• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this document? Why not share!

Employee data

on

  • 1,947 views

Analysis of Employee data of SPSS demo file.

Analysis of Employee data of SPSS demo file.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,947
Views on SlideShare
1,889
Embed Views
58

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
34
Comments
0

3 Embeds 58

http://thevivekkumar.com 46
http://www.linkedin.com 9
https://www.linkedin.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Employee data Employee data Document Transcript

    • Lakshami Through Sarasawati<br />Summary: This study is an interpretation of employee data. This study reveals those education level and job categories are gender biased. It is found that among all the employees, females are less educated. On the other hand, it reveals that more education level is needed for better jobs.<br />People do job to satisfy their different needs by earning the money (Lakshami) .As per the research, more educated (Sarasawati) people are getting better job. Hence we can conclude it is not Lakshami Vs Sarasawati, Instead it is “Lakshami Thorough Sarasawati”.<br />________________________________________________________________________________________<br />Introduction of Data<br />Employee data has been interpreted and result has been explained in this report. This data is having nine attributes those attributes are gender, birth day, education level (Year), Job category, current Salary, Beginning salary, Month since hire, Previous experience and Minority classification. Some new attribute is derived from above nine attribute like male (binary value for gender that may be 0 or 1) and age (derived from date of birth).<br />Analysis <br />
      • It’s a need to test weather female are less educated then male i.e. is education level gender biased? (Refer: Appendix I)
      • Hypothesis:
      H0:μMale = μfemale (Null Hypothesis is that mean of education level is same for male and female)<br />Ha:μMale ≠ μfemale (Alternate hypothesis is mean of education level is not same for male and female)<br />Significance Level α 0.05 (i.e. Rejection Region - Reject the null hypothesis if p-value ≤ 0.05)<br />
      • Nature of Data and appropriate statistical tool:
      In this case, attribute “education level” and “gender” need to be interpreted from the employee data. Here “education level” is a continuous variables and “gender” is a categorical variable. By Q-Q plot ( REF _Ref265857988 h Figure 1 , Appendix I), it is found that the continuous variable “educational level” is normal is nature since observed values in Q-Q plot is approximately on expected values. Also we found that skewness and Kurtosis of “education level” is -0.114 and -0.265 which is acceptable region to say data is approximately normal to proceed for independent sample t-test. Also we need to identify the outlier for education level. A box plot is drawn to remove the outlier but we did not identified any outlier for education level (number of year of education)<br />
      • Independent sample t-test: Discussion of Result
      Now to proceed with independent sample t-test (Appendix I), it is mandatory to check the variance of “education level” for male and female. By “Levene’s Test of equality of variance” (Table 2, Appendix I), we can see significance level is less than 0.05 i.e. it can be interpreted that variance for educational level for both the category is not significantly equals. Since variance is not equal for male and female, we need to see significance level for t-test under “Equal variance not assumed”. Significance level for t-test under “Equal variance not assumed” is .000 (less than .05) and hence null hypothesis is rejected. Hence we can conclude that education level for male and female is not equal. Now the mean of education level for male and female are 14.43 and 12.37 (Table 1: Appendix 1) respectively. Since mean of education level for female is lower than the same of male hence we can say female are less educated than male.<br />
      • It’s a need to test weather more education gives better Job (Refer Appendix II)
      • Hypothesis:
      H0:μClerical = μCustodian= μManger (Null Hypothesis that mean of all category are equal)<br />Ha: Not all the Mean are equal (Alternative hypothesis)<br />Significance Level α = 0.05 (i.e. Rejection Region - Reject the null hypothesis if p-value ≤ 0.05)<br />
      • Nature of Data and appropriate statistical tool:
      In this case attribute “education level” is a continuous variable and job category is a categorical variable which has more than two categories (i.e. Custodial, Clerical and Manager). For the normality check of variable “education level” is explained in previous section of this report and it is found that education level is approximately normal. Since here more than two groups for variable “job category” is available we need to apply ANOVA instead of independent sample t-test.<br />
      • ANOVA : Discussion of Result
      • Null hypothesis will be rejected since by ANOVA test we found that F=68.49 and p=.000 (which is less than .05). Rejections of Null hypothesis conclude that education level for all category of job is not equal. Now we have calculated the mean of education level for all three categories. We found mean for manager, clerical and custodian is 17.25, 12.87 and 10.87 respectively. It shows maximum educational level is required for manager and least is required for custodian.
      • It’s a need to test weather job category is gender biased (Refer: Appendix III)
      • Hypothesis:
      • H0: Job category is independent of gender
      • Ha: Job category is NOT independent of gender
      Significance Level α 0.05 (i.e. Rejection Region - Reject the null hypothesis if p-value ≤ 0.05)<br />
      • Nature of Data and appropriate statistical tool: Here we need to test relationship between two categorical variables; those are Job category and gender. To make the relationship between two categorical variables we should go for a chi-square test. In SPSS, Chi-square test can be done through Cross tab. Also we need to test one more requirement to proceed for chi-square test, that is in contingency table expected frequency should not be less than five.
      • Chi-Square : Discussion of Result - The result indicated that there is no statistical significant relationship between the type of job and gender with significance level of 0.05 (chi-square with two degree of freedom = 79.277, p=0.000)
      3. Conclusion: This study is an interpretation of employee data. This study reveals those education level and job categories are gender biased. It is found that among all the employees, females are less educated. On the other hand, it reveals that more education level is needed for better job.<br />Appendix I : Independent Sample t-test<br /> Group StatisticsGenderNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanEducational Level (years)Male25814.432.979.185Female21612.372.319.158<br />Table 1 : Group Statistics, From Independent sample t-test<br />Table 2 : Independent Sample t-test<br />Figure 1 : Q-Q plot for " Education Level" to check the normality<br />Appendix II : ANOVA for education level and Job Category<br />Table 3 : ANOVA for Education level and Job Category<br />Educational Level (years)Employment CategoryMeanNStd. DeviationClerical12.873632.333Custodial10.19272.219Manager17.25841.612Total13.494742.885<br />Table 4: Mean for Job category, from ANOVA<br />Appendix III : Cross Tab<br />Gender * Employment Category CrosstabulationEmployment CategoryClericalCustodialManagerTotalGenderFemaleCount206010216Expected Count165.412.338.3216.0% within Gender95.4%.0%4.6%100.0%MaleCount1572774258Expected Count197.614.745.7258.0% within Gender60.9%10.5%28.7%100.0%TotalCount3632784474Expected Count363.027.084.0474.0% within Gender76.6%5.7%17.7%100.0%<br />Table 5 : Contingency table ,From Cross Tab<br />Table 6 : Chi-square Test, from Cross tab<br />