Tesis Biostatistik

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
According to Malaysian Road Safety Department,3.9% road death increases in 2008

compared to the previous year. Traffic signs represent one of the most common
devices for controlling traffic in that they help regulate, warn, and guide road users. In
spite of their importance, traffic signs are not always clear to the drivers (Tamar &
David 2006).
1.2 METHODOLOGY JUSTIFICATION
i. To increase awareness and driving etiquette on road.

ii. To decrease road accidents risk.
iii. To improve the knowledge regarding road signs among students.
iv. To know the comprehension regarding road signs among students.
2
1.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
GOVERNMENT NON-
GOVERNMENT
Campaign Mass Media
Driving school Surrounding
SOURCE ROAD SIGN

KNOWLEDGE
Gender factor License factor Area factor
1.3.1 Gender factor
We are taking male and female students.
1.3.2 License factor

The male and female students taken are divided between ones having license and the
other without license.
3
1.3.3 Government
Government took part in holding campaigns and restricted the laws.
1.3.4 Media
Media serve by the television, radio, newspaper, and information computer and
technology (ICT)
1.3.5 Education
The driving school and driving lesson
1.3.6 Surrounding factor
Urban and rural areas are taken into study.
1.4 OBJECTIVE
1.4.1 General Objective
To study the understanding about road signs among the first year FSKB’s students in
UKM, KL session 2008/2009.
1.4.2 Specific Objective
i. To identify the student’s knowledge about the road signs.

ii. To determine the differences in knowledge between gender about the road
signs.
iii. To determine the differences in knowledge about the road signs between
student having and not having license.
iv. To determine the differences in knowledge about the road signs among the
student who living in urban and rural area
4
v. To identify the students’ sources of knowledge about the road sign.
1.5 Hypothesis
i. There are differences between knowledge’s score and comprehension‘s score

regarding the road signs among the first year students of FSKB .(question part B)
ii. There are differences in the score of knowledge between gender, license
availability and area.
iii.There are differences in score of knowledge on road signs between gender.
(question part A – no 1 , part B & C )
iv. There are differences in score of knowledge on road signs between students with
and without driving license.(question part A – no 4, part B & C )
v. There are differences in score of knowledge on road signs between students living
in urban and rural area. (question part A – no 3, part B & C )
iv.There are association between the gender/area/license with sources of student’s
knowledge on the road sign.(question part A-no 7)
5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 DEFINITION
Definition of sign is an indication, an event, an action and a fact that shows that
something exists or may happen that you can find and see. Meanwhile, the definition
of road is a hard surface built for vehicles (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 6th
Edition).
The general definition of road signs is a sign near a road giving information or
instruction to driver.
Then, the specific definitions of road signs are used to give information about the
location of either the driver or possible destinations and are considered a subset of
informative sign group (Ross & Alan, 1992).
2.2 TYPES OF ROAD SIGN
Types of road signs are divided into three parts which is first, law road signs such as
no entry, speed zone and stop. Secondly, warning road signs such as dangerous bend
road, slippery road and accident spot. Lastly, direction road signs such as destination
sign board and information sign board (Law T.H, 2004). Every each of these types
should be distinct in its shape and colors (Tama and David, 2006).
2.3 FUNCTIONS OF ROAD SIGN
Functions of road signs are use to arrange traffic, to warn and act as guidance to road
users. Besides, the designs of the road signs which are big, simple and similar are
6
easier for understanding, plus noticeable. This it can give enough time for road user to
be ready for a certain unexpected condition such as sudden animal crossing. The roan
signs are place in plain sight. Furthermore, the road signs are informative in terms of
providing directions. (Marc Green & John Senders, 2004)
7
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 BACKGROUND
In order to do this research, we will survey the 1st year students of Faculty of Allied
Health Sciences (FSKB), National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur (UKMKL)
intake 2008/2009. The selected students come from 12 different courses which are
Biomedical Science Department, Audiology and Speech Science Department, Dietetic
and Nutrition Department, Optometry Department, Diagnostic and Radiotherapy
Program, Occupational Therapy Program, Physiotherapy Program, Environmental
Health Program, Forensics Science Program and also Emergency Medicine Program.
From all the 383 students of the 1st year in FSKB, only 192 are selected to be our
respondents. Apart from that, we will later pick later based on the ratio of male to
female from the answered questionnaires. We then will get the population of student
either having or not having license. The license can be either `L` or` P` or even full
license also known as Competent License that are registered under Malaysian Road
Transport Department (JPJ).
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
We have selected the best way of designing our research. The cross-sectional study
will be the best and suitable research design for us. Basically, we don`t refer to any
other sources to get the result but we have to do the result based on our questionnaire
to the respondent. Moreover, the result can be analyzed easily using the SPSS system.
We also use open survey type question to gather all the respondent data.
8
3.3 SAMPLING METHOD
3.3.1. Target Population = Students of UKM, Kuala Lumpur.
3.3.2. Sample Population = 1st year students of FSKB intake 2008/2009 in UKMKL.
3.3.3. Sample Size = 192 students.(calculation from sample size of selected

population formula below)
Calculating sample size
n = ____X2NP (1-P)____
∆2(N-1) + X2P(1-P)
= 192
Where X2 = 3.84, ∆ = 0.05, P = 0.5
But 10% would drop out so,
n* = __192__
(1-0.1)
= 213.3
= 214
Questionnaire
 Distribution : 214
 Received : 195
 Not received: 19
 Percentage of unreceived : 9.74%
9
3.4 METHOD OF GETTING THE DATA
i. List name of first year students of FSKB UKM, KL are collected.

ii. Using stratified sampling method in divide the student population according to
gender. Followed by systematic random sampling to distribute the
questionnaire.
iii. Questionnaires consist of multiple choice, text open end and agreement scale
(close end) test types are distribute among the samples.
10
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH ANALYSIS
4.1 RESEARCH ANALYSIS
The collected data from the completed survey forms are analyzed using the SPSS. The
following are the tests used for this research:
1. Descriptive Statistic.
2. Independent t test
3. Chi square
4. Logistic Regression
4.2 Data analysis
Objective 1 :To identify the student’s knowledge about the road signs.
Hypothesis 1: There are differences between knowledge’s score and comprehension’s

score regarding the road sign among the first year FSKB’s students.
Test: Descriptive Statistics

11
Road signs Comprehension score (%) Knowledge score (%)

1 2 3 4 5 Correct Incorrect
60..0 19.0 5.1 6.7 9.2 90.8 9.2
39.0 31.3 16.9 9.7 3.1 45.6 54.4
65.6 19.5 4.6 2.1 8.2 95.9 4.1
72.8 13.8 2.6 2.1 8.7 92.3 7.7
73.3 16.4 1.0 2.1 7.2 97.4 2.6
56.9 22.1 8.7 6.2 6.2 96.4 3.6
50.8 23.6 11.8 7.2 6.7 90.3 9.7
51.3 30.3 7.7 5.1 5.6 87.7 12.3
31.8 35.4 17.9 10.8 4.1 45.6 54.4
53.3 27.7 8.7 5.1 5.1 89.2 10.8
Table 1.0: Student’s comprehension and knowledge score.

Section B(a)1 vs Section B(b)1
12
70
64.4
60
50
comperhension (%)
40
30 27.8
22.2 22.2
18.6
20 16.7
11.1
10 7.9
4.5 4.5
0
correct incorrect
really understand understand

a bit understand little understanding
don't know
There are 64.4% students who answer correctly and really understand about this road
sign and only 7.9% did not know about this road sign but still can answer correctly.
There are only 16.7% said really understand but still answer incorrectly and 22.2%
students who answer incorrectly and did not know about this road sign although this
road sign quite common in used representing hospital.
13
50
44.3
45
40
35 32.6 32.6
comperhension (%)
30.2
30
25
20.2
20
14.2
15 12.4
10 7.5
5 3.8
2.2
0
correct incorrect

don't know
sign and only 2.2% did not know about this road sign but still can answer
correctly.However,44.3% who said really understand but answer incorrectly and only
3.8% students who answer incorrectly and do not understand about this road sign. It is
because There are misunderstands this road sign with bumper sign.

14
80
70 66.8
60
comperhension (%)
50
40 37.5 37.5
30
18.7
20
12.5 12.5
8.6
10
4.3
1.6
0
0
correct incorrect
really understand understand a bit understand

little understanding don't know
There are 37.5% who really understand but did answer incorrectly and 37.5% students
who answer incorrectly and understand about this road sign.

15
80
73.9
70
60
60
comperhension (%)
50
40
30
20
13.9 13.3 13.3
8.9
10 6.7 6.7
2.2 1.1
0
correct incorrect

don't know
But there are 60% who really understand but did answer incorrectly and 6.7% students
who answer incorrectly and not understand about this road sign. Supposedly, student
should know about this road sign because this road sign familiar for us and we can see
this road sign in every parking lot.
16
90
80
80
73.2
70
60
comperhension (%)
50
40
30
20
20 16.3
10 7.4
1.1 2.1
0 0 0
0
correct incorrect
don't know
17
Unfortunately,80% of students said really understand but still answer incorrectly and
about 20% students who answer incorrectly but understand about this road sign.There
is no students answer incorrectly and don’t know about this road sign.

18
60 56.9 57.1
50
40
comperhension (%)
30 28.6
21.8
20
14.3
10 8.5
6.4 6.4
0 0
0
correct incorrect
really understand understand a bit understand

little understanding don't know
sign and only 6.4% did not know about this road sign but also answer correctly. On
the other hand,a large percentage,that is around 57.1% who said really understand but
19
answer incorrectly and about 14.3% students who answer incorrectly but a bit
understand about this road sign.

20
60 52.8
50
40
comperhension (%)
31.6
30 26.3
23.3
20 15.8 15.8
11.4 10.5
10 6.3 6.3
0
correct incorrect

don't know
21
There are 31.6% students who really understand but also answer incorrectly and about
10.5% students who answer incorrectly did not know about this road sign

22
60
55
50 45.8
comperhension (%)
40
30 28.1
25
20
12.5 12.5
10 7
5.3 4.2
0.7
0
correct incorrect

don't know
There are 55% students who answer correctly and really understand about this road
sign and only small value that is 0.7% did not know about this road sign but still can
answer correctly. There are 25% students who really understand and 45% said
23
understand but answer incorrectly. About 12.5% students who answer incorrectly and
did not know about this road sign.

24
50
39.3
40 34.9
32.1
28.1
comperhension (%)
30
19.1 17
20
12.3
9
10 4.5 3.8
0
correct incorrect

don't know
There are only 28.1% students who answer correctly also really understand,39.3%
said understand about this road sign and 4.5% did not know about this road sign but
still can answer correctly. However, 34.9% students who said really understand and
32.1% said understand but answer incorrectly and only about 3.8% students who
25
answer incorrectly and did not know about this road sign. Maybe, students confuse
between this road sign with do not parking road sign.

26
60
55.2
50
40 38.1
comperhension (%)
30 28.2
23.8
19
20
14.3
9.2
10
4 4.8
3.4
0
correct incorrect
don't know
sign and only 4% did not know about this road sign but still can answer correctly.
There are 38.1% students who really understand but also answer incorrectly and about
27
14.3% students who answer incorrectly and did not know about this road sign. It is
because there misunderstands with the narrow bridge sign.
Knowledge’s score and comprehension’s score about road signs are depend on types
of road signs and evaluation of students about that road sign. So, there are differences
between knowledge’s score and comprehension’s score regarding the road sign among
the first year FSKB’s students.
Objective 2: To determine the differences in knowledge between gender about the

road signs.
Hypothesis: There are differences in score of knowledge on road signs between

gender. The score are taken through the answer of question part A – no 1, part Ba & C.
• HA, μ1≠μ2: There are differences in score of knowledge on road signs between
gender.
Table 2.0: Test of normality for gender factor.
Gender Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a)
Statistic Df Sig.
score Male 0.194 45 0.000
female 0.171 150 0.000
Base on the test of normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) , the significant level of p value

is lower than 0.001. It is significant. Thus, the data is not normally distributed.
Table 2.1: Descriptive table for gender factor.
Gender statistic Std. dev.

28
score male skewness -2.117 0.354
Kurtosis 7.680 0.695
female skewness -2.618 0.198
Kurtosis 12.599 0.394
Through the calculation of skewness, the standard deviation (0.354) multiply by 2 and
the answer (0.708) is in the range of statistic value (-2.117 to +2.117). It shows that,
the distribution of the data is normal for the male. For the female, standard deviation
(0.198) multiply by 2 and the answer (0.396) is also in the range of statistic value
(-2.618 to +2.618). It shows that, the distribution of the data is absolutely normal. It is
a parametric analysis.
To compare the mean score of the two groups which are male and female student,
independent sample t-test is use. Score as the test variable and gender as the grouping
variable.
Table 2.2: Statistical test for gender factor.
Gender n Mean Standard Deviation p-value
Male 45 13.8667 2.24216 0.207
Female 150 14.3533 2.26481
Mean score of knowledge and standard deviation for male is 13.8667 and 2.24216
while for female is 14.3533 and 2.26481.
On the output result, Levene’s test is higher than 0.05. It is assume that the data
variances are relatively equal. Therefore, the upper row of the significant value is use.
Base on it, the significance level of p value on the upper row is higher than 0.05.
Thus, the mean score of knowledge of the two groups are not significantly different.
t=1.267, df=193, p>0.05.

29
Objective 3: To determine the differences in knowledge about the road signs between
student having and not having license.

student with and without driving license. The score are taken through the answer of
question part A – no 4, part Ba & C.
• HA, μ1≠μ2: There are differences in score of knowledge on road signs between
student with and without driving license.
Table 3.0: Test of normality for license factor.
License Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a)
Statistic Df Sig.
score Yes 0.164 134 0.000
No 0.171 61 0.000

Table 3.1: Descriptive table for license factor.
license statistic Std. dev.

30
score yes skewness -1.968 0.209
no skewness -2.060 0.306
the distribution of the data is normal for student with license. For student without
license, standard deviation (0.306) multiply by 2 and the answer (0.612) is also in the
range of statistic value (-2.060 to +2.060). It shows that, the distribution of the data is
absolutely normal. It is a parametric analysis.
To compare the mean score of the two groups which are student with license and
student without license, independent sample t-test is use. Score as the test variable and
gender as the grouping variable.
Table 3.2: Statistical test for license factor.
License n Mean Standard Deviation p-value
Yes 134 14.5746 13.5082 0.012
No 61 1.72717 3.02557
Mean score of knowledge and standard deviation for student with license is 14.5746
and 13.5082 while for student without license is 1.72717 and 3.02557.
On the output result, Levene’s test is lower than 0.05. It is assume that the data
variances are relatively different. Therefore, the lower row of the significant value is
use. Base on it, the significance level of p value on the lower row is lower than 0.05.
Thus, the means score of the knowledge on road sign between student with and
without driving license are different.
31
t=2.569, df=78.344, p<0.05.
Objective 4: To observe the dissimilarities in knowledge about the road signs among
the student who living in urban and rural area.

students living in urban and rural area. The score are taken through the answer of
question part A – no 3, part Ba & C.
• HA, µ1≠µ2 : There are differences in score of knowledge on road signs among
the student who living in urban and rural area.
Table 4.0: Test of normality for area of residential factor.
Gender Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a)
Statistic Df Sig.
score Male 0.191 122 0.000
female 0.162 73 0.000

Table 4.1: Descriptive table for area of residential factor.
area statistic Std. dev.
score urban skewness -3.095 0.219
Kurtosis 15.932 0.435
rural skewness -1.498 0.281

32
the distribution of the data is normal for student live in urban. For student live in rural,
standard deviation (0.281) multiply by 2 and the answer (0.562) is also in the range of
statistic value (-1.498 to +1.498). It shows that, the distribution of the data is
absolutely normal. It is a parametric analysis.
To compare the mean score of the two groups which are student who living in urban
area and student who living in rural area, independent sample t-test is use. Score as the
test variable and area as the grouping variable.
Table 4.2: Statistical test for area of residential factor.
Area n Mean Standard Deviation p-value
Urban 122 14.3115 2.24927 0.575
Rural 73 14.1233 2.29701
Mean score of knowledge and standard deviation for student live in urban area is
14.3115 and 2.24927 while for student live in rural area is 14.1233and 2.29701.
On the output result, Levene’s test is higher than 0.05. It is assume that the data
variances are relatively equal. Therefore, the upper row of the significant value is use.
Base on it, the significance level of p value on the upper row is higher than 0.05.
Thus, the mean scores of the knowledge on road sign among student who living in
urban and rural area are no different.
t=0.561, df=193, p>0.05.

33
Objective 5: To identify the sources of student’s knowledge on the road sign.
Hypothesis: There are associations between the gender/area/license with sources of

student’s knowledge on the road sign.
• Ha = Sources of student’s knowledge on the road sign dependent on gender.
Variables
• Sources of knowledge such as driving school or non-driving school (mass
media, campaign, environment, others)
• Gender of student
Chi-square test
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
gender *
166 85.1% 29 14.9% 195 100.0%
sources3
Figure 1.0: The association graph of sources within gender.
The Association Graph of Sources

Within Gender
80
60
Percentage (%)
40
Driving School
20 Non-Driving School
0
Male Female
Gender
34
Table 5.0: Association of gender and sources of student knowledge.

Sources Driving school Non-driving Total P value Pearson Chi-
Square value
Gender school
Male 25(64.1%) 14(35.9%) 39(100.00%)

P = 0.423 X 2 = 0.641
Female 90(70.9%) 37(29.1%) 127(100.00%)
Total 115(69.3%) 51(30.7%) 166(100.00%)
The Pearson Chi-Square is 0.641. The p value is 0.423. We can conclude that is a not
significant association between gender and sources of student’s knowledge on the road
sign, and therefore we do not reject the null hypothesis.
X 2 = 0.641, df = 1, p > 0.05
Hypothesis:
• HA : Sources of student’s knowledge on the road sign dependent on area
Variables
• Area of student such as urban and rural
Chi-square test
Cases
Valid Missing Total
gender *
166 85.1% 29 14.9% 195 100.0%
sources3
35
Figure 2.0: The association graph of sources within area of residential.
The Association of Sources Within

80 Area
70
60
Percentage (%)
50
40
30 Driving School
20 Non-Driving School
10
0
Urban Rural
Area
Table 5.1: Association of residential area and sources of student knowledge.

Square value
Area school
Urban 77(74.0%) 27(32.0%) 104(100.00%)

P = 0.085 X 2 = 2.966
Rural 38(61.3%) 24(38.7%) 62(100.00%)
Total 115(69.3%) 51(30.7%) 166(100.00%)
sign, and therefore we do not reject the null hypothesis.
X 2 = 2.966, df = 1, p > 0.05
Hypothesis:
36
• HA : Sources of student’s knowledge on the road sign dependent on license.
Variables
• License of student
Chi-square test
Cases
Valid Missing Total
gender *
166 85.1% 29 14.9% 195 100.0%
sources3
Figure 3.0: The association graph of sources within license.
The Association Graph of Sources

Within License
90
80
70
Percentage (%)
60
50
40
Driving School
30
Non-Driving School
20
10
0
Yes No
License
Table 5.2: Association of license and sources of student knowledge.

37

Square value
License school
Yes 99(84.6%) 18(15.4%) 117(100.00%)

P = 0.001 X 2 = 43.813
No 16(32.7%) 33(67.3%) 49(100.00%)
Total 115(69.3%) 51(30.7%) 166(100.00%)
sign, and therefore license seems to be must factor to contribute sources of knowledge
for student compare to gender and residential area.
X 2 = 43.813, df = 1, p < 0.05
Objective 1: To identify the student’s knowledge about the road signs.
Hypothesis: There are different in the score of knowledge between gender, license
availability and area of residential.
The score are taken through the answer of question part A-no 1,3,4, part Ba & C.
Test: Binary logistic regression.
Variable not in Equation

Score Df Sig.
Variable Gender .017 1 .895
Area .562 1 .453
License 7.417 1 .006
There are significant value show and it only on the availability of license that is 0.006
(p<0.05) compared to gender, 0.895 and area, 0.453 which is greater than 0.5.
Variable in the Equation

B Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1 Gender .658 .461 1.931
Area -.088 .908 .916
38
License -2.091 .018 .124
For the data on interaction on mean score of knowledge to the gender, residential area
and availability of license to each student. From the table, there is negative value for
data in column B. the negative value shows the opposite interaction of the second
factor from the first factor to the score of knowledge
Here, interpreted that the mean score of knowledge for the second factor (female
student) is higher (due to positive value of B) 1.931 times (Exp(B) value) from the
first value (male student). Also, the data for this factor showing a non-significant
value, p=0.461
For area or residential, it shows that the mean score of knowledge of the second factor
(rural area) is lower (due negative value of B) 0.916 times compared to student from
urban area. The data of significant also shows there is no significant value for this
factor, p=0.908
License showing the score of knowledge for the second factor (not having license) to
be low than the first factor (having license) by 0.124 times less. But, the significant
value show that there is a significant data to be observed, p=0.018
There are different in the score of knowledge on license but there is no different in the
score of knowledge between genders and resident.
39
40
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 DISCUSSION
A recent study that evaluated comprehension of traffic sign in four different countries
show that comprehension level varies widely and is apparently related to the extend
that the sign’s design incorporate ergonomic guidelines for good design(Shinar D. et al
2003). Based on our research, we found that comprehension and knowledge of
students about the road sign is depend on types of the road sign. There are road signs
that show high scores of comprehension and knowledge about the road sign but there
are also road signs that show high score of comprehension but low in score of
knowledge about the road sign and etc. What we can get from this situation is sign
design should be guided by established ergonomics principles to enhance
comprehension, especially for drivers who have not had prior encounters with specific
signs (Tamar B. & Shinar D. 2006).
From the Chi-square test, it shows that the driving school is the main source
in contribute to student knowledge in the road sign compared to mass media,
campaign, environment and others. This is because, from the Kementerian
Penerangan Malaysia, to get the license from driving school each individual need to
pass road law test and usually the test is done by on-line. In this test, every
participant must achieve the standard marks that standardized by Jabatan
Pengangkuatan Jalan, Malaysia. After that, they will expose and apply their
knowledge about the road sign during lesion and test of license. So, the experiences
in the driving school help them to increase their knowledge about the road sign. In
other words, the most factor that influence the score of knowledge is license
compared to other factors that is gender and residential of students.
41
The knowledge about the road signs is very important because from Dr. Haji Mat
Saad Abdul Rahman, Fellow Kanan Syariah Pusat Syariah, Undang-undang dan
Sains Politik, Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM), presence of road
sign in certain location especially in danger zone is one of important matter to
decrease the fatality rate in road accident.
42
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
6.1 CONCLUSION
License is the most factors that influence the student’s knowledge compared to
gender and residential area. Female students obtain higher knowledge more than
male. Students that live in rural area obtain lower knowledge than urban area.
Student without license obtain lower knowledge less than students with license.
6.2 SUGGESTION
To get the more accurate data, interview is the best way to evaluate student’s
knowledge about road sign to reduce the bias. While developing questionnaire, more
road signs should be added in questionnaire so that our result fulfill the objective in
this research. Furthermore, this questionnaire also can help students to improve their
knowledge about the road sign.
43
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Australia Road. Road safety Audit. Sydney, Australia.1996.
Danish Road Directorate. Manual of Road Safety Audit. Ministry of Transportation.

Copenhagen, Denmark. 1996.
Public Works Department (JKR). Road Safety Audit. Guidelines for the Safety Audit of
Roads Projects in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 1997.
Tamar Ben-Bassat, David Shinar. Ergonomic Guidelines for Traffic Sign Design Increase
Sign Comprehension. Spring. 2006.
http://www.jkr.gov.my [4 Feb 2009}
Kurikulum Pendidikan Pemandu Panduan Pembelajaran. Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan

Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur. Edisi Ke 2. 2006.
44
APPENDIX
Output SPSS Test: Descriptive Statistics
Case Proce ssing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba1 * Bb1 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Ba1 * Bb1 Crosstabulation
Bb1
little
really a bit understa
understand understand understand nding don't know Total
Ba1 correct Count 114 33 8 8 14 177
% within Ba1 64.4% 18.6% 4.5% 4.5% 7.9% 100.0%
% within Bb1 97.4% 89.2% 80.0% 61.5% 77.8% 90.8%
incorrect Count 3 4 2 5 4 18
% within Ba1 16.7% 22.2% 11.1% 27.8% 22.2% 100.0%
% within Bb1 2.6% 10.8% 20.0% 38.5% 22.2% 9.2%
Total Count 117 37 10 13 18 195
% within Ba1 60.0% 19.0% 5.1% 6.7% 9.2% 100.0%
% within Bb1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 24.584 a 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 20.407 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear
19.430 1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases 195
a. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .92.
45
Bar Chart
120 Bb1
really understand
understand
a bit understand
100 little understanding
don't know
80
Count
60
40
20
0
correct incorrect
Ba1
46
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba2 * Bb2 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Bb2
little
% within Ba2 32.6% 32.6% 20.2% 12.4% 2.2% 100.0%
% within Bb2 38.2% 47.5% 54.5% 57.9% 33.3% 45.6%
% within Ba2 44.3% 30.2% 14.2% 7.5% 3.8% 100.0%
% within Bb2 61.8% 52.5% 45.5% 42.1% 66.7% 54.4%
Total Count 76 61 33 19 6 195
% within Ba2 39.0% 31.3% 16.9% 9.7% 3.1% 100.0%
% within Bb2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
47
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
2.062 1 .151
Association
minimum expected count is 2.74.
Bar Chart
50 Bb2
really understand
understand
a bit understand
little understanding
40 don't know
30
Count
20
10
0
correct incorrect
Ba2
48
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba3 * Bb3 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Bb3
little
% within Ba3 66.8% 18.7% 4.3% 1.6% 8.6% 100.0%
% within Bb3 97.7% 92.1% 88.9% 75.0% 100.0% 95.9%
% within Ba3 37.5% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5% .0% 100.0%
% within Bb3 2.3% 7.9% 11.1% 25.0% .0% 4.1%
Total Count 128 38 9 4 16 195
% within Ba3 65.6% 19.5% 4.6% 2.1% 8.2% 100.0%
% within Bb3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
.611 1 .435
Association
49
Bar Chart
Bb3
120 really understand
understand
a bit understand
100 don't know
80
Count
60
40
20
0
correct incorrect
Ba3
50
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba4 * Bb4 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Bb4
little
% within Ba4 73.9% 13.9% 2.2% 1.1% 8.9% 100.0%
% within Bb4 93.7% 92.6% 80.0% 50.0% 94.1% 92.3%
% within Ba4 60.0% 13.3% 6.7% 13.3% 6.7% 100.0%
% within Bb4 6.3% 7.4% 20.0% 50.0% 5.9% 7.7%
Total Count 142 27 5 4 17 195
% within Ba4 72.8% 13.8% 2.6% 2.1% 8.7% 100.0%
% within Bb4 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
1.230 1 .267
Association
51
Bar Chart
Bb4
really understand
understand
125
a bit understand
don't know
100
Count
75
50
25
0
correct incorrect
Ba4
52
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba5 * Bb5 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Bb5
little
% within Ba5 73.2% 16.3% 1.1% 2.1% 7.4% 100.0%
% within Bb5 97.2% 96.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.4%
% within Ba5 80.0% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within Bb5 2.8% 3.1% .0% .0% .0% 2.6%
Total Count 143 32 2 4 14 195
% within Ba5 73.3% 16.4% 1.0% 2.1% 7.2% 100.0%
% within Bb5 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .598 a 4 .963
Linear-by-Linear
.452 1 .501
Association
53
Bar Chart
Bb5
really understand
understand
125
a bit understand
don't know
100
Count
75
50
25
0
correct incorrect
Ba5
54
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba6 * Bb6 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Bb6
little
Ba6 correct Count 107 41 16 12 12 188
% within Ba6 56.9% 21.8% 8.5% 6.4% 6.4% 100.0%
% within Bb6 96.4% 95.3% 94.1% 100.0% 100.0% 96.4%
% within Ba6 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within Bb6 3.6% 4.7% 5.9% .0% .0% 3.6%
Total Count 111 43 17 12 12 195
% within Ba6 56.9% 22.1% 8.7% 6.2% 6.2% 100.0%
% within Bb6 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
.327 1 .567
Association
55
Bar Chart
120 Bb6
really understand
understand
a bit understand
100 little understanding
don't know
80
Count
60
40
20
0
correct incorrect
Ba6
56
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba7 * Bb7 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Bb7
little
Ba7 correct Count 93 41 20 11 11 176
% within Ba7 52.8% 23.3% 11.4% 6.3% 6.3% 100.0%
% within Bb7 93.9% 89.1% 87.0% 78.6% 84.6% 90.3%
% within Ba7 31.6% 26.3% 15.8% 15.8% 10.5% 100.0%
% within Bb7 6.1% 10.9% 13.0% 21.4% 15.4% 9.7%
Total Count 99 46 23 14 13 195
% within Ba7 50.8% 23.6% 11.8% 7.2% 6.7% 100.0%
% within Bb7 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
3.746 1 .053
Association
57
Bar Chart
100 Bb7
really understand
understand
a bit understand
80 don't know
60
Count
40
20
0
correct incorrect
Ba7
58
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba8 * Bb8 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Bb8
little
% within Ba8 55.0% 28.1% 7.0% 5.3% 4.7% 100.0%
% within Bb8 94.0% 81.4% 80.0% 90.0% 72.7% 87.7%
% within Ba8 25.0% 45.8% 12.5% 4.2% 12.5% 100.0%
% within Bb8 6.0% 18.6% 20.0% 10.0% 27.3% 12.3%
Total Count 100 59 15 10 11 195
% within Ba8 51.3% 30.3% 7.7% 5.1% 5.6% 100.0%
% within Bb8 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
5.282 1 .022
Association
59
Bar Chart
100 Bb8
really understand
understand
a bit understand
80 don't know
60
Count
40
20
0
correct incorrect
Ba8
60
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba9 * Bb9 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Bb9
little
% within Ba9 28.1% 39.3% 19.1% 9.0% 4.5% 100.0%
% within Bb9 40.3% 50.7% 48.6% 38.1% 50.0% 45.6%
% within Ba9 34.9% 32.1% 17.0% 12.3% 3.8% 100.0%
% within Bb9 59.7% 49.3% 51.4% 61.9% 50.0% 54.4%
Total Count 62 69 35 21 8 195
% within Ba9 31.8% 35.4% 17.9% 10.8% 4.1% 100.0%
% within Bb9 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
.079 1 .778
Association
61
Bar Chart
40 Bb9
really understand
understand
a bit understand
don't know
30
Count
20
10
0
correct incorrect
Ba9
62
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Ba10 * Bb10 195 100.0% 0 .0% 195 100.0%
Bb10
little
% within Ba10 55.2% 28.2% 9.2% 3.4% 4.0% 100.0%
% within Bb10 92.3% 90.7% 94.1% 60.0% 70.0% 89.2%
% within Ba10 38.1% 23.8% 4.8% 19.0% 14.3% 100.0%
% within Bb10 7.7% 9.3% 5.9% 40.0% 30.0% 10.8%
Total Count 104 54 17 10 10 195
% within Ba10 53.3% 27.7% 8.7% 5.1% 5.1% 100.0%
% within Bb10 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
8.299 1 .004
Association
63
Bar Chart
100 Bb10
really understand
understand
a bit understand
80 don't know
60
Count
40
20
0
correct incorrect
Ba10
64
Output SPSS Test: Independent t-test
GENDER
TEST OF NORMALITY
gender Cases
Valid Missing Total
score male 45 100.0% 0 .0% 45 100.0%
female 150 100.0% 0 .0% 150 100.0%
Descriptives
gender Statistic Std. Error

65
score male Mean 13.8667 .33424
95% Confidence Lower Bound 13.1930

Interval for Mean
Upper Bound
14.5403
5% Trimmed Mean 14.0802
Median 14.0000
Variance 5.027
Std. Deviation 2.24216
Minimum 4.00
Maximum 17.00
Range 13.00
Interquartile Range 2.00
Skewness -2.117 .354
Kurtosis 7.680 .695
female Mean 14.3533 .18492

Interval for Mean
Upper Bound
14.7187
Median 15.0000
Variance 5.129
Minimum .00
Maximum 17.00
Range 17.00
Kurtosis 12.599 .394
Tests of Normality
66
gender Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
score male .194 45 .000 .824 45 .000
female .171 150 .000 .787 150 .000

67
STATISTICAL TEST
Group Statistics
Std. Error
gender N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
score male 45 13.8667 2.24216 .33424
female 150 14.3533 2.26481 .18492
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference
F Sig. t df Lower upper
score Equal variances

.000 .996 -1.267 193 .207 -.48667 .38407 -1.24418 .27084
assumed
Equal variances
-1.274 73.038 .207 -.48667 .38199 -1.24796 .27462
not assumed
68
AREA
TEST OF NORMALITY
area Cases
Valid Missing Total
score urban 122 100.0% 0 .0% 122 100.0%
rural 73 100.0% 0 .0% 73 100.0%
Descriptives
area Statistic Std. Error

69
score urban Mean 14.3115 .20364

Interval for Mean
Upper Bound
14.7146
Median 15.0000
Variance 5.059
Minimum .00
Maximum 17.00
Range 17.00
Kurtosis 15.932 .435
rural Mean 14.1233 .26884

Interval for Mean
Upper Bound
14.6592
Median 14.0000
Variance 5.276
Minimum 4.00
Maximum 17.00
Range 13.00
Kurtosis 4.348 .555
Tests of Normality
70
area Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) Shapiro-Wilk
score urban .191 122 .000 .739 122 .000
rural .162 73 .000 .878 73 .000

71
STATISTICAL TEST
Group Statistic
Std. Error
area N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
score urban 122 14.3115 2.24927 .20364
rural 73 14.1233 2.29701 .26884
Levene's Test for


Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference
F Sig. t df lower upper

.919 .339 .561 193 .575 .18819 .33548 -.47349 .84986
assumed
Equal variances
.558 149.113 .578 .18819 .33726 -.47824 .85462
not assumed
72
LICENSE
TEST OF NORMALITY
lisence Cases
Valid Missing Total
score Yes 134 100.0% 0 .0% 134 100.0%
No 61 100.0% 0 .0% 61 100.0%
Descriptives
lisence Statistic Std. Error

73
score yes Mean 14.5746 .14920

Interval for Mean
Upper Bound
14.8697
Median 15.0000
Variance 2.983
Minimum 4.00
Maximum 17.00
Range 13.00
Kurtosis 9.834 .416
no Mean 13.5082 .38739

Interval for Mean
Upper Bound
14.2831
Median 14.0000
Variance 9.154
Minimum .00
Maximum 17.00
Range 17.00
Kurtosis 6.669 .604
Tests of Normality
74
lisence Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) Shapiro-Wilk
score yes .164 134 .000 .845 134 .000
no .171 61 .000 .821 61 .000

75
STATISTICAL TEST.
Group Statistics
Std. Error
lisence N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
score Yes 134 14.5746 1.72717 .14920
No 61 13.5082 3.02557 .38739
Levene's Test for


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference
Lower Upper

assumed
12.214 .001 3.119 193 .002 1.06643 .34195 .39198 1.74088
Equal variances
2.569 78.344 .012 1.06643 .41513 .24004 1.89282
not assumed
76
Output SPSS Test: Chi Square test
GENDER
Cases
Valid Missing Total
gender * sources3 166 85.1% 29 14.9% 195 100.0%
ge nde r * sources3 Crosstabulation
sources3
non-driving
driving school school Total
gender male Count 25 14 39
Expected Count 27.0 12.0 39.0
% within gender 64.1% 35.9% 100.0%
% within sources3 21.7% 27.5% 23.5%
% of Total 15.1% 8.4% 23.5%
female Count 90 37 127
% within gender 70.9% 29.1% 100.0%
% within sources3 78.3% 72.5% 76.5%
% of Total 54.2% 22.3% 76.5%
Total Count 115 51 166
% within gender 69.3% 30.7% 100.0%
% within sources3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 69.3% 30.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig.

Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .641 b 1 .423
a
Continuity Correction .363 1 .547
Likelihood Ratio .629 1 .428
Fisher's Exact Test .433 .271
Linear-by-Linear
.637 1 .425
Association
a. Computed only for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.
98.
77
Symme tric M e asure s
Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Phi -.062 .423
Nominal Cramer's V .062 .423
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.
Bar Chart
100 sources3
driving school
non-driving school
80
60
Count
40
20
0
male female
gender
78
AREA
Cases
Valid Missing Total
area * sources3 166 85.1% 29 14.9% 195 100.0%
are a * source s3 Crosstabulation
sources3
non-driving
area urban Count 77 27 104
% within area 74.0% 26.0% 100.0%
% within sources3 67.0% 52.9% 62.7%
% of Total 46.4% 16.3% 62.7%
rural Count 38 24 62
% within area 61.3% 38.7% 100.0%
% within sources3 33.0% 47.1% 37.3%
% of Total 22.9% 14.5% 37.3%
% within area 69.3% 30.7% 100.0%
% within sources3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 69.3% 30.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts

Pearson Chi-Square 2.966 b 1 .085
a
Continuity Correction 2.397 1 .122
Linear-by-Linear
2.948 1 .086
Association
05.
79
Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Phi .134 .085
hypothesis.
Bar Chart
80 sources3
driving school
non-driving school
60
Count
40
20
0
urban rural
area
80
LICENSE
Cases
Valid Missing Total
lisence * sources3 166 85.1% 29 14.9% 195 100.0%
lise nce * source s3 Crosstabulation
sources3
non-driving
lisence yes Count 99 18 117
% within lisence 84.6% 15.4% 100.0%
% within sources3 86.1% 35.3% 70.5%
% of Total 59.6% 10.8% 70.5%
no Count 16 33 49
% within lisence 32.7% 67.3% 100.0%
% within sources3 13.9% 64.7% 29.5%
% of Total 9.6% 19.9% 29.5%
% within lisence 69.3% 30.7% 100.0%
% within sources3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 69.3% 30.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Te sts

Pearson Chi-Square 43.813b 1 .000
a
Continuity Correction 41.405 1 .000
Linear-by-Linear
43.549 1 .000
Association
05.
81
Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Phi .514 .000
hypothesis.
Bar Chart
100 sources3
driving school
non-driving school
80
60
Count
40
20
0
yes no
lisence
82
Output SPSS Test: Binary logistic regression
LOGISTIC REGRESSION
De pe ndent Variable Encoding
Original Value Internal Value

1.00 0
2.00 1
Block 0: Beginning Block
Classification Tablea,b
Predicted
skor2 Percentage
Observed 1.00 2.00 Correct
Step 0 skor2 1.00 0 8 .0
2.00 0 187 100.0
Overall Percentage 95.9
a. Constant is included in the model.
b. The cut value is .500
Variable s in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step 0 Constant 3.152 .361 76.204 1 .000 23.375
Variable s not in the Equation
Score df Sig.
Step Variables gender .017 1 .895
0 area .562 1 .453
lisence 7.417 1 .006
Overall Statistics 7.868 3 .049
83
Block 1: Method = Enter
Omnibus Te sts of M ode l Coe fficie nts
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 7.291 3 .063
Block 7.291 3 .063
Model 7.291 3 .063
M ode l Summary
-2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke

Step likelihood R Square R Square
1 59.473 a .037 .127
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 7 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
Classification Tablea
Predicted
skor2 Percentage
Observed 1.00 2.00 Correct
Step 1 skor2 1.00 0 8 .0
2.00 0 187 100.0
Overall Percentage 95.9
a. The cut value is .500
Variable s in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step
a
gender .658 .893 .542 1 .461 1.931
1 area -.088 .758 .013 1 .908 .916
lisence -2.091 .885 5.580 1 .018 .124
Constant 5.313 2.120 6.280 1 .012 202.868
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: gender, area, lisence.
84

Tesis Biostatistik

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tesis Biostatistik

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

According to Malaysian Road Safety Department,3.9% road death increases in 2008

1.2 METHODOLOGY JUSTIFICATION

i. To increase awareness and driving etiquette on road.

1.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Campaign Mass Media

Driving school Surrounding

SOURCE ROAD SIGN

1.3.1 Gender factor

We are taking male and female students.

1.3.2 License factor

Government took part in holding campaigns and restricted the laws.

The driving school and driving lesson

1.3.6 Surrounding factor

Urban and rural areas are taken into study.

1.4.1 General Objective

1.4.2 Specific Objective

i. To identify the student’s knowledge about the road signs.

v. To identify the students’ sources of knowledge about the road sign.

i. There are differences between knowledge’s score and comprehension‘s score

2.2 TYPES OF ROAD SIGN

2.3 FUNCTIONS OF ROAD SIGN

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

3.3 SAMPLING METHOD

3.3.1. Target Population = Students of UKM, Kuala Lumpur.

3.3.3. Sample Size = 192 students.(calculation from sample size of selected

Calculating sample size

3.4 METHOD OF GETTING THE DATA

i. List name of first year students of FSKB UKM, KL are collected.

4.1 RESEARCH ANALYSIS

4.2 Data analysis

Hypothesis 1: There are differences between knowledge’s score and comprehension’s

Test: Descriptive Statistics

Road signs Comprehension score (%) Knowledge score (%)

60..0 19.0 5.1 6.7 9.2 90.8 9.2

39.0 31.3 16.9 9.7 3.1 45.6 54.4

65.6 19.5 4.6 2.1 8.2 95.9 4.1

72.8 13.8 2.6 2.1 8.7 92.3 7.7

73.3 16.4 1.0 2.1 7.2 97.4 2.6

56.9 22.1 8.7 6.2 6.2 96.4 3.6

50.8 23.6 11.8 7.2 6.7 90.3 9.7

51.3 30.3 7.7 5.1 5.6 87.7 12.3

31.8 35.4 17.9 10.8 4.1 45.6 54.4

53.3 27.7 8.7 5.1 5.1 89.2 10.8

Table 1.0: Student’s comprehension and knowledge score.

really understand understand

Section B(a)2 vs Section B(b)2

really understand understand

Section B(a)3 vs Section B(b)3

really understand understand a bit understand

Section B(a)4 vs Section B(b)4

really understand understand

Section B(a)5 vs Section B(b)5

Section B(a)6 vs Section B(b)6

really understand understand a bit understand

Section B(a)7 vs Section B(b)7

really understand understand

Section B(a)8 vs Section B(b)8

really understand understand

Section B(a)9 vs Section B(b)9

really understand understand

Section B(a)10 vs Section B(b)10

Objective 2: To determine the differences in knowledge between gender about the