CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter contains detailed presentation and discussion of data analysis and the results of this
study. The data are interpreted in response to the research objectives and research questions. A
collection of questionnaires was obtained and checked before data processing to ensure respondents
are expected to comply with the instructions. The data were analyzed using the methods of
quantitative analysis and SPSS version 25 for Windows is used for analysis. It also used frequency
tables and descriptive tables for presentation of results. A number of questions produced data of a
quantitative nature, in particular from questionnaires. Such data provided information that formed the
basis for discussion and results interpretation. The findings are presented under the following major
headings: demographic analysis; descriptive response on time management before and during MCO;
research productivity (Supervisory and Lab work) before and during MCO; and research productivity
(Publication) before and during MCO.

4.2 Reliability Test

The reliability test refers to the consistency of the research items in which the researcher contribute to
the respondents via online survey.

Table 4.2.1: Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha Values of Reliability

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized

Cronbach's Alpha Items N of Items
.865 .935 30

Fink (2003) pointed out that the reliability of a measure shows the accuracy and stability with which
the instrument calculates the ides and investigates the measure’s value. This research used Cronbach's
Alpha Test to check the measurement level of consistency. Table 4.2.1 shows that the Cronbach’s
Alpha Test was applied for reliability statistics. Cronchbach's Alpha Values of Reliability reveals that
the Alpha in Cronbach is 0.865. Meanwhile the number of items (N) is 30. In this context, the Alpha
value should be 0.70 or higher (Sekaran, 2003). As a rule of thumb, reliability coefficients of 0.8 or
above are within acceptable standards (Bryman and Cramer, 1997).
4.3 Normality Test

There are several methods to perform a normality test. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Shapiro-
Wilk test, and the Anderson-Darling test are among the most popular methods. Specifically, the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Shapiro-Wilk test are supported by IBM SPSS. The normality tests
are supplementary to the graphical assessment of normality among the variables.

Table 4.3.1: Kolmogrov- Smirnov Normality Test

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March
2020), approximately how
many hours per week have .187 171 .000 .907 171 .000
you spent supervising
students who are doing
research?

In two months during MCO

(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many
.220 171 .000 .886 171 .000
hours per week have you
spent supervising students
who are doing research?

In two months before MCO

(January to mid-March
2020), approximately how .260 171 .000 .861 171 .000
many times have you
supervise your student?

In two months during MCO

(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many .270 171 .000 .874 171 .000
times have you supervise
your student?

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Table 4.3.1 shows the Kolmogrov- Smirnov Normality Test which compare the scores in the sample
to a normally distributed set of scores with the same mean and standard deviation; the null hypothesis
is that “sample distribution is normal.” If the test is significant, the distribution is non-normal. For
small sample sizes, normality tests have little power to reject the null hypothesis and therefore small
samples most often pass normality tests (Oztuna, Elhan and Tucar, 2006). The main tests for the
assessment of normality are Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test due to the large sample (n≥50).
4.4 Demographic Analysis

Table 4.4.1: Profile of the Respondent

N %
1. I am a lecturer from
Universiti Malaysia Sabah 99 55.0
Universiti Teknologi MARA Sabah Kota 77 45.0
Kinabalu Campus
2. Gender
Male 86 50.3
Female 85 49.7
3. Race
Malay 93 54.4
Chinese 30 17.5
Indian 9 5.3
Bumiputera Sabah 34 19.9
Other 5 2.9
4. Marital Status
Single 59 34.5
Married 110 64.3
Divorced 2 1.2
5. Rank
Professor 10 5.8
Associate Lecture 29 17.0
Senior Lecture 50 29.2
Lecture 82 48.0
6. I am a full time lecturer
True 161 94.2
False 10 5.8
7. My field of study is
Social Science 67 39.2
Health Science 10 5.8
Political Science 14 8.2
Biology 14 8.2
Medicine 5 2.9
Mathematics 15 8.8
Physics 6 3.5
Computer Science 7 4.1
Engineering 13 7.6
Arts 8 4.7
Other 12 7.0
8. Number of Children
None 65 38.0
1 16 9.4
2 38 22.2
3 35 20.5
4 11 6.4
5 and above 6 3.5
9. Is your youngest child living at home younger than
18 years old?
No. He/She is 18 years old and above 29 17.0
Not Applicable 69 40.4
Yes 73 42.7
My youngest child is

0 - 5 years old 21 12.3

6 - 11 years old 34 19.9
12 - 17 years old 18 10.5
 Not applicable 98 57.3
10. Before MCO is implemented (before mid-March
2020), the primary child care for the youngest is
care center 14 8.2
cared by my relatives 4 2.3
cared by my partner 24 14.0
cared by a babysitter 13 7.6
cared by myself 14 8.2
Other 4 2.3
Not Applicable 98 57.3
11. Before MCO is implemented, I spend my time to
care for the youngest.
Not Applicable 98 57.3
3 2 1.2
4 5 2.9
5 11 6.4
6 23 13.5
7 17 9.9
8 9 5.3
9 3 1.8
10 3 1.8
12. During MCO is implemented (mid- March to late
May 2020), the primary child care for the youngest
is
care centre 3 1.8
cared by my relatives 4 2.3
cared by my partner 26 15.2
cared by a babysitter 3 1.8
cared by myself 33 19.3
Other 4 2.3
Not applicable 98 57.3
13. During MCO is implemented, I spend my time to
care for the youngest
Not applicable 98 57.3
4 4 2.3
5 1 .6
6 4 2.3
7 9 5.3
8 23 13.5
9 18 10.5
10 14 8.2

N= 171

The findings of this study showed that 55 percent of the respondents were the lecturers from
Universiti Malaysia Sabah and 45 percent from University Teknologi MARA Sabah Campus. From
Table 4.4.1, the female population was 49.7 percent, while the male population was 50.3 percent.
Based on the data collected, the result shows the majority of respondents are Malay 54.4 percent,
followed by Chinese 17.5 percent, Bumiputera Sabah 19.9 percent, Indian 5.3 percent and others 2.9
percent. In terms of occupational rank, the majority of respondents are Lecturer 48 percent and the
lowest was Professor with 5.8 percent. Besides, 64.3 percent of the population are those who are
married in status, which is greater than those who are single, where only 34.5 percent of them among
the population based on marital status. Table 4.4.1 also shows that 94.2 percent of the respondents are
 majority full time lecturer. Out of 171 respondents, 39.2 percent were coming from Social Science
field and Medicine field was the lowest with 2.9 percent. In terms of respondent’s number of children,
it was observed that respondents with no children was the highest percentage with 38 percent compare
to the respondents with children 5 and above with 3.5 percent. Other than that, the number of children
staying at home younger than 18 years old was the highest with 42.7 percent and 18 years above was
the least with 17.0 percent among the respondents. It also can be seen from the result, the range of
respondents’ youngest child ages are between 0 to 5, 6 to 11 years old and 12 – 17, where the majority
are hold by those who are not in the range of age with a total of 98 over 171 respondents.

Before MCO is implemented, the results show the respondents chose other option for the primary child
care of the youngest with a total of 98 over 171 respondents and the lowest was cared by relatives with a total of
4 over 171 respondents. From the results also, it can be seen that before the MCO is implemented, the
respondents spent their time to care for the youngest less than 3 times was the highest with 57.3
percent and the lowest was 3 times with 1.2 percent. On the other hand, during MCO is implemented,
it shows that the result primary child care of the youngest was the highest in the not applicable option with a
total of 98 over 171 respondents greater than other options and the lowest was cared by the care centre with a
total of 3 over 171 respondents. Lastly, during MCO is implemented, out of 171 respondents 57.3
percent spend their time to care for the youngest child and 5 times was the lowest with 0.6 percent.

4.5 Descriptive Analysis

Table 4.5.1: Descriptive Response of Time Management before and during MCO

Statement
Less More
1-2 3-4 5-6
than 1 than 6 Mean SD Var.
hours hours hours
hour hours
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many hours
6 41 57 45 22 3.21 1.058 1.120
per week have you spent
supervising students who are
doing research?
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many hours 4 39 75 33 20 3.15 0.982 0.965
per week have you spent on
publication tasks?
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many hours
9 38 74 29 21 3.09 1.045 1.092
per week have you spent
conducting your own experiment
or observation?
In two months during MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many hours
10 64 62 25 10 2.77 0.970 0.942
per week have you spent
supervising students who are
doing research?
In two months during MCO (Mid-
March to May 2020),
approximately how many hours 12 53 59 19 28 2.99 1.168 1.365
per week have you spent on
publication tasks?
In two months during MCO (Mid-
March to May 2020),
approximately how many hours
20 56 62 18 15 2.72 1.086 1.180
per week have you spent
conducting your own experiment
or observation?

N = 171

Table 4.5.1 shows that the descriptive response of time management before and during MCO was
implemented from January to mid-May 2020. From the table stated the mean, the standard deviation
(SD) and the variance. Table 4.5.1 shows that the highest frequency of time spent per week is between
3 to 4 hours, with a frequency of 57, 75, 74, 62, 59 and 62 hours on time management. The highest
mean on ‘two months before MCO, spent on supervising students who are doing research ’ with mean value
of 3.21. The second highest with mean 3.15 are before MCO, spent on publication tasks and the lowest
value of mean is in two months during MCO, spent conducting on experiment or observation with mean
2.72.

Table 4.5.3: Descriptive Response of Research Productivity (Supervisory & Lab Work)
Before and During MCO

More
1 2-5 6-10 11-15 than
Statement 0 Mean SD Var.
time times times times 15
times
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many times 5 11 84 53 10 8 3.44 0.977 0.954
have you supervise your
student?
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many times 9 15 84 45 10 8 3.33 1.056 1.116
have you conducted an
experiment or observation?
In two months during MCO 8 23 91 39 8 2 3.13 0.911 0.830
(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many times
have you supervise your
student?
In two months during MCO
(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many times 23 30 74 36 6 2 2.87 1.077 1.160
have you conducted an
experiment or observation?

N = 171

Table 4.5.2 shows the descriptive response of Lecturers from UMS and UiTM Sabah Branch Kota
Kinabalu Campus on research productivity (supervisory & lab work) before and during MCO. In the
table, the mean, standard deviation (SD) and variance are stated. Based on the Table 4.5.2, the highest
variables is ‘in two months before MCO (January to mid-March 2020), approximately how many
times have you supervise your student?’ with mean 3.44. The second highest mean 3.33 with the
variable ‘in two months before MCO (January to mid-March 2020), approximately how many times have you
conducted an experiment or observation? ’. Meanwhile, the lowest variables is ‘in two months during
MCO (mid-March to May 2020), approximately how many times have you conducted an experiment
or observation?’ with mean 2.87.

Table 4.5.3: Descriptive Response of Research Productivity (Publication) Before and During
MCO

More
0 1 2-4 5-7 8-10 than
Statement Mean SD Var.
time time times times times 10
times
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many times 21 24 74 40 8 4 3.01 1.127 1.270
have you serve as peer
reviewer?
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many times 38 24 63 32 9 5 2.80 1.288 1.658
have you serve as reviewer for
funding panel?
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many times 36 37 69 20 6 3 2.60 1.150 1.323
have you submitted new article
as first or corresponding author?
In two months before MCO 41 39 61 20 7 3 2.54 1.194 1.426
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many times
have you submitted new article
as senior author (indicated as
second or last author according
to your field)?
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many times 39 41 63 19 6 3 2.54 1.164 1.356
have you submitted new article
as co author?
In two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020),
approximately how many times 47 36 53 26 5 4 2.52 1.252 1.569
have you submitted or
resubmitted a grant application?
In two months during MCO
(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many times 33 48 64 19 3 4 2.55 1.118 1.249
have you serve as peer
reviewer?
In two months during MCO
(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many times 58 42 42 20 6 3 2.32 1.248 1.559
have you serve as reviewer for
funding panel?
In two months during MCO
(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many times 51 49 40 19 8 4 2.39 1.276 1.628
have you submitted new article
as first or corresponding author?
In two months during MCO
(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many times
have you submitted new article 49 53 41 19 5 4 2.36 1.221 1.490
as senior author (indicated as
second or last author according
to your field)?
In two months during MCO
(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many times 45 58 41 18 5 4 2.37 1.198 1.434
have you submitted new article
as co author?
In two months during MCO
(mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many times 49 56 39 15 9 3 2.35 1.229 1.510
have you submitted or
resubmitted a grant application?

N = 171

Table 4.5.3 shows that the descriptive statistics of research productivity (publication) before and
during MCO. In the table, the mean, standard deviation (SD) and variance are stated. The highest
variable is ' in two months before MCO (January to mid-March 2020), approximately how many times have
you serve as peer reviewer?’ with a mean 3.01. The second highest attribute is ' in two months before MCO
(January to mid-March 2020), approximately how many times have you serve as reviewer for funding panel?’
with mean 3.77. The lowest variable is 'in two months during MCO (mid-March to May 2020),
approximately how many times have you serve as reviewer for funding panel?’ with mean 2.3.

4.6 Inferential Analysis

This section shows the inferential analysis of the Productivity level for the variables; Productivity
(Publication) and Supervisory and Lab Work with Time management among public universities
lecturers in Sabah. The second part of this analysis showed the relationship of the variables using
Pearson’s correlation statistical analysis. Both results are shown in table 4.6.1 and 4.6.2

Table 4.6.1: Inferential Analysis: Finding From Objective 1

Mean N %

Productivity (Publication) 2.52 Somewhat Low (1- 2.99) 113 66.1

Time Management 2.98 Somewhat Low (1-2.99) 86 50.3

Productivity (Supervisory and 3.19 Moderate (3.00-3.99) 115 67.3

Lab Work)

N=171

Table 4.6.1 showed that the level of Productivity (Publication), Time management and Productivity
(Supervisory and Lab Work) among respondents. The highest mean scale stated is in between 3.00 –
3.99, where 115 out of 171 respondents are within moderate level of Productivity in terms of
supervisory and workload. Meanwhile, the second highest is Time management level in scale of
somewhat low and the mean value is 2.98 which is equal to 50.3%. While, the lowest mean scale is in
between 1.00 - 2.99 with 67.8% of them are in low level of Productivity (publication) which equal to
113 respondents.

Table 4.6.1: Inferential Analysis: Finding From Objective 2

Correlations

Time_Manage Productivity_Publicati Productivity_Supervisor

ment on y_Labwork

Pearson
1 .258** .477**
Correlation
Time_Management
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000

N 171 171 171

 Pearson
.258** 1 .482**
Correlation
Productivity_Publication
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000

N 171 171 171

Pearson
.477** .482** 1
Correlation
Productivity_Supervisor
y_Labwork Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 171 171 171

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

As an interpretation, section B represents the Time management before and during MCO; section C
represents Research Productivity (Supervisory and Lab Work) and Research Productivity
(Publication) before and during MCO. After examining the coefficient and its associated significance
p-value, the result of Spearman’s rho revealed that there is a significant relationship between Time
management and Productivity both in terms of Publication and Lab Work. As stated in the table
above, (r=0.258, p<0.05), a weak relationship between the time management and Productivity
(Publication) are exist, positively. Therefore, the higher level of time management, the productivity
also increases among respondents. The bivariate correlation between the level of time management
and Productivity (Publication) was then undertaken. Other than that, the table also shows that there is
a relationship between time management and Productivity (Supervisory and Lab work). As stated
above, (r=0.477, p<0.05), a positive moderate level of relationship exists between the level of time
management and Productivity (Supervisory and Lab work). Therefore, results of the correlation
indicated that the higher level of time management is associated with the level of productivity in
Supervisory and Lab work among respondents.