Chapter 4

Data Analysis

In the previous chapters problem was introduced, literature review was described,
and research Methodology was presented. The present chapter will focus on data
analysis. The chapter is divided into following sections.
Section I Composition of the Sample
Table 4.1.1 Composition of Sample by Gender

Variable Frequency Percentage

Male Officers 30 50
Female
Officers 30 50
Total 60 100%
It is clear from the table 4.1.1 that 50 percent respondent were male officers and 50
percent respondents were female officers.

Composition of Sample by Gender

1 2
Table 4.1.2 Composition of Sample by Experience
Variable Frequency Percentage
Less
Experience 25 41
More
Experience 35 58
Total 60 100%

It is clear from the table 4.1.2 that 41 percent respondents were less experienced
and 58 percent respondents were mor experience.

Composition of Sample by Experience

1 2
Table 4.1.3 Composition of Sample by Age
Variable Frequency Percentage
Younger
Officials 20 33
Older
Officials 40 66
Total 60 100%

It is clear from the table 4.1.3 that 33 percent respondents were younger officials
and 66 percent officials were older officials.

Composition of Sample by Age

1 2
Table 4.1.4 Composition of Sample by Qualification
Variable Frequency Percentage
Less
Qualified 25 41
More
Qualified 35 58
Total 60 100%

It is clear from table 4.1.4 that 41 percent respondents were less qualified and 58
percent respondents were more qualified.

Composition of Sample by Qualification

1 2
Section II Testing of Hypothesis 

Hypothesis 01: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of male and
female Government Officials with regard to their understanding of 18th
Amendment and Provincial Autonomy.

Column1

Mean 37.8
1.28062
Standard Error 5
Median 38
Mode 42
Standard 7.01427
Deviation 1
Sample
Variance 49.2
-
Kurtosis 1.13665
Skewness -0.2128
Range 23
Minimum 25
Maximum 48
Sum 1134
Count 30

Column 2

Mean 36.8
Standard Error 1.2284
Median 36
Mode 34
Standard 6.72822
Deviation 2
Sample 45.2689
Variance 7
-
Kurtosis 1.11497
0.03735
Skewness 1
Range 23
Minimum 25
Maximum 48
Sum 1104
Count 30

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for

Means

Variable Variabl
  1 e2
Mean 36.8 37.8
45.2689
Variance 7 49.2
Observations 30 30
Pearson Correlation 0.28116
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
Df 29
-
t Stat 0.66455
0.25579
P(T<=t) one-tail 5
1.69912
t Critical one-tail 7
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.51159
t Critical two-tail 2.04523  

Computed Value = 1.699127 Tabulated Value = -0.66455

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or greater than

computed value of t then the null hypothesis is rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 0.66455 is less than
the computed value of t =
1.699127
Therefore, null hypothesis is accepted
It is concluded that there is no significant difference in the
mean scores of male and female Government
Officials.

Hypothesis 02: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of less

experience and more experience Government Officials with regard to their
understanding of NFC Award relating to 18th Amendment.

Column1

Mean 30.52
1.47322
Standard Error 8
Median 32
Mode 32
Standard 7.36613
Deviation 9
Sample
Variance 54.26
-
Kurtosis 0.58821
0.41336
Skewness 6
Range 25
Minimum 20
Maximum 45
Sum 763
Count 25

Column 2

35.7714
Mean 3
Standard Error 1.51800
 7
Median 36
Mode 29
Standard 8.98065
Deviation 1
Sample
Variance 80.6521
-
Kurtosis 0.92896
-
Skewness 0.18602
Range 32
Minimum 18
Maximum 50
Sum 1252
Count 35

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Variabl Variabl
  e1 e2
35.771
Mean 30.52 43
80.652
Variance 54.26 1
Observations 25 35
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 57
-
2.4825
t Stat 2
0.0080
P(T<=t) one-tail 07
1.6720
t Critical one-tail 29
0.0160
P(T<=t) two-tail 14
2.0024
t Critical two-tail 65  

Computed Value = Tabulated Value =

 -2.48252 1.672029

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or greater than

computed value of t then the null hypothesis is rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 1.672029
is less than
the computed value of t =
-2.48252
Therefore, null hypothesis is accepted
It is concluded that There is no significant difference in the
mean scores of less experience and more experience
Government Officials with regard to their understanding of
NFC Award relating to 18th Amendment.

Hypothesis 03: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Younger

and Older Government Officials with regard to their understanding of Right to
Education accordance with 18th Amendment.

Column1

Mean 38.1
1.80773
Standard Error 2
Median 39.5
Mode 42
Standard 8.08442
Deviation 3
Sample 65.3578
Variance 9
 -
Kurtosis 0.63324
-
Skewness 0.36308
Range 28
Minimum 22
Maximum 50
Sum 762
Count 20

Column 2

Mean 31.325
1.28919
Standard Error 9
Median 32
Mode 32
Standard 8.15361
Deviation 3
Sample 66.4814
Variance 1
-
Kurtosis 0.67099
0.38079
Skewness 4
Range 31
Minimum 18
Maximum 49
Sum 1253
Count 40

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Variabl Variabl
  e1 e2
Mean 38.1 31.325
65.357 66.481
Variance 89 41
Observations 20 40
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 38
3.0513
t Stat 28
0.0020
P(T<=t) one-tail 71
1.6859
t Critical one-tail 54
0.0041
P(T<=t) two-tail 41
2.0243
t Critical two-tail 94  

Computed Value = Tabulated Value =

3.051328 1.685954

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or greater than

computed value of t then the null hypothesis is rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 1.685954
is less than
the computed value of t =
-3.051328
it is concluded that There is
no significant difference in
the mean scores of Younger
and Older Government
Officials with regard to their
understanding of Right to
Education accordance with
18th Amendment.

Hypothesis 04: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Less

Qualified and More Qualified Government Officials with regard to their
understanding of Provincial Autonomy and its Impacts.
 Column1

Mean 34.08
2.00575
Standard Error 8
Median 35
Mode 36
Standard 10.0287
Deviation 9
Sample 100.576
Variance 7
-
Kurtosis 1.49174
0.16185
Skewness 3
Range 29
Minimum 20
Maximum 49
Sum 852
Count 25

Column 2

35.7142
Mean 9
1.42579
Standard Error 6
Median 34
Mode 32
Standard 8.43512
Deviation 1
Sample 71.1512
Variance 6
-
Kurtosis 0.90967
0.00812
Skewness 7
Range 29
Minimum 20
Maximum 49
Sum 1250
Count 35

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Variabl Variabl
  e1 e2
35.714
Mean 34.08 29
100.57 71.151
Variance 67 26
Observations 25 35
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 46
t Stat -0.6641
0.2549
P(T<=t) one-tail 69
1.6786
t Critical one-tail 6
0.5099
P(T<=t) two-tail 39
2.0128
t Critical two-tail 96  

Computed Value = Tabulated Value =

-0.6641 1.67866

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or greater than

computed value of t then the null hypothesis is rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 1.67866
is greater than
the computed value of t =
-0.6641

it is concluded There is
significant difference in the
mean scores of Less
Qualified and More Qualified
Government Officials with
regard to their understanding
of Provincial Autonomy and
its Impacts.