Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 - Chapter 4 Analysis and Interpretation of The Data

    Uploaded by

    Moin Khan
    16 views55 pages

    Original Title

    12_chapter 4 analysis and interpretation of the data

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views55 pages

    12 - Chapter 4 Analysis and Interpretation of The Data

    Uploaded by

    Moin Khan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 55
    Chapter-IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA The purpose of the present study was to compare the anthropometric measurements and motor performance of school boys of different age group and also establish the relationship of anthropometric measurements and motor performance of school boys with their age. The researcher also compares the anthropometric measurements and motor performance of school boys studying in different type of school management and locality. To achieve the purpose of the study, one thousand five hundred school boys were selected randomly from various schools who were studying in eight and ninth standard of secondary schools at Bangalore Urban and Rural districts. The age of the subjects ranged from 13-15 years. The variables selected for this study were anthropometric measurements in body weight, stature, iliospinale height, upper limb height, body breadth measurements in biacromial, chest, biiliac, elbow, knee and ankle, body circumferences in chest, upper arm and calf, body fat percentage and motor performance variables in speed by administering 30 M. Flying start, explosive strength by administering standing broad jump, agility by administering 6 x 10 M. Shuttle Run and balance by administering standing balance test. The data pertaining to the above criterion variables of school boys have been examined by One-way ANOVA for each variable, to see the significant difference between the mean scores among different age groups and type of school management of school boys, Scheffe’s test 104 was used for post hoc analysis and to know the relationship of criterion variables with age examined by using Pearson’s Product Moment Method of Correlation. The urban group differences in the criterion variables were assessed using unpaired ‘t’ test. In all the cases 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance was fixed to test the hypotheses. 4.1 ANALYSIS OF DATA: The data analysis is presented under the following three sections. Section-I : Pearson's Coefficient of Correlation Section-II_ : One-way ANOVA (F’ Test) Section-III ? test Analysis 105 SECTION-I PEARSON’S COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION The collected data was analyzed by using Pearson’s Product Moment Method of Correlation between age and criterion variables such as anthropometric measurements and motor performance variables and the results were presented as under: Anthropometric Measurements The data on anthropometric measurements of school boys and their age were statistically analyzed by using Pearson’s Product Moment Method of Correlation and the results were presented in the table-4.1 Table-4.1 Mean, Standard Deviation, Pearson’s Product Moment Method of Correlation of selected anthropometric measurements of school boys and their age. Ne. Variables Mean | Deviation |‘ value Body Weight and Heights 1._ [Body Weight 34.844 4.182 | 0.316" 2._| Stature 136.234 7.701 | 0.293 3.__| Miospinale height 112.770 7.865 | 0.310" 4._| Upper Limb height 54.010 4.428 |_0.240%* Body breadth measurements 5._| Biacromial 36.205 3.231 | -0.059* 6._| Chest 35.865 2.959 | 0.331% 7._|Billiac 34.974 2.954 | _0.264* 8._| Elbow 11.138 1.657 |_ 0.363 9._| Knee 12.642, 1.209 |_ 0.03658 10. [ Ankle 12.036, 1.051 | 0.287 Circumferences and body Fat % 11. [ Chest 71.730 5.919 | 0.271% 12. | Upper Arm 19.162 2.091 | 0.056" 13. | Calf 28.025 2.733 | 0.234" 14, [Body Fat Percentage 20.945 0.917 | -0.289% SSNot Significant; *Significant at 0.05 (1”=0.62) 0.01 level (‘r’=0.81) with df =1498 106 The table-4.1 shows that the Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlation values between the anthropometric measurements of school boys and their age such as body weight and height measurements such as body weight (0.316), stature (0.293), iliospinale height (0.310), upper limb height (0.240); body breadth measurements such as biacromial (-0.059 negative at 0.05 level); chest (0.331), biiliac (0.264), elbow (0.363) and ankle (0.287); body circumferences such as chest (0.271), upper arm (0.056 at 0.05 level), calf (0.234) and body fat percentage (-0.289 negative) of school boys were greater than the tabulated ‘”’ value at 0.01 level of confidence. Therefore, it was concluded that there was significant positive relationship between anthropometric measurements of school boys and their age in each variables separately and no significant relationship found with knee breadth measurement. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation values of anthropometric measurements of school boys and their age were graphically presented in Fig.4.1. Fig.4.1 Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation values between anthropometric measurements and age of school boys. 0 oY aa H ° it i heat bow ile hest alt oa sthture a & e ofl 02 Body Weght and Heights Body breadth measurements Cecumferences and body vos JC og ET 107 Motor Performance Variables The data on motor performance of school boys and their age were statistically analyzed by using Pearson’s Product Moment Method of Correlation and the results were presented in the table-4.2. Table-4.2 Mean, Standard Deviation, Pearson’s Product Moment Method of Correlation of selected motor performance variables of school boys and their age. fe. Variables Mean | Deviation |‘ value 1. [Speed 4.935 0.510 | -0.275** 2.__| Explosive Strength 1.599 0.361 | 0.377" 3._| Agility 16.884 1.118 | -0.503** 4. | Balance 32.126| 18.355] 0.441" *Significant at 0.01 level (r'=0.81) with df =1498 The table-4.2 shows that the Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlation values between the motor performance variables of school boys and their age such as speed (-0.275 Negative), (0.377), agility (-0.503 Negative) and Balance (0.441) of school boys were greater than the tabulated ‘’ value at 0.01 level of confidence. Therefore, it was concluded that “there was significant positive relationship between motor performance variables of school boys and their age in each variables separately.” The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation values of motor performance of school boys and their age were graphically presented in Fig.4.2. 108 Fig.4.2 Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation values between motor performance variables and age of school boys. 06 oa 02 ° 2 04 06 109 SECTION-IL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) I. Anthropometric Measurements : The results pertaining to the significant difference between the mean scores of selected anthropometric measurements of and motor performance variables among different age group school boys (13, 14 and 15 years) analyzed by using the One-Way Analysis of Variance are presented in the following tables: A) Body Weight and Heights Table-4.3 Analysis of Variance of body weight, stature, iliospinale height and upper limb height among different age group categories of school boys. Variable Source of ag | Sumof | Mean / F value Variation Squares _| Squares Between Groups 2 1807.365| 903.683 Went Within Groups 1497 | _15426.144 10.305| 87.69** Total 1499 |_17233.509 Between Groups 2| _3795.861| 1897.931 Stature [Within Groups| 1497] 40305.872| 26.924] 70.49* Total 1499 | _44101.733 iHospinate PBesveen Groups 2| _ 6416.068 | 3208.034 Height [Within Groups |" 1497 [“53633.556 |" 35.827] 89.54" Total 1499 | 60049624 Between Groups 2| 619.265 | 309.633 wo Within Groups 1497 | _9046.244 6.043] 51.23 Total 1499 | _9665.509 *P<0.05 Table F, df (2, 1497) (0.05) = 2.99; *P<0.01 Table F, df(2, 1497) (0.01)= 4.68 Table-4.3 a shows that the obtained F values are 87.69, 70.49, 89.54 and 51.23 which are higher than the table value 4.63 with df (2, 1497) required for significance at 0.01 level (P<0.01) indicating that it was significant at 0.01 level. It concludes that there was significant differences in the body weight, stature, iliospinale height and upper limb height mean scores among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped 110 school boys. Hence the stated null hypothesis that is “there was no significant difference in the body weight, stature, iliospinale height and upper limb height among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys” is rejected and in its place an alternative hypothesis has been accepted that “there was a significant difference in the body weight, stature, iliospinale height and upper limb height among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys” The body weight, stature, iliospinale height and upper limb height mean scores for 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys were 34.428, 35.232, 37.052; 136.184, 137.904, 140.072; 112.882, 113.910, 117.692 and 53.972, 54.278 and 55.462 respectively. To find out which of the three paired means had a significant difference, the Scheffe’s post-hoc test was applied and the results are presented in the Table-4.4 Table-4.4 Scheffe’s Post-Hoc Test for significant difference in the body weight, stature, iliospinale height and upper limb height mean scores between the groups Variables ‘Age Group ‘Mean Critical 13 years | 14 years | 1S years | Difference _| Difference ; 34.428 | 35.232 0.804" Bo et 35.232 | 37.052 1.820" 0.496 34.428 37.052 2.624" Stature [136.184 | 137.904 1.720" {In cms) 137.904 | 140.072 2.168* 0.802 136.184 140.072 3.888" Tiospinale [112.882 | 113.910 1.028" Height 113.910 | 117.692 3.782" 0.926 (in cms) 112.882 117.692 4.810 Upper Limb [53.972 [54.278 0.306 Height 54.278 | 55.462 1.184" 0.380 (in Cms) 53.972 55.462, 1,.490* "Significant at 0.05 level M1 Table-4.4 shows that the mean differences on body weight between 13 and 14 years; 14 and 15 years and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 0.804, 1.820 and 2.624 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.496 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in body weight between 13 and 14 years age group; 14 and 15 years age group and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are more body weight than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the body weight. Table-4.4 shows that the mean differences on stature between 13 and 14 years; 14 and 15 years and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 1.720, 2.168 and 3.888 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.802 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in stature between 13 and 14 years age group; 14 and 15 years age group and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are better stature than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the standing height. It also shows that the mean differences on iliospinale height between 13 and 14 years; 14 and 15 years and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 1.028, 3.782 and 4.810 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.926 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in iliospinale height between 13 and 14 years age group; 14 and 15 years age group and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are better iliospinale height than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the iliospinale height. 112 It also revealed that the mean differences on upper limb height between 14 and 15 years and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 1.184 and 1.490 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.380 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in upper limb height between 14 and 15 years age group and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are better upper limb height than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the upper limb height. The comparison mean scores of body weight and height measurements among different age group school boys are represented in graphical presentation in Fig.4.3 to Fig.4.6. Fig.4.3 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of body weight among different age group school students. 375 37 a fe & ‘Mean scores (In Kgs) & 34.428 36,232 37.052 18 years 14 years ‘Age Group 15 years Fig.4.4 different age group school students. Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of stature among 141 140 139 138 137 196 Mean scores (In Cms) 135 134 136.184 137.904 140.072 13 years 14 years Age Group 15 years 14 Fig.4.5 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of iliospinale height among different age group school students. 119 118 117.692 17 116 115 114 112.882 113 Mean scores (In Gms) 112 1 110 18 years 14 years 15 years Age Group Fig.4.6 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of upper limb height among different age group school students. 56 Mean scores (In Gms) « § 53.5 18 years 14 years 15 years ‘Age Group 5 B) Body Breadth Measurements Table-4.5 Analysis of Variance of body breadth measurements of biacromial, chest, biiliac, elbow, knee and ankle among different age group categories of school boys. Source of Sum of Mean Variable Variation af | squares | squares | F Value Between Groups 2 70.789 35.395 Biocromial Within Groups 1497 | 16293.120 10.884 3.25* Total 1499 | 16363.909 Between Groups 2 1400.497 | 700.249 Chest [Within Groups| 1497| 9484.652[ 6.336] 110.52* Total 1499 | 10885.149 Between Groups 2 945.769 | 472.885 Biiliac Within Groups 1497 | 11169.420 7.461) 63.37 Total 1499 | 12115.189 Between Groups 2 493.697 | 246.849 Elbow [Within Groups| 1497| 3006.422| 2.008] 122.91 Total 1499 3500.119 Between Groups 2 234.321 | 117.161 Knee Within Groups 1497 2042.246 1.364] 85.88** Total 1499 2276.567 Between Groups 2 152.452 76.226 Ankle: Within Groups 1497 1505.604 1.006 | 75.79** Total 1499 1658.056 *P<0.05 Table F, df (2, 1497) (0.05) = 2.99 ; *P<0.01 Table F, df (2, 1497) (0.01)= 4.63 Table-4.5 shows that the obtained F values are 3.25 (0.05), 110.52, 63.37, 122.91, 85.88 and 75.79 respectively which are higher than the table value 4.63 with df (2, 1497) required for significance at 0.01 level (P<0.01) indicating that it was significant at 0.01 level. It concludes that there was significant differences in the breadth measurements of biacromial, chest, biiliac, elbow, knee and ankle mean scores among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys. Hence the stated null hypothesis that is “there was no significant difference in the breadth measurements of biacromial, chest, biiliac, elbow, knee and ankle among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys” is rejected and in its place an alternative hypothesis has been 116 accepted that “there was a significant difference in the breadth measurements of biacromial, chest, bill , elbow, knee and ankle among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys” The breadth measurements of biacromial, chest, biiliac, elbow, knee and ankle mean scores for 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys were 36.936, 36.492, 36.460; 34.862, 36.744, 37.046; 34.294, 35.768, 36.130; 10.476, 11.468, 11.834, 13.228, 12.340, 13.118 and 11.594, 12.180 and 12.334 respectively. To find out which of the these paired means had a significant difference, the Schefle’s post-hoc test was applied and the results are presented in Table-4.6. Table-4.6 Scheffe’s Post-Hoc Test for significant difference in the body breadth measurements of biacromial, chest, biiliac, elbow, knee and ankle mean scores between the groups. Variables ‘Age Group Mean Critical 13 years | 14 years | 15 years | Difference | Difference B 1 [36.936 [36.492 0.444 In cme). 36.492 | 36.460 0.032 0.475 {in ems} 36.936 36.460 | __0.476* ch 34,862 | 36.744 1.882" (iu ans) 36.744 | 37.046 0,302 0.389 . 34.862 37.046 2.184" ill 34.294 | 35,768 La7a (incms) 35.768 | 36.130 0.362 0.422 34,294 36.130 1.836" bb 10.476 | 11.468 0.992" (inems) 11.468 | 11.834 0.219 10.476 11.834 kn 13.228 | 12.340 ce 12.340 | 13.118 0.181 (In cms} 13.228 13.118 Ankl 11,594 [12.180 ae 12.180 | 12.334 0.155 (In cms} - 11,594 12.334 "Significant at 0.05 level Table-4.6 shows that the mean differences in the biacromial breadth between 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have uN7 significant paired mean differences and the value is 0.476 which is greater than the critical difference value of 0.475 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant difference exists in the biocromial breadth between 13 and 15 years age groups. The 13 years age group school boys are more biacromial breadth than 14 years and 15 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the biacromial breadth. Table-4.6 also shows that the mean differences on chest breadth between 13 and 14 years; and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 1.882 and 2.184 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.389 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in chest breadth between 13 and 14 years age group; and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 13 years age group school boys are more chest breadth than 14 years and 15 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the chest breadth. The table-4.6 further shows that the mean differences on biiliac breadth between 13 and 14 years; and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 1.474 and 1.836 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.422 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in biiliac breadth between 13 and 14 years age group; and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 14 years age group school boys are more biiliac breadth than 15 years and 14 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the biiliac breadth, It also shows that the mean differences on knee breadth between 13 and 14 years; and 14 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 0.888 and 0.778 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.181 11g at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in knee breadth between 13 and 14 years age group; and 14 and 15 years age groups. The 13 years age group school boys are more knee breadth than 15 years and 14 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the knee breadth. It also shows that the mean differences on ankle breadth between 13 and 14 years; and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 0.586 and 0.740 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.155 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in ankle breadth between 13 and 14 years age group; and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are more ankle breadth than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the ankle breadth. The comparison mean scores of body breadth measurements among different age group school boys are represented in graphical presentation in Fig.4.7 to Fig.4.12 119 Fig.4.7 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of biacromial breadth among different age group school students. 37 36.9 36.8 36.7 36.6 36.5 ‘Mean scores (In Cms) 36.4 36.3 36.2 13 years 14 years, 15 years Age Group Fig.4.8 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of chest breadth among different age group school students. 37.8 37.046 7 36.744 a 8 ‘Mean scores (In Cms) 35 34.862 34.5 4 33.6 13 years 14 years, 15 years Age Group Fig.4.9 120 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of biiliac breadth among different age group school students. among different age group school students. 36,500 36.130 36.000 35.768 @ 95.500 6 = 35,000 $ 34.500 34.294 3 seco 33.500 33,000 13 years 14 years 416 years Age Group Fig.4.10 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of elbow breadth 12.000 11.500 8 10.500 ‘Mean scores (In Cms) 10.000 9.500 10.476 11.468 11.83 18 years 14 years Age Group 15 years 121 Fig.4.11 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of knee breadth among different age group school students. 13.400 13.228 13.200 13.118 13.000 12.800 12.600 12.400 12.340 ‘Mean scores (In Cms) 12.200 12,000 11.800 18 years 14 years 15 years Age Group Fig.4.12 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of ankle breadth among different age group school students. 12.400 42.200 12.180 5 11.800 11.594 11.600 ‘Mean scores (In Cms) 11.400 11.200 18 years 14 years 15 years Age Group 122 C) Body Circumferences Table-4.7 Analysis of Variance of circumferences of chest, upper arm, calf and body fat percentage among different age group categories of school boys. Variable Source of af ‘Sum of Mean | Evalue jariation Squares_| Squares Between Groups 2|_3568.837 | 1784.419 Chest Within Groups 1497 | 39015.896| 26.063] 68.46% Total 1499 | 42584.733 Between Groups 2 20.748 | 10.374 Upper Arm | Within Groups 1497 | 6208.852 4.148] 2.5098 Total 1499 | 6229.600 Between Groups 2 761.649 | 380.825 Calf Within Groups 1497 [_11288.230 7541] 50.50 Total 1499 | 12049.879 Between Groups 2 110.398 | 55.199 Body Fat% [Within Groups 1497[ 150.918 0.769| 71.79% Total 1499 [1261316 *P<0.05 Table F, df 2, 1497) (0.08) = 2.99 *PC0.01 Table Fy at (a, 1497) (01 46S Table-4.7 shows that the obtained F-ratio is 2.50 which is less than the table value 2.99 and it was not significant at 0.05 level. Hence the null hypothesis i.e. “there was no significant difference in the upper arm circumference among different age grouped school boys” is accepted. The table-4.7 also shows that the obtained F values are 68.46, 50.50 and 71.79 which are higher than the table value 4.63 with df (2, 1497) required for significance at 0.01 level (P<0.01) indicating that it was significant at 0.01 level. It concludes that there was a significant difference in the chest circumference, calf circumference and body fat percentage mean scores among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys. Hence the stated null hypothesis that is “there was no significant difference in the chest circumference, calf circumference and body fat percentage among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys” is rejected and in its place an alternative hypothesis has been accepted 123 that “there was a significant difference in the chest and calf circumference & body fat percentage among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys”, The chest and calf circumference and body fat percentage mean scores for 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys were 70.560, 73.488, 74.092; 27.476, 28.842, 29.100 and 21.229, 21.028 and 20.580 respectively. To find out which of these paired means had a significant difference, the Scheffe’s post-hoc test was applied and the results are presented in the Table-4.8. Table-4.8 Scheffe’s Post-Hoc Test for significant difference in the chest circumference, calf circumference and body fat percentage mean scores between the groups. ‘Age Group Mean Critical Variables 73 years | 14 years | 15 years | Difference | Difference Chest 70.560 | 73.488 2.928 es ; (in Cms) 73.488 | 74.092 0.604 0.789 70.560 74.092 | 3.532" 27.476 | 28.842 1.366" Calf os (in Cms.) 28.842 | 29.100 0.258 0.425 27.476 29.100 1.624* Body Fat |_21.229 | 21.028 0.200 Percentage 21.028 | 20.580 | 0.448" 0.136 (in %) 21.229 20.580 0.648" “Significant at 0.05 level Table-4.8 shows that the mean differences of chest circumference and calf circumference between 13 and 14 years; 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 2.928, 3.532 and 1.366, 1.624 respectively which are greater than the critical difference values of 0.789 and 0.425 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in chest and calf circumference between 13 and 14 years age group; and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are more chest and calf circumference than 14 years and 13 years age groups. 124 The age factor was influenced in developing the chest and calf circumferences. Table-4.8 also shows that the mean differences of body fat percentage between 13 and 14 years; 14 and 15 years and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 0.200, 0..448 and 0.648 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.136 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in body fat percentage between 13 and 14 years age group; 14 and 15 years age group and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are less body fat percentage than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in reducing the body fat percentage. The comparison mean scores of body circumferences among different age group school boys are represented in graphical presentation in Fig.4.13 to Fig.4.15. 125 Fig.4.13 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of chest circumference among different age group school students. 78,000 —@ 74,082 74.000 788 B 73.000 & = 72.000 Eroe] mein 5 £ 70.000 69.000 68.000 13 years 14 years 18 years ‘Age Group Fig.4.14 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of calf circumference among different age group school students 29.500 29.100 29.000 28.842 28.500 Mean scores (in Gms) 8 8 27.476 27.500 27.000 26.500 18 years 14 years 15 years Age Group Fig.4.15 126 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of body fat percentage among different age group school students. 20.600 Mean scores (In %) 20.400 20.200 18 years 14 years ‘Age Group 15 years 127 Il. Motor Performance Variables Table-4.9 Analysis of Variance of speed, explosive strength, agility, and balance among different age group categories of school boys. Source of ‘Sum of | Mean Variable Variation at Squares | Squares | F Value Between Groups 2 29.681| 14.841 Speed [WithinGroups | 1497] 360.531 0.241| 61.62 Total 1499 | __ 290.212 Explosive PBewween Groups 2 3.669 1838 Seat [Within Groups [1497 21.855, 0.015 | 125.64 Total 1499 25.523 Between Groups 2| _193.439[ 96.720 Agility [Within Groups | 1497] 564.555 0.37 | 256.46" Total 1499 | __757.994 Between Groups 2| 68890.761 | 34445.281 Balance [Within Groups | 1497| 224475.42| 149.950 | 229.71" Total 1499 | _293366.18 *P<0.05 Table F, df (2, 1497) (0.05) = 2.99 ; *P<0.01 Table F, df(2, 1497) (0.01) 4.68 Table-4.9 shows that the obtained F values are 61.62, 125.64, 256.46 and 229.71 which are higher than the table value 4.63 with df (2, 1497) required for significance at 0.01 level (P<0.01) indicating that it was significant at 0.01 level. It concludes that there was a significant difference in the speed, explosive strength, agility and balance mean scores among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys. Hence the stated null hypothesis that is “there was no significant difference in the speed, explosive strength, agility and balance among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys” is rejected and in its place an alternative hypothesis has been accepted that “there was a significant difference in the speed, explosive strength, agility and balance among 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys” The speed, explosive strength, agility and balance mean scores for 13, 14 and 15 years age grouped school boys were 5.114, 4.919, 4.771; 1.510, 1.582, 1.630; 16.904, 16.529, 16.027; and 24.684, 26.262, 39.784 respectively. To find out which of these paired means had a significant difference, the Scheffe’s post-hoc test was applied and the results are presented in the Table-4.10. 128 Table-4.10 Scheffe’s Post-Hoc Test for significant difference in the speed, explosive strength, agility and balance mean scores between the groups. ‘Age Group Mean Difference & | Critical Variables | 13 years | 14 years | 15 years | Significance | Difference Level Speed Sii4_[ 4.919 0.195" ee 4919 [ 4771 0.148" 0.076 {in Secs.) = 5.114 4.771 0.343" Explosive | 1.510 | 1.582 0.072" Strength 1.582_| 1.630 0.048 0.019 (in meters) 1.510 1.630 0.120" Aci 16.904 | 16.529 0.375" eility 16.529 | 16.027 0.501* 0.095 {in Secs.) 16.904 16.027 0.876" Bal 24.684 | 26.262 1.578 Seng) 26.262 | 39.784 13.522" 1.894 (in Secs} 24.684 39.784 15.100" *Significant at 0.05 level Table-4.10 shows that the mean differences on speed between 13 and 14 years; 14 and 15 years and 13 and 15 years age grouped school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 0.195, 0.148 and 0.343 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.076 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in speed between 13 and 14 years age group; 14 and 15 years age group and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are high speed than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the speed. It also shows that the mean differences on explosive strength between 13 and 14 years; 14 and 15 years and 13 and 15 years age grouped school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 0.072, 0.048 and 0.120 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0.019 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was 129 concluded that significant differences exists in explosive strength between 13 and 14 years age group; 14 and 15 years age group and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are better explosive strength than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the explosive strength. It also shows that the mean differences on agility between 13 and 14 years; 14 and 15 years and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 0.375, 0.501 and 0.876 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 0,095 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in agility between 13 and 14 years age group; 14 and 15 years age group and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are better agility than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the agility, It also reveals that the mean differences in balance between 14 and 15 years and 13 and 15 years age groups school boys have significant paired mean differences and the values are 13.522 and 15.100 respectively which are greater than the critical difference value of 1.894 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that significant differences exists in balance between 14 and 15 years age group and 13 and 15 years age groups. The 15 years age group school boys are more balance than 14 years and 13 years age groups. The age factor was influenced in developing the of the body. The comparison mean scores of motor performance among different age group school boys are represented in graphical presentation in Fig.4.16 to Fig.4.19. Fig.4.16 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of speed among different age group school students. 5.200 Mean scores (in Secs.) x 8 i a 13 years 14 years 15 years ‘Age Group Fig.4.17 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of explosive strength among different age group school students 1.640 1.620 1,600 1.580 1.560 1.540 1.582 1.520 1.510 4.500 1.480 Mean scores (In Inches) 1.480 1.440 18 years 14 years 15 years ‘Age Group Fig.4.18 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of agility among different age group school students. 17.000 16.800 16.600 16.400 16.200 16.000 Mean scores (In Secs.) 15.800 15.600 15.400 18 years 14 years 15 years Age Group Fig.4.19 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of balance among different age group school students. 45.000 39.784 40.000 35.000 30.000 24.684 25.000 20.000 15.000 Mean scores (In Secs.) 10.000 5.000 0.000 13 years 14 years 16 years Age Group Il. Anthropometric Measurements : The results pertaining to the significant difference between the mean scores of selected anthropometric measurements of body weight, stature, Iliospinale height and upper limb height among school boys studying in different type of schools (Government, Private Aided and Private Unaided schools) analyzed by using the One-Way Analysis of Variance are presented in the following tables: A) Body Weight and Height Measurements : Table-4.11 Analysis of Variance of body weight, stature, iliospinale height and upper limb height among different type of school management categories of school boys. Variable | Variation | | squares | squares | F Value Between Groups 2 11.968 5.984 Woke Within Groups 1497 [_17221.542| 11.504] 0.52Ns Total 1499 |_17233,509 Between Groups 2[ _103.225| 51.612 Stature [Within Groups | 1497| 43998.508[ 29.391] 1.75% Total 1499 | 44101,733 Between Groups 2[_197.534| 98.767 ene Within Groups 1497| _59852.090| _39.981| 2.47"s Total 1499 | 60049.624 Between Groups 2 11.241 5,620 Oe Within Groups 1497| _9654.268 6.449| 0.8785 Total 1499 | _9665.509 *P<0.05 Table F, df (2, 1497) (0,05) = 2.99 ; *P<0.01 Table F, df (2, 1497) (0.01)= 4.63 Table-4.11 shows that the obtained F values are 0.52, 1.75, 2.47 and 0.87 which are less than the table value 2.99 with df (2, 1497) required for significance at 0.05 level (P<0.05) indicating that it was not significant at 0.05 level. It concludes that “there was no significant difference in the body weight, stature, iliospinale height and upper limb height mean scores among government, private aided and private unaided school boys.” B) Body Breadth Measurements : Table-4.12 Analysis of Variance of body breadth measurements in biacromial, chest, biiliac, elbow, knee and ankle among different type of school management school boys. Variable | Variation | @ | squares | squares | F Value Between Groups 2 18.246 9.123 Biocromial Within Groups 1497 | 16345.663 10.919 | 0.83xs Total 1499 | 16363.909 Between Groups 2 9.701 4.850 Chest Within Groups 1497 | 10875.448 7.265 | 0.6688 Total 1499 | 10885.149 Between Groups 2 15.581 7.791 Biiliac Within Groups | 1497 12099.608 8.083 | 0.96" Total 1499 | 12115.189 Between Groups 2 3.488 1.744 Elbow Within Groups| 1497[ 3496.632 2.336 | 0.74%8 Total 1499 3500.119 Between Groups 2 11.109 5.555 Knee Within Groups| 1497| 2265.458 1513] 3.67* Total 1499 2.276.567 Between Groups 2 2.576 1,288 Ankle Within Groups | 1497| 1655.480 1.106 | 1.16%5 Total 1499 1658.056 *P<0.05 Table F, df (2, 1497) (0.05) = 2.99; *P<0.01 Table F, df(2, 1497) (0.01) 4.68 Table-4.12 shows that the obtained F values are 0.83, 0.66, 0.96, 0.74 and 1.16 which are less than the table value 2.99 with df (2, 1497) required for significance at 0.05 level (P<0.05) indicating that it was not significant at 0.05 level. It concludes that “there was no significant difference in the breadth measurements in biacromial, chest, biiliac, elbow and ankle mean scores among government, private aided and private unaided school boys.” It also shows that the obtained F value 3.67 which is higher than the table value 2.99 with df (2, 1497) required for significance at 0.05 134 level (P<0.05) indicating that it was significant at 0.05 level. It concludes that there was significant difference in the knee breadth measurement mean scores among government, private aided and private unaided school boys. Hence the stated null hypothesis that is “there was no significant difference in the breadth measurement of knee among government, private aided and private unaided school boys” is rejected and in its place an alternative hypothesis has been accepted that “there was a significant difference in the knee breadth measurement of among government, private aided and private unaided school boys” The breadth measurement of knee mean scores for government, private aided and private unaided school boys are 12.803, 12.918 and 13.033 respectively. To find out which of these paired means had a significant difference, the Scheffe’s post-hoc test was applied and the results are presented in the Table-4.13. Table-4.13, Scheffe’s Post-Hoc Test for significant difference in the breadth measurement of knee mean scores between the groups ‘Age Group Mean Difference & | Critical Variables Private | Private Significance | Difference Government | "Alued | Unaidea | Sienifica Knee 12.803 | 12.918 0.115 Breadth 12.918 | 13.033 0.115 0.190 {in ems) 12.803 13.033 0.230* "Significant at 0.05 level Table-4.13 shows that the mean differences in the breadth measurement of knee between government and private unaided school boys have significant paired mean difference and the value is 0.230 135 which is greater than the critical difference value of 0.190 at 0.05 level of confidence. It was concluded that there was a significant difference exists in the knee breadth measurement between government and private unaided school boys. The private unaided school boys are better knee breadth than private aided and government school boys. The type of management factor was influenced in developing the knee breadth. The comparison mean scores of knee breadth among different type of school management school boys are represented in graphical presentation in Fig.4.20. Fig.4.20 Bar graph showing comparison mean scores of knee breadth among different type of school management school boys. 13.100 13,050 13.033 13,000 12.950 12.918 12.900 12,850 12.803 12,800 ‘Mean scores (In Gms.) 12.750 12.700 12.650 Government Private Aided Private Unaided Type of Management C) Circumference and Body Fat Percentage Table-4.14 Analysis of Variance of circumferences of chest, upper arm and calf and body fat percentage among different type of management school boys. Variable Source of af ‘Sum of Mean | Evalue Variation Squares_| Squares Between Groups 2 145.345 |___72.673 Chest Within Groups 1497 | 42439.388[ 28.350] 2.56%s Total 1499 | 42584.733 Between Groups 2 63.172 31.586 Upper Arm | Within Groups 1497 | 6166.428 4119] 7.66% Total 1499 | 6229.600 Between Groups 2 69.126 | 34.563 Calf Within Groups 1497 [_11980.753 8.003] 4.31% Total 1499 | 12049.879 Between Groups 2 5.556 2.778 Body Fat% [Within Groups 1497 | 1255.761 0.839] 3.31* Total 1499 [1261316 *P<0.05 Table F, df (2, 1497) (0.05) = 2.99 ; *P

    You might also like