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

Frequenc
Variable y Percentage
Male
Officers 30 60
Female
Officers 20 40
total 50 100%

It is clear from the Table 4.1.1 that 60 Percent of the respondents were the male
officials. Forty percent of the respondents were female officials.

Composition of Sample by Gender

1 2
Table 4.1.2 Composition of Sample by Experience

Variable Frequency Percentage

Less
Experience 25 50
More
Experience 25 50
Total 50 100
It is clear from the Table 4.1.2 that 50 Percent of the respondents were Less
Experience. 50 percent of the respondents were more experienced.

Composition of Sample by Experience

1 2
Table 4.1.3 Composition of Sample by Age

Variable Frequency Percentage

Younger
Officials 15 30
Older officials 35 70

Total 50 100
It is clear from the Table 4.1.3 that 30 percent respondents were younger officials.
And Seventy percent respondents were Older officials.

Composition of Sample by Age

1 2
Table 4.1.4Composition of Sample by Qualification

Variable Frequency Percentage

Less
Qualified 15 30
More
Qualified 35 70

Total 50 100
It is clear from the Table 4.1.4 that thirty percent officials were less qualified and
seventy percent officials 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 Success and
Controversies of Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment.
Column1

Mean 37.7
Standard 1.2393
Error 45
Median 38
Mode 45
Standard 6.7881
Deviation 74
Sample 46.079
Variance 31
-
0.9861
Kurtosis 5
-
0.3025
Skewness 5
Range 23
Minimum 25
Maximum 48
Sum 1131
Count 30

Column 2

Mean 35.2
Standard 1.4282
Error 86
Median 34
Mode 32
Standard 6.3874
Deviation 88
Sample
Variance 40.8
-
0.6657
Kurtosis 2
0.4350
Skewness 4
Range 22
Minimum 26
Maximum 48
Sum 704
Count 20

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal

Variances

Variab Varia
  le 1 ble 2
Mean 37.7 35.2
46.079
Variance 31 40.8
Observations 30 20
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 43
1.3220
t Stat 34
0.0965
P(T<=t) one-tail 73
1.6810
t Critical one-tail 71
0.1931
P(T<=t) two-tail 47
2.0166
t Critical two-tail 92  

Computed Value = Tabulated Value =

1.681071 1.322034

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
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.681071 1.322034

Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected.

It is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the
mean scores of male and female officials with
regard to success and controversies of 18th
constitutional Amendment.

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 removal of Article 58 (2) b from Constitution of Pakistan.

Column1

Mean 34.48
Standard 1.8593
Error 19
Median 33
Mode 43
Standard 9.2965
Deviation 94
Sample 86.426
Variance 67
-
1.4765
Kurtosis 8
0.0732
Skewness 96
Range 27
Minimum 22
Maximum 49
Sum 862
Count 25

Column 2

Mean 37.68
Standard 1.4256
Error 23
Median 38
Mode 45
Standard 7.1281
Deviation 13
Sample
Variance 50.81
-
1.0544
Kurtosis 7
-
0.3309
Skewness 4
Range 23
Minimum 25
Maximum 48
Sum 942
Count 25
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Variabl Variabl
  e1 e2
Mean 34.48 37.68
86.4266
Variance 7 50.81
Observations 25 25
0.04328
Pearson Correlation 4
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 24
-
t Stat 1.39527
0.08785
P(T<=t) one-tail 7
1.71088
t Critical one-tail 2
0.17571
P(T<=t) two-tail 4
2.06389
t Critical two-tail 9  

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
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.710882 -1.39527
 Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected.
It is concluded There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Less
experience and More Experience Government Officials with regard to their
understanding of removal of Article 58 (2) b from Constitution of Pakistan.

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

and Older Government Officials with regard to their understanding Curtailing the
powers of President to dissolve the National Assembly.

Column1

34.466
Mean 67
Standard 2.3941
Error 73
Median 32
Mode 32
Standard 9.2725
Deviation 91
Sample 85.980
Variance 95
-
1.5202
Kurtosis 6
0.0806
Skewness 58
Range 27
Minimum 22
Maximum 49
Sum 517
Count 15
 Column 2

36.828
Mean 57
Standard 1.1409
Error 02
Median 38
Mode 45
Standard 6.7496
Deviation 65
Sample 45.557
Variance 98
-
1.0517
Kurtosis 9
-
Skewness 0.1462
Range 23
Minimum 25
Maximum 48
Sum 1289
Count 35
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal
Variances

Varia Varia
  ble 1 ble 2
34.466 36.828
Mean 67 57
85.980 45.557
Variance 95 98
Observations 15 35
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 21
 -
0.8905
t Stat 7
0.1916
P(T<=t) one-tail 24
1.7207
t Critical one-tail 43
0.3832
P(T<=t) two-tail 48
2.0796
t Critical two-tail 14  

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
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.720743 -0.89057

Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected.

It is concluded There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Younger
and Older Government Officials with regard to their understanding Curtailing the
powers of President to dissolve the National Assembly.
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 Right to Fair Trial as inserted by the 18th Constitutional
Amendment.

Column1

34.466
Mean 67
Standard 2.3941
Error 73
Median 32
Mode 32
Standard 9.2725
Deviation 91
Sample 85.980
Variance 95
-
1.5202
Kurtosis 6
0.0806
Skewness 58
Range 27
Minimum 22
Maximum 49
Sum 517
Count 15
 Column 2

36.828
Mean 57
Standard 1.1409
Error 02
Median 38
Mode 45
Standard 6.7496
Deviation 65
Sample 45.557
Variance 98
-
1.0517
Kurtosis 9
-
Skewness 0.1462
Range 23
Minimum 25
Maximum 48
Sum 1289
Count 35
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal
Variances

Varia Varia
  ble 1 ble 2
34.466 36.828
Mean 67 57
85.980 45.557
Variance 95 98
Observations 15 35
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 21
 -
0.8905
t Stat 7
0.1916
P(T<=t) one-tail 24
1.7207
t Critical one-tail 43
0.3832
P(T<=t) two-tail 48
2.0796
t Critical two-tail 14  

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
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.720743 -0.89057

Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected.

It is concluded There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Less
Qualified and More Qualified Government Officials with regard to their
understanding of Right to Fair Trial as inserted by the 18th Constitutional
Amendment.

Chapter 5
Summary, Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations
In previous chapters problem was introduced, literature review was analyzed,
research methodology was presented, and data was analysis was done. The present
chapter will focus on summary, findings conclusion and recommendations.
5.1 Summary
The overall objective of the study was to analyze the role of 18th amendment to
strengthen the provincial autonomy. The study specifically focuses on:
To ensure healthy relation between federal and Provinces. To implement 18 th
amendment provision in true spirit. To evaluate the implementation of Article 25-
A (Right to Education). To ensure distribution of resources to Provinces Article
160 (3A) was inserted NFC Award. To provide right to education and fair trial. To
identify implementation of provincial autonomy.
The scope the study was limited to success and controversies of 18th constitutional
amendment. Literature review was presented with in depth analysis of the
prominent work of the scholars in filed.
The population of the study was comprised of all government officials associated
with Government of Baluchistan Departments. Population is diverse therefore
stratified random sampling design will be adopted. The overall sample size will be
50 Government officials.

Researcher uses questionnaires to collect the data of the study to find out the
answers of research objectives. The study sample drawn from the population using
convent sampling of random sampling techniques. The research selects only 50
government officials to analyze the population.
Data was analyzed through statistical techniques.

5.2 Findings

It is clear from the Table 4.1.1 that 60 Percent of the respondents were the male
officials. Forty percent of the respondents were female officials.

It is clear from the Table 4.1.2 that 50 Percent of the respondents were Less
Experience. 50 percent of the respondents were more experienced.

It is clear from the Table 4.1.3 that 30 percent respondents were younger officials.
And Seventy percent respondents were Older officials.
It is clear from the Table 4.1.4 that thirty percent officials were less qualified and
seventy percent officials were more Qualified.

Hypothesis 1
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.681071 1.322034

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
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.681071 1.322034

Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected.

It is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the
mean scores of male and female officials with
regard to success and controversies of 18th
constitutional Amendment.

Hypothesis 2
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
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.710882 -1.39527

Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected.

It is concluded There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Less
experience and More Experience Government Officials with regard to their
understanding of removal of Article 58 (2) b from Constitution of Pakistan.
Hypothesis 3
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
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.720743 -0.89057

Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected.

It is concluded There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Younger
and Older Government Officials with regard to their understanding Curtailing the
powers of President to dissolve the National Assembly.
Hypothesis 4
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
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.720743 -0.89057

Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected.

It is concluded There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Less
Qualified and More Qualified Government Officials with regard to their
understanding of Right to Fair Trial as inserted by the 18th Constitutional
Amendment.

5.3 Conclusion
5.4 Recommendations