NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH

NAME- HARSH PATEL

ROLL NO-PP20041
PEM-SECTION 1
SUBJECT- SPSS SOFTWARE
 Exercise for Session 6

Case 1

A business school in its advertisements claims that the average salary of its graduates in a particular
lean year is at par with the average salaries offered at the top five business schools. A sample of 30
graduates, from the business school whose claim was to be verified, was taken at random. Their
salaries are given in the table below:

The average salary given for the top five business school is Rs. 750000. Assess the validity of the
claim made. Please write the appropriate null and alternative hypothesis.

H0: average salary of new school= avg salary of top 5 school

H1: average salary of new B school≠ 750000

Graduat Salary
e (in
Student Rs'000)
1 750
2 600
3 600
4 650
5 700
6 780
7 860
8 810
9 780
10 670
11 690
12 550
13 610
14 715
15 755
16 770
17 680
18 670
19 740
20 760
21 775
22 845
23 870
24 640
 25 690
26 715
27 630
28 685
29 780
30 635

T-Test

[DataSet0]

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

salary 30 713.50 81.263 14.837

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 750

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

salary -2.460 29 .020 -36.500 -66.84 -6.16

INTERPRETATION
From the results, we can say that:
 Since p<0.05, we reject the null hypothesis that the average salary of the graduates
of the new business school is at par with the average salary of the top 5 business
schools.
 There is a significant deference in the average salary of the graduates of the new
Business school and the average salary of the graduates of the top five business
schools (p <.05).
 The average salary of the graduates of the new Business school is +34 about
36,500/- lesser than and the average salary of the graduates of the top five business
schools (95% CI-66.84,-6.16]).
 Mean salary of the Graduate graduates is Rs.7,13,500/-, in the new business school,
which is based on 30 non-missing observations.
 The average salary of graduates of top 5 business schools is about Rs.36,500/- more
than that of the new business school.
Case 2

A corporate training institute claimed that its training program can greatly enhance the efficiency of
call centre employees. A big call centre sent some of its employees for the programme. The
efficiency was measured by the number of deals closed by each employee in a one-month period.
Data was collected for a month period before sending the employees for the training program. After
the training programme, data was again collected on the same employees for a one month period.
The data is as follows: Please write the appropriate null and alternative hypothesis.

H0: The training programme has a significant impact in increasing the

efficiency in output for the employees

H1: The training programme has no impact in increasing the efficiency in

output for the employees

After the
Before
Employ training
Traini
ee Program
ng
me
1 41 44
2 35 36
3 40 48
4 50 47
5 39 40
6 45 52
7 35 35
8 36 51
9 44 46
10 40 55
11 46 39
12 42 40
13 37 36
14 34 39
15 38 37
16 42 37
17 46 37
18 39 37
19 40 37
20 45 37
T-Test

[DataSet0]

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Before.training 40.70 20 4.318 .965

Pair 1
after.training 44.15 20 6.158 1.377

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Before.training & after.training 20 .281 .230

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval tailed)

Deviation Mean of the Difference

Lower Upper

Pair Before.training - -3.450 6.452 1.443 -6.470 -.430 -2.391 19 .027

1 after.training

INTERPRETATION
Decision and Conclusions
From the results, we can say that:
 Before and After training scores were weakly and positively correlated (r=0.281).
 There was no significant average difference between scores of before and after
training (t19=-2.391, p<0.05).
 On average, the average scores before training were higher than 3.45 than the average
score post training of the employees.
 In conclusion, the training wasn't apt and successful in increasing the efficiency of
the employees.