Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lampiran 4 Hasil Analisis

    Uploaded by

    Rahmanita Sakwati
    6 views4 pages
    This document analyzes survey results from 32 respondents. It finds that: 1. 59.6% of respondents were male and 40.6% were female. Respondents with average report card scores over 7 had better nutrition status than those below 7. 2. Students with poor nutrition status were more likely to have low average report card scores (62.5% vs 37.5%). 3. Students with poor nutrition status were 20 times more likely to have low average scores compared to those with better nutrition status.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document analyzes survey results from 32 respondents. It finds that: 1. 59.6% of respondents were male and 40.6% were female. Respondents with average report card scores over 7 had better nutrition status than those below 7. 2. Students with poor nutrition status were more likely to have low average report card scores (62.5% vs 37.5%). 3. Students with poor nutrition status were 20 times more likely to have low average scores compared to those with better nutrition status.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views4 pages

    Lampiran 4 Hasil Analisis

    Uploaded by

    Rahmanita Sakwati
    This document analyzes survey results from 32 respondents. It finds that: 1. 59.6% of respondents were male and 40.6% were female. Respondents with average report card scores over 7 had better nutrition status than those below 7. 2. Students with poor nutrition status were more likely to have low average report card scores (62.5% vs 37.5%). 3. Students with poor nutrition status were 20 times more likely to have low average scores compared to those with better nutrition status.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4

    Lampiran 4 Hasil Analisis

    1. Univariat

    jenis kelamin responden

    Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative


    Percent

    P "Perempuan" 13 40,6 40,6 40,6

    Valid L "Laki-laki" 19 59,6 59,6 100,0

    Total 32 100,0 100,0

    jenis kelamin responden * nilai rata rata raport dalam 6 bulan Crosstabulation

    nilai rata rata raport dalam 6


    bulan

    kurang baik jika baik, jika nilai


    nilai rata-rata rata-rata
    raport <7 raport >7

    P Count 4 9
    "Perempuan
    % within jenis
    " 40% 40,9%
    jenis kelamin kelamin responden
    responden
    Count 6 13
    L "Laki-laki"
    % within jenis
    60% 59,1%
    kelamin responden

    Count 10 22
    Total
    % within jenis
    100% 100%
    kelamin responden
    jenis kelamin responden * STATUSGIZI Crosstabulation

    STATUSGIZI

    GIZI GIZI
    KURANG BAIK
    BAIK

    P Count 9 8
    "Perempua % within jenis kelamin
    56,25% 50%
    jenis kelamin n" responden
    responden Count 7 8
    L "Laki-laki" % within jenis kelamin
    43,75% 50%
    responden
    Count 16 16
    Total % within jenis kelamin
    100% 100%
    responden

    nilai rata rata raport dalam 6 bulan

    Gizi Percent Gizi Baik Percent


    Kurang
    Baik

    kurang baik jika nilai


    10 62,5 0 0
    rata-rata raport <7

    Valid baik, jika nilai rata-rata


    6 37,5 16 100,0
    raport >7

    Total 16 100,0 16 100,0

    2. Bivariat

    Case Processing Summary


    Cases

    Valid Missing Total

    N Percent N Percent N Percent

    statusgizikurangbaik *
    nilai rata rata raport 16 100,0% 0 0,0% 16 100,0%
    dalam 6 bulan

    statusgizikurangbaik * nilai rata rata raport dalam 6 bulan Crosstabulation

    nilai rata rata raport dalam 6 bulan Total

    kurang baik jika nilai baik, jika


    rata-rata raport <7 nilai rata-
    rata raport
    >7

    Count 8 1 9
    GIZI % within
    KURANG statusgizik 88,9% 11,1% 100,0%
    statusgizikurang urangbaik
    baik Count 2 5 7

    % within
    GIZI LEBIH
    statusgizik 28,6% 71,4% 100,0%
    urangbaik
    Count 10 6 16

    % within
    Total
    statusgizik 62,5% 37,5% 100,0%
    urangbaik

    Chi-Square Tests

    Value df Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-


    (2-sided) sided) sided)

    Pearson Chi-Square 6,112 a


    1 ,013
    Continuity Correction b
    3,810 1 ,051
    Likelihood Ratio 6,515 1 ,011
    Fisher's Exact Test ,035 ,024
    Linear-by-Linear
    5,730 1 ,017
    Association
    N of Valid Cases 16
    a. 3 cells (75,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,63.
    b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

    Risk Estimate

    Value 95% Confidence Interval

    Lower Upper

    Odds Ratio for


    statusgizikurangbaik (GIZI 20,000 1,416 282,449
    KURANG / GIZI LEBIH)
    For cohort nilai rata rata
    raport dalam 6 bulan =
    3,111 ,943 10,266
    kurang baik jika nilai rata-
    rata raport <7
    For cohort nilai rata rata
    raport dalam 6 bulan = baik, ,156 ,023 1,047
    jika nilai rata-rata raport >7
    N of Valid Cases 16

    You might also like