CHAPTER 5

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

5.1 CHI-SQUARE TEST

HYPOTHESIS

NULL HYPOTHESIS (H01): there is no significance difference between qualification

and independent variable.

5.1.1 EXPERIENCE
Chi-Square Tests
Asym
p. Sig.
Valu (2-
  e df sided)
Pearson 6.736 9 .665
a
Chi-
Square
Likelihoo 7.478 9 .588
d Ratio
Linear- .002 1 .968
by-Linear
Associati
on
N of 50    
Valid
Cases
INTERPRETATION:

From the above table the calculated value is more than significance level (0.05).
therefore, I reject null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis. Hence, there is
significance difference between qualification and independent variable.
 5.1.2 YEARLY BONUS

Chi-Square Tests
Asym
p. Sig.
(2-
  Value df sided)
Pearson 10.53 12 .569
Chi- 4a
Square
Likelihoo 13.81 12 .313
d Ratio 6
Linear- .036 1 .850
by-Linear
Associatio
n

Symmetric Measures
Appro
  Value x. Sig.
Nomin Phi .459 .569
Cramer .265 .569
al by
's V
Nomin
al
N of Valid Cases 50  
INTERPRETATION:

From the above table the calculated value is more than significance level (0.05).
therefore, I reject null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis. Hence, there is
significance difference between qualification and independent variable..
 5.1.3 SALARY STRUCTURE
Chi-Square Tests
Asym
p. Sig.
(2-
  Value df sided)
Pearson 13.02 12 .367
Chi- 4a
Square
Likelihoo 15.95 12 .193
d Ratio 7
Linear- .290 1 .590
by-Linear
Associati
on
N of 50    
Valid
Cases

Symmetric Measures
Appro
  Value x. Sig.
Nomin Phi .510 .367
Cramer .295 .367
al by
's V
Nomin
al
N of Valid Cases 50  
INTERPRETATION:

From the above table the calculated value is less than significance level (0.05). therefore,
I accept alternative hypothesis and reject null hypothesis. Hence, there is significance
difference between qualification and independent variable.
 5.2 CORRELATION

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

working environment is comfortable 2.6600 1.23899 50

employees are treated wid good respect 2.0200 1.20357 50

drinking water facilities 1.7000 .81441 50

correlation

working employees are drinking

environment is treated wid good water
comfortable respect facilities
Pearson
working 1 .100 .220
Correlation
environment is Sig. (2-
.488 .124
comfortable tailed)
N 50 50 50
Pearson
employees are .100 1 .048
Correlation
treated wid good Sig. (2-
.488 .741
respect tailed)
N 50 50 50
Pearson
.220 .048 1
drinking water Correlation
Sig. (2-
facilities .124 .741
tailed)
N 50 50 50

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, the calculated value is more than significance level (0.05).
Therefore I reject null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis. Hence, there is
significance relationship between employees are treated with good respect and drinking
water facilities.

5.3 REGRESSION ANALYSYS

Level of influence between salary structure and leave facilities

offered by the company.
NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): There is no significant difference between
salary structure and leave facilities offered in the company.
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS (H1): There is significant difference
between salary structure and leave facilities offered in the company.

Model Summaryb
R Adjuste
Squar d R
Model R e Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .359a .129 .072 1.37625

ANOVA a
Sum of
Square Mean
Model s df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 12.873 3 4.291 2.266 .093b
Residual 87.127 46 1.894    
Total 100.00 49      
0
 Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.986 1.014   2.946 .005
yearly bonus .216 .202 .174 1.066 .292
scheme
degree of .070 .170 .067 .408 .685
independence
to execute a
job
leave -.319 .170 -.260 -1.875 .067
facilities
offered by
the company

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, calculated value is more than significance level (0.05). Therefore I
reject null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis. Hence, there is significance
between salary structure and leave facilities offered in the company.
 5.4 SIMPLE PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS:

AGE

Frequen Perce
Age cy nt
20to3 20 40.0
0
30to4 19 38.0
0
40to5 6 12.0
0
>50 5 10.0
Total 50 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, 38.5% of respondents are under age category of 20to30, 36.5% of
respondents are under age category of 30to40, 11.5% of respondents are under age
category of 40to50, 9.6% of respondents are under age category of above 50.

120

100

80

60 Frequency
Percent
40

20

0
20to30 30to40 40to50 >50 Total
 GENDER

Gend Frequen Perce

er cy nt
male 29 58.0
femal 21 42.0
e
Total 50 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, 58% of respondents are male workers working in the company,
42% of respondents are female workers working in the company.

Frequency

male
29%

Total
50%

female
21%
 EDUCATION
Freque Perce
Education ncy nt
UG 26 52.0
PG 16 32.0
professio 8 16.0
nals and
others
Total 50 100.
0

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, 52% of respondents are under UG category, 32% of respondents
are under PG category, 16% of respondents are under Professionals and other categories.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
UG PG proffesionals and others Total
 EXPERIENCE

Experie Freque Perce

nce ncy nt
<10 25 50.0
11-15 15 30.0
16-20 4 8.0
>20 6 12.0
Total 50 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, 50% of respondents are under less than 10years of experience, 30%
of respondents are under 11to15 years of experience, 8% of respondents are under 16to20
years of experience, 12% of respondents are under more than 20 years.

<10
11-15
16-20
>20
Total