale wherein they were asked to give scores for each

factors mentioned with options as 1- Zero level, 2-Low, 3-Moderate, 4-High, 5-Very

high. The following tables shows the data thus collected as the response from the

respondents.

Table 4-03: Impact of MOVE on its trainees (knowledge levels)

Variables

(Before and After) Mean

Business Knowledge BB 0.94

BA 3.34

Marketing Knowledge MB 0.93

MA 3.45

Knowledge of Value

Enhancement

VB 0.93

VA 3.21

Sales Level SB 0.24

SA 2.10

229

Fig. 4-02: Impact of MOVE on its trainees (knowledge levels)


Further, as it is to check the impact using before and after data, a paired t-test was

undertaken to check out the significance level as below.

Table 4-04: Statistics of Paired t-test (Knowledge level)

Paired Differences t df Sig.(2-tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 BB - BA 2.40000 1.03225 0.09423 25.469 119 0.000

Pair 2 MB- MA 2.51667 0.86950 0.07937 31.707 119 0.000

Pair 3 VB - VA 2.27500 0.90714 0.08281 27.473 119 0.000

Pair 4 SB - SA 1.85833 1.45692 0.13300 13.973 119 0.000

The above table show that the significance level (last column of the table) of the

hypothesis is less than 0.05 indicating that there exists a significant paired difference

between the variables/factors on before and after the training. Hence, we hereby

reject the null hypothesis (H01.2

) and accept the alternative hypothesis (H11.2

),

stating that there is a significant impact of MOVE on level of business and marketing


230

Conclusion:

On analyzing the two sub-hypotheses, we find that the significance value is less than

0.05 indicating that there does exists a significant paired difference between the

variables/factors on before and after the training. Hence, we hereby reject the null

hypothesis (H01) and accept the alternative hypothesis (H1

1), stating that there is a

significant impact of MOVE on its trainees.


H02: MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are equally Market oriented.

H12: MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are not equally Market oriented.

A 32 item measure of market orientation developed by Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar,

(1993) referred to as MARKOR, a one-dimensional construct with three behavioral

components, (intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination, and responsiveness),

is used to measure the market orientation of the entrepreneurs under study. Hence, the

above hypothesis can also be statistically be defined as,

H02: ME = NME

H12: ME ≠ NME

Wherein ME = mean score of ME-MOVER Entrepreneurs i.e. MOVERS

and NME = mean score of NME-Non MOVE Entrepreneurs i.e. Non-MOVERS

Here, H02 says, if the values of ME and NME are equal then it indicates that both

MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are equally Market Oriented.

On the other hand, H12 says, if the values of ME and NME are not equal then it

indicates that both MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are not equally Market Oriented.

231

As market orientation involves three major components as market intelligence

generation, dissemination and response to the market, therefore, the hypothesis was

divided into three sub hypotheses as below:

H02.1

: MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are equally involved in market intelligence

generation.

H12.1

: MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are not equally involved in market

intelligence generation.

This sub-hypothesis deals with the market intelligence generation component of

market orientation and was tested on the respondents by posing a dichotomous

(Yes/No) questions on them whether they practice market orientation strategy in their

daily business. The data details are as below.

Table 4-05: Respondents score on market intelligence generation

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation

IG (%) of ME 80 80.00 100.00 98.8750 3.55562

IG (%) of

NME 40 57.14 100.00 83.9250 13.79849

The above table with the scores on IG (Intelligence Generation) of both ME and NME

clearly says that the score of MOVERS i.e. 98.8750% is more than the score of Non-

MOVERS i.e. 83.9250%. Thus the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative

hypothesis is accepted stating that MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are not equally

involved in market intelligence generation and in fact ME-MOVERS are more

involved in market intelligence generation than the Non-MOVERS.

H02.2

: MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are equally involved in market intelligence

dissemination

H12.2

: MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are not equally involved in market

intelligence dissemination

232

This sub-hypothesis deals with the market intelligence dissemination component of

market orientation and was tested on the respondents by posing a dichotomous

(Yes/No) questions on them whether they practice market orientation strategy in their

daily business. The data details are as below.

Table 4-06: Respondents score on market intelligence dissemination

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

ID (%) of ME 80 75.00 100.00 98.1250 5.66049

ID (%) of NME 40 57.14 100.00 83.2100 12.89705

The above table with the scores on ID (Intelligence Dissemination) of both ME and

NME clearly says that the score of MOVERS i.e. 98.1250% is more than the score of

Non-MOVERS i.e. 83.2100%. Thus the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative


involved in market intelligence dissemination and in fact ME-MOVERS are more

involved in market intelligence dissemination than the Non-MOVERS.

H02.3

: MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are equally involved in market response

H12.3

: MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are not equally involved in market response

Similarly, this sub-hypothesis deals with the market response component of market

orientation and was tested on the respondents by posing a dichotomous (Yes/No)

questions on them whether they practice market orientation strategy in their daily

business. The data details are as below.

Table 4-07: Respondents score on market responsiveness

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

MR (%) of ME 80 78.57 100.00 98.4820 4.20629

MR (%) of NME 40 0.00 100.00 67.0835 25.17406

The above table with the scores on MR (Market Response) of both ME and NME

clearly says that the score of MOVERS i.e. 98.4520% is more than the score of Non-

MOVERS i.e. 67.0835%. Thus the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative


233

involved in market response and in fact ME-MOVERS are more involved in market

response than the Non-MOVERS.

On summing up we get the overall market orientation scores of both the types of

respondents as below.

Table 4-08: Respondents score on overall market orientation

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

MO (%) of ME 80 87.50 100.00 98.4758 2.89975

MO (%) of NME 40 55.00 95.00 78.8750 9.83762

The above table with the scores on overall MO (Market Orientation) of both ME and

NME clearly says that the score of MOVERS i.e. 98.4758% is more than the score of

Non-MOVERS i.e. 78.8750%.

Further, on testing the level of significance in the difference market orientation levels

among ME and NME, the following observations were made. In this regard a z-test

was made used to measure the significance levels.

Table 4-09: Statistics of z-test (Market Orientation level)

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances z-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. z df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

IG (%) Equal variances

assumed 77.220 0.000 9.137 118 0.000 14.95000 1.63622

Equal variances

not assumed 6.741 41.610 0.000 14.95000 2.21765

ID (%) Equal variances

assumed 41.247 0.000 8.810 118 0.000 14.91500 1.69292

Equal variances

not assumed 6.985 46.661 0.000 14.91500 2.13515

R (%) Equal variances

assumed

114.15

5 0.000 10.899 118 0.000 31.39850 2.88075

Equal variances

not assumed 7.834 40.093 0.000 31.39850 4.00805

MO

(%)

Equal variances

assumed 43.290 0.000 16.503 118 0.000 19.60075 1.18768

Equal variances

not assumed 12.336 42.423 0.000 19.60075 1.58889

234

If Sig. (2-tailed) is less than 0.05 it indicates there is a significant difference and if it

is more than 0.05 then it indicates there is no significance difference. On observing

the above table it shows that there significance levels are much below than 0.05 (i.e.

0.00) and hence, there is a significant difference between the market orientation level

of MOVERS and Non-MOVERS.

Conclusion

On analyzing all the three sub-hypotheses and scores on overall MO (Market

Orientation) of both ME and NME, we find that their significance levels are much

below than 0.05 (i.e. 0.00) indicating there is a significant difference between the

market orientation level of MOVERS and Non-MOVERS. Hence we hereby reject

the null hypothesis (H02) and accept the alternative hypothesis (H1

2), stating that

MOVERS and Non-MOVERS are not equally Market oriented and in fact

MOVERS are more Market Oriented than Non-MOVERS.


H03: There is no difference between business performances of business started by

MOVERS and Non-MOVERS.

H13: There is a difference between business performances of business started by


In this case, the average mean scores of both MOVERS and Non-MOVERS w.r.t

different measures of business performance were calculated and compared. Hence, the

above hypothesis can also be statistically be defined as,

H03: ME = NME

H13: ME ≠ NME

Wherein ME = mean score of ME-MOVER Entrepreneurs i.e. MOVERS

and NME = mean score of NME-Non MOVE Entrepreneurs i.e. Non-MOVERS

235

Here, H03 says, if the values of ME and NME are equal then it indicates that there is

no difference between the business performances of businesses started by MOVERS

and Non-MOVERS.

On the other hand, H13 says, if the values of ME and NME are not equal then it

indicates that there a difference between the business performances of businesses

started by MOVERS and Non-MOVERS.

As described earlier, business performance is divided into two components as

financial performance and non-financial performance of any business, thus, main

hypothesis is broken down into two sub hypotheses as below:

H03.1

: There is no difference between financial performance of business started

by MOVERS and Non-MOVERS.

H13.1

: There is a difference between financial performance of business started by


To study the financial performance of business started by MOVERS and Non-

MOVERS., variables like ROI (Return on Investment), Profitability and Sales Growth

were measured by asking the respondents to give/state accounts‘ details of their

individual business (in some cases approximate values were taken wherever

respondents were unable to recall the exact numerical). The data collected shows the

below facts and figures.

Table 4-10: Financial performances of ME and NME

Parameters Mean scores of ME Mean scores of NME

ROI

(Return on Investment) 198.8204 123.8585

Net profit 64.6333 49.8700

Sales growth 212.2886 53.5918

236

Above table shows that, ROI (Return on Investment) of ME (198.8204%) is greater

than that of NME (123.8585%), Net profit of ME (64.6333%) is greater than that of

NME (49.8700%) and Sales growth of ME (212.2886%) is greater than that of NME

(53.5918%). On going through the scores of measures for financial performance of

ME and NME it shows that there is a difference between financial performance of

business started by MOVERS and Non-MOVERS. On going through the scores of

measures for this financial performance of ME and NME it shows that there is a

difference between non-financial performance of business started by MOVERS and

Non-MOVERS, indicating that the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative

hypothesis is accepted.

Further, on testing the level of significance in the difference between financial

performances among ME and NME, the following observations were made. In this

regard a z-test was made used to measure the significance levels.

Table 4-11: Statistics of z-test (Financial Performance)

z-test

Indicators z Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

ROI 0.679 0.499 74.96188 110.41674

Net profit 3.056 0.003 14.76325 4.83066

Sales growth 1.724 0.087 158.69688 92.05537

If Sig. (2-tailed) is less than 0.05 it indicates there is a significant difference and if it

is more than 0.05 then it indicates there is no significance difference. Hence in this

case Net profit is highly significant even at 5% level and Sales growth at 10%. This

indicates there is a significant difference in the financial performance between ME

and NME on considering Net profit and Sales growth as parameters. Whereas, in the

case of ROI significance value obtained is positive indicating that ROI of ME is better

237

than NME, but, looking at the significance level, it indicates that there is no such

significant difference between ROI of ME and NME, when compared to other two

indicators used in the study. Looking at the obtained results on significance level the

null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted stating that there

is a significant difference between the financial performance between ME and NME.

H03.2

: There is no difference between non-financial performance of business


H13.2

: There is a difference between non-financial performance of business


Similarly, to study the non-financial performance of business started by MOVERS

and Non-MOVERS, variables like Employees‘ organizational commitment,

Employees‘ esprit de corps and Competitiveness were measured by asking the

respondents on their perception towards variables considered. The data collected

shows the below facts and figures.

Table 4-12: Non-financial performances of ME and NME

Parameters Mean scores of ME Mean Scores of NME

EOC

(Employees‘ organizational commitment) 83.9250 83.9250

EDC

(Employees‘ esprit de corps) 95.5345 83.2100

Competitiveness 89.1661 67.0835

Above table shows that, EOC (Employees‘ organizational commitment) of ME

(109.1065%) is greater than that of NME (83.9250%), EDC (Employees‘ esprit de

corps) of ME (95.5345%) is greater than that of NME (83.2100%) and

Competitiveness of ME (89.1661%) is greater than that of NME (67.0835%). On

238

going through the scores of measures for this non-financial performance of ME and

NME it shows that there is a difference between non-financial performance of

business started by MOVERS and Non-MOVERS, indicating that the null hypothesis

is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Similar to the above case, even in this case also we move ahead for testing the

significance using the z-test with the formula as above and the observation from the

test are as below.

Table 4-13: Statistics of z-test (Non-Financial Performance)

As said above, if Sig. (2-tailed) is less than 0.05 it indicates there is a significant

difference and if it is more than 0.05 then it indicates there is no significance

difference. Hence in this case EDC and Competitiveness are highly significant even at

5% level. This was also cross checked by using overall NFP scores as above and

found to have a high level of significance, indicating that, there is a significant

difference in the non-financial performance between ME and NME on considering

Net profit and Sales growth as parameters. Whereas, in the case of EOC significance

value obtained is positive indicating that EOC of ME is better than NME, but, looking

at the significance level, it indicates that there is no such significant difference

z-test

Indicators z df Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

EOC 1.566 118 0.120 25.18150 16.07624

EDC 6.411 118 0.000 12.32450 1.92249

Compt 5.584 118 0.000 22.08263 3.95483

NFP

(Non-Financial Performance – Overall) 10.785 118 0.000 15.62500 1.44874

239

between EOC of ME and NME, when compared to other two indicators used in the

study. Looking at the obtained results on significance level, the null hypothesis is

rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted stating that there is a significant

difference between the financial performance between ME and NME.

Conclusion

On analyzing both the sub-hypotheses we hereby reject the hypothesis (H03) and

accept the alternative hypothesis (H13), stating that There is a difference between

business performances of business started by MOVERS and Non-MOVERS and

in fact business performance of those business started by MOVERS are superior

to those of Non-MOVERS.


H04: Trainees of MOVE do not recommend MOVE for others.

H14: Trainees of MOVE recommend MOVE for others.

As briefed in methodology chapter (Ref. Chapter-III), for the sake of convenience in

testing of proposed hypothesis it was divided into two sub-hypotheses considering the

two phase of MOVE being tested upon.

The above hypothesis was tested on the trainees posing the questions on their

perception and satisfactory response towards recommending the concerned modules.

Further, for this task, a simple likert scale was made use where in they were asked to

rank the modules with options as 1-Strongly Not Recommend, 2-Not Recommend, 3-

Neutral, 4-Recommend, 5-Strongly Recommend, this resembles the format of

strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree the pointy that the

training was satisfactory and is/was recommendable to others to undergo the training

being dealt with them. This hypothesis can be statistically defined as,

240

H04: = 3

H14: > 3

Wherein = sample mean

Here, H04 says, if is equal to 3 indicating that the respondents are either neutral or

do not recommend the training.

On the other hand, H14 says, if is greater than 3 indicating that the respondents do

recommend the training.

For the sake of convenience in testing of proposed hypothesis it was divided into two

sub-hypotheses considering the two phase of MOVE being tested upon as,

H04.1

: Trainees of MO (MOVE Phase I) do not recommend MOVE for others.

H14.1

: Trainees of MO (MOVE Phase I) recommend MOVE for others.

The above hypothesis was tested on the trainees posing the questions on their

perception and satisfactory response towards recommending the concerned modules.

Further, as said above for this task, a simple likert scale was made use to measure the

recommendation level of trainees towards MO (MOVE Phase-I) training. The

following tables shows the data thus collected as the response from the respondents.

Table 4-14: Trainees of MOVE recommending MOVE (Phase-I) for others

Strongly Not

Recommend

Not

Recommend Neutral Recommend

Strongly

Recommend Total

Percent 0 0 1 12 87 100

Frequency 0 0 1 14 105 120

241

Fig. 4-03: Trainees of MOVE recommending MOVE (Phase-I) for others


The above table and chart shows that the majority (99%) of the respondents/trainees

recommend (12% recommend and 87% strongly recommend) the MO (MOVE Phase-

I) for others. This data collected from trainees of MOVE recommending MO (MOVE

Phase-I) for others in terms of mean scores are as below.

Table 4-15: Mean scores on recommendation for MOVE (Phase-I)

Total Score Mean Score ()

(Max – 5) %

N= 80 (ME) 389 4.86 97.25

N= 40 (MNE) 195 4.88 97.50

N= 120 (ME+MNE) 584 4.87 97.33

From the above table, we can find that the means and percentages for MOVE (Phase-

I) are much more than 3 indicating that the respondents here trainees of the MOVE do

recommend MOVE (Phase-I). Further to confirm, the same was tested using a z-test

with the test value of 3 and thus the results are as below.

1%

12%

87%

Trainees of MOVE recommending MOVE (Phase-I) for others

Strongly not recommend

Not Recommend

Neutral

Recommend

242

Table 4-16: Statistics of z-test with the test value of 3 (MOVE Phase-I)

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Module-1 120 4.61 0.569 0.052

Module-2 120 4.45 0.743 0.068

Module-3 120 4.58 0.588 0.054

Module-4 120 4.42 0.682 0.062

Module-5 120 4.72 0.568 0.052

Module-6 120 4.48 0.621 0.057

Module-7 120 4.40 0.691 0.063

Module-8 120 4.62 0.522 0.048

Module-9 120 4.72 0.565 0.052

Module-10 120 4.52 0.594 0.054

Module-11 120 4.52 0.550 0.050

Module-12 120 4.66 0.558 0.051

Average 120 4.5364 0.32833 0.02997

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

z df Sig. (2-tailed)

Module-1 30.938 119 0.000

Module-2 21.377 119 0.000

Module-3 29.489 119 0.000

Module-4 22.894 119 0.000

Module-5 33.119 119 0.000

Module-6 26.009 119 0.000

Module-7 22.198 119 0.000

Module-8 33.957 119 0.000

Module-9 33.473 119 0.000

Module-10 27.977 119 0.000

Module-11 30.221 119 0.000

Module-12 32.582 119 0.000

Average 51.262 119 0.000

243

From the above statistics and a one-sample test with the test value of 3, we find that

the significance value is less than 0.05 indicating that there does exist a significant

difference between the stated test value of 3, here 3 represents the neutral

point/opinion. Hence, we hereby reject the null hypothesis (H04.1

) and accept the

alternative hypothesis (H14.1

), stating that Trainees of MOVE do recommend MO

(MOVE Phase-I) for others.

H04.2

: Trainees of VE (MOVE – Phase II) do not recommend MOVE for others

H14.2

: Trainees of VE (MOVE – Phase II) recommend MOVE for others.

Similar to the previous sub-hypothesis, the hypothesis was also tested on the trainees

posing the questions on their perception and satisfactory response towards

recommending the concerned modules. Further, as said above for this task, a simple

likert scale was made use to measure the recommendation level of trainees towards

VE (MOVE Phase-II) training. The following tables shows the data thus collected as

the response from the respondents.

Table 4-17: Trainees of MOVE recommending MOVE (Phase-II) for others

Strongly Not

Recommend

Not

Recommend Neutral Recommend

Strongly

Recommend

Total

Percent 0 0 14 43 43 100

Frequency 0 0 2 6 6 14

244

Fig. 4-04: Trainees of MOVE recommending MOVE (Phase-II) for others


The above table and chart shows that the majority (86%) of the respondents/trainees

recommend (43% recommend and 43% strongly recommend) the MOVE (Phase-II)

for others. This data collected from trainees of MOVE recommending MOVE (Phase-

II) for others in terms of mean scores are as below.

Table 4-18: Mean scores on recommendation for MOVE (Phase-II)

Total Score Mean Score ()

(Max – 5) %

N= 14 (ME+MNE) 60 4.29 86%

From the above table, we can find that the mean and percentage for MOVE (Phase-II)

are much more than 3 indicating that the respondents here trainees of the MOVE do

recommend MOVE (Phase-II). Further to confirm, the same was tested using a z-test

with the test value of 3 and thus the results are as below.

14%

43%

43%

Trainees of MOVE recommending MOVE (Phase-II) for others

Strongly not recommend

Not Recommend

Neutral

Recommend

Strongly Recommend

245

Table 4-19: Statistics of z-test with the test value of 3 (MOVE Phase-II)

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

VE Orientation 14 4.36 0.633 0.169

VE 1 14 4.21 0.699 0.187

VE 2 14 4.14 0.663 0.177

VE 3 14 4.43 0.646 0.173

VE 4 14 4.36 0.633 0.169

Average 14 4.3000 0.38230 0.10217

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

VE Orientation 8.018 13 0.000

VE 1 6.497 13 0.000

VE 2 6.450 13 0.000

VE 3 8.272 13 0.000

VE 4 8.018 13 0.000

Avg2 12.723 13 0.000

From the above statistics and a one-sample test with the test value of 3, we find that

the significance value is less than 0.05 indicating that there does exist a significant

difference between the stated test value of 3, here 3 represents the neutral

point/opinion. Hence, we hereby reject the null hypothesis (H04.2

) and accept the

alternative hypothesis (H14.2

), stating that Trainees of MOVE do recommend VE

(MOVE Phase-II) for others.

Conclusion:

On analyzing the two sub-hypotheses, we find that the significance value is less than

0.05 indicating that there does exist a significant difference between the stated test

value of 3, here 3 represents the neutral point/opinion. Hence, we hereby reject the

null hypothesis (H04) and accept the alternative hypothesis (H1

4), stating that

Trainees of MOVE do recommend MOVE for others.

chapter-4 testing of hypothesis -...

Documents