Statistical Analysis.02.06.2022 (1).pdf

Chapter -
Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretations
Introduction
Data Analysis is a key phase of research work. The present chapter entitled ‘Data Presentation,
Analysis and Interpretation comprised of four sections Part ‘A’, Part ‘B’ and the details of each
section are given below,
A. Presentation, analysis and interpretation of data is done with help of sorting the raw data,
its coding, classification and tabulation, percentage calculation and drawing the
inferences.
B. Statistical Analysis is done by using measures of central tendency, measures of variation,
Testing of Hypothesis is done by using statistical tools like One Sample t test, ANOVA
etc. In the present chapter the information comprising to several variables is presented in
order to pertain a fair comprehensive profile of respondents
This chapter begins with the information on the Clinical results and the description of the
respondent’s demographic information. The descriptive analysis of the variables used in this
study is also presented. This is followed closely by the testing of the hypotheses formulated for
this study and presented in the order of the hypotheses. Each hypothesis focused on the variables
of the research with dependent and independent variable.
The analysis of the hypotheses is carried out based on the statistical tools adopted. The
researcher’s position in this study is clearly stated under result presentation and discussion.
These views are within the theoretical framework of this study.
Reliability test is the most common measure of internal consistency ("Reliability"). It is most
commonly used. After testing the reliability we can conclude for normality of the data so here we
checked the normality. As researcher found that the data is normal, we used the parametric test
so researcher used the one sample t test, ANOVA for analysis.
Note:For all the statistical tests, p<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, keeping α
error at 5% and β error at 20%, thus giving a power to the study as 80%.
* = statistically significant difference (p<0.05)
** = statistically highly significant difference (p<0.01)
# = non significant difference (p>0.05) … for all tables
Survey Results
Survey Results of this study are analyzed using SPSS 25 (SPSS, Inc., 2020) statistical program.

Table No 1: Age Distribution
Age Group Distribution
Parameter Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
30 To 40 9 25.0 25.0 25.0
40 To 50 14 38.9 38.9 63.9
50 to 60 8 22.2 22.2 86.1
60 to 70 5 13.9 13.9 100.0
Total 36 100.0 100.0
(Source: Primary Data)
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Variance
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std.
Error Statistic Statistic
Age 36 31 66 46.56 1.769 10.611 112.597
Graph No 1: Age Group Distribution
Interpretation:
Age distribution has scattered in the age group of 40 to 30 with sample size of 36 was 38.9
percent. In the age group 30 to 40, it was 25 percent while in the age group of 50 to 60 it was
22.2 percent. Age distribution has mean 46.56 with S.D. 10.611.
0
10
20
30
40
30 To 40 40 To 50 50 to 60 60 to 70
Age Group Distribution
Series1 Series2

Table No 1: Gender Distribution
Gender
Parameter Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Female 20 55.6 55.6 55.6
Male 16 44.4 44.4 100.0
Total 36 100.0 100.0
Graph No 2: Gender Distribution
Interpretation:
Gender distribution has scattered in the female group 55.6 percent and in a male group it is 44.4
6 percent .
Table No 3: Diet Distribution
Diet
Parameter
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Mixed 36 100.0 100.0 100.0
Veg 0 0 0 0
Total 37 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:
From table no 3 , it was seen that in a sample size of 36 , 100 percent respondents having mixed
diet .
44.4%
55.6 %
Gender Distribution
1 2

Table No 4: Occupation Distribution
Occupation
Parameter Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Business 1 2.8 2.8 2.8
Employe 1 2.8 2.8 5.6
Engineer 6 16.7 16.7 22.2
farming 1 2.8 2.8 25.0
Housewife 12 33.3 33.3 58.3
Job 6 16.7 16.7 75.0
Lawyer 1 2.8 2.8 77.8
Peon 1 2.8 2.8 80.6
Retired 1 2.8 2.8 83.3
Salesman 1 2.8 2.8 86.1
shopkeeper 2 5.6 5.6 91.7
Teacher 1 2.8 2.8 94.4
veg.vendor 1 2.8 2.8 97.2
webdesigner 1 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 36 100.0 100.0
Graph No 3: Occupation Distribution
Interpretation:
From the above table, 33.3 % respondents were housewife, 16.7 % was engineer and 16.7 %
were having job, rest 2.8 were from all sectors like business, employment, farming, lawer, poen,
retired person, salespersons, shopkeepers etc.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Business
Employe
Engineer
farming
Housewife
Job
Lawyer
Peon
Retired
Salesman
shopkeeper
Teacher
veg.vendor
webdesigner
Occupation Distribution
Series1 Series2

Table No 5: HODM Distribution
HODM Distribution
Parameters Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Absent 24 66.7 66.7 66.7
Present 12 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 36 100.0 100.0
Graph No 4: HODM Distribution
Interpretation:
In HODM was absent 66.7 % as well as it was present 33.3 % respondents.
26%
74%
HODM
1
2

Table No 5: Shoulder Joint Involvement Distribution
Shoulder joint Involvement
Parameters Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Bilateral 5 13.9 13.9 13.9
Left 17 47.2 47.2 61.1
Right 14 38.9 38.9 100.0
Total 36 100.0 100.0
Graph No 5: Shoulder Joint Involvement Distribution
Interpretation:
From the above table , respondents had shoulder joint involvement 47.2 % at right side , 38.9 %
at right side and 13.9 % had bilateral side.
14%
47%
39%
Shoulder Joint Involvement
Bilateral
Left
Right

Table No 6: Chronicity Distribution
Chronicity_1
Chronic in Months Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
.5 2 5.6 5.6 5.6
.6 2 5.6 5.6 11.1
1.0 18 50.0 50.0 61.1
2.0 2 5.6 5.6 66.7
3.0 5 13.9 13.9 80.6
5.0 3 8.3 8.3 88.9
6.0 4 11.1 11.1 100.0
Total 36 100.0 100.0
Graph No 6: Chronicity Distribution
Interpretation:
From the above table , respondents had maximum joint pain of 1 month as 50 % ,3 months
chronic pain as 13.9 % , and 6 months chronic pain was for 11.1 % , 5 months chronic pain was
for 8.3 % .Total near about 80 % respondents had chronic pain.
0
10
20
30
40
50
.5 .6 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 6.0
Chronicity Distribution
Series1 Series2

Table No 7: Bahushool Distribution
Bahushool Distribution
Bahushool Scale
Before Treatment After Treatment
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Valid
No Pain 0 0 1 2.8
Mild pain,can do strenuous
work with difficulty
3 8.3 25 69.4
Moderate pain can do normal
work with support
23 63.9 10 27.8
Severe pain,unable to do any
work at all
10 27.8 0 0.0
Total 36 100.0 36 100.0
Graph No 7: Bahushool Distribution
Interpretation:
It was seen that before treatment ,there was 63.9 % respondents has a moderate pain that is they
can work with support ,27.8 % has severe pain that they was unable to work but only 8.3 % has
mild pain but after the treatment 69.4% respondents reduced to mild pain and 27.8 %
respondents reduced to moderate pain .
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Bahushool Distribution
No Pain
Mild pain,can do strenuous work with
difficulty
Moderate pain can do normal work with
support
Severe pain,unable to do any work at all

Table No 8: Bahuprapanditahar Distribution
Bahupraspanditahar Distribution
Bahupraspanditahar Scale
Valid
No stiffness 0 0 9 25.0
Mild,has difficulty in moving the
joint without support
12 33.3 24 66.7
Moderate,has difficulty in
moving,can lift only with
support
22 61.1 3 8.3
Severe,unable to lift 2 5.6 0 0.0
Total 36 100.0 36 100.0
Graph No 8: Bahupraapanditahar Distribution
Interpretation:
It was seen that before treatment ,there was 61.1 % respondents has a moderate difficulty in
moving bahu can lift only with support, 33.3 % has mild difficulty in moving the joint without
support ,only 5.6 % has severe difficulty but after the treatment 66.7% respondents reduced to
mild pain and 25 % respondents reduced to no stiffness in bahuprapanditahar .
0
20
40
60
80
Bahupraspanditahar Scale
No stiffness
Mild,has difficulty in moving the joint without support
Moderate,has difficulty in moving,can lift only with support
Severe,unable to lift

Table No 9: Abduction Distribution
Abduction Distribution
Abduction scale
Valid
0-45 Degree 12 33.3 0 0.0
45-90 Degree 24 66.7 9 25.0
90-135 Degree
23 63.9
24 66.7
135-180 Degree 10 27.8 3 8.3
Total 36 100.0 36 100.0
Graph No 9: Abduction Distribution
Interpretation:
It was seen that before treatment, there was 66.6 % respondents who can move their abduction in
45 to 95 degree , 63.9 % respondents who can move their abduction in 90 to 135 degree, 33.3 %
has respondents who can move in 0 to 45 degree and 27.8 % respondents who can move in 135
to 180 degree but after treatment 66.7 % respondents who can move their abduction in 90 to 135
degree, there was 25 % respondents who can move their abduction in 45 to 95 degree.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Abduction Distribution
0-45 Degree 45-90 Degree 90-135 Degree 135-180 Degree

Table No 10: Extension Distribution
Extension Distribution
Extension Scale
Valid
0-45 Degree 5 13.9 0 0.0
45-90 Degree 25 69.4 11 30.6
90-135 Degree 6 16.7 18 50.0
135-180 Degree 0 0.0 7 19.4
Total 36 100.0 36 100.0
Graph No 10: Extension Distribution
Interpretation:
It was seen that before treatment, there was 69.4 % respondents who have extension in 45 to 95
degree , 16.7 % respondents who can move their extension in 90 to 135 degree, 13.9 % has
respondents who has extension in 0 to 45 degree but after treatment 50 % respondents who can
move their extension in 90 to 135 degree, there was 30.6 % respondents who has extension in 45
to 95 degree and 19.4% respondents has extension 135 to 180 degree.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Extension Distribution

Table No 11: Flexion Distribution
Flexion Distribution
Flexion Scale
Valid
0-45 Degree 9 25.0 0 0.0
45-90 Degree 25 69.4 7 19.4
90-135 Degree 2 5.6 25 69.4
135-180 Degree 0 0.0 4 11.1
Total 36 100.0 36 100.0
Graph No 11: Flexion Distribution
Interpretation:
It was seen that before treatment, there was 69.4 % respondents who have extension in 45 to 95
degree , 5.6 % respondents who can move their extension in 90 to 135 degree, 25 % has
respondents who has extension in 0 to 45 degree but after treatment 69.4% respondents who can
move their extension in 90 to 135 degree, there was 19.4 % respondents who has extension in 45
to 95 degree and 11.1% respondents has extension 135 to 180 degree.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Flexion Distribution

Table No 12: Internal Rotation Distribution
Internal Rotation Distribution
Internal Rotation Flexion Scale
Valid
Upto 90 Degree 0 0.0 7 19.4
Upto 60 Degree 6 16.7 26 72.2
Upto 30 Degree 29 80.6 3 8.3
Upto 0 Degree 1 2.8 0 0.0
Total 36 100.0 36 100.0
Graph No 12: Internal Rotation Distribution
Interpretation:
It was seen that before treatment, there was 80.6 % respondents who has internal rotation flexion
scale upto 30 degree , 16.7 % has internal rotation upto 60 degree and 2.8 % respondents has
internal rotation upto 0 degree but after treatment 72.2% respondents has internal rotation upto
60 degree and 19.4 % respondents has internal rotation upto 90 degree.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Internal Rotation Distribution
Upto 90 Degree Upto 60 Degree Upto 30 Degree Upto 0 Degree

Table No 13: External Rotation Distribution
External Rotation Distribution
External Rotation Flexion
Scale
Valid
Upto 90
Degree
0 0.0 7 19.4
Upto 60
Degree
21 58.3 27 75.0
Upto 30
Degree
15 41.7 2 5.6
Upto 0
Degree
0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 36 100.0 36 100.0
Graph No 13: External Rotation Distribution
Interpretation:
It was seen that before treatment, there was 58.3 % respondents who has external rotation
flexion scale upto 60 degree , 41.7 % has external rotation upto 30 degree but after treatment
75% respondents has external rotation upto 60 degree and 19.4 % respondents has external
rotation upto 90 degree.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
External Rotation Distribution
Upto 90 Degree Upto 60 Degree Upto 30 Degree Upto 0 Degree

Table No 14: Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics
Parameter
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Variance
Confidence
Interval
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std.
Error
Statistic Statistic Statistic
Chronicity_1 36 0.5 6.0 2.172 0.3103 1.8620 3.467 2.172± 1.86
Bahushool 0
BT 36 1 3 2.19 0.096 0.577 0.333 2.19 ± 0.577
AT 36 0 2 1.25 0.083 0.500 0.250 1.25 ± 0.50
Bahupraspanditahar 0
BT_A 36 1 3 1.72 0.094 0.566 0.321 1.72 ± 0.566
AT_A 36 0 2 0.83 0.093 0.561 0.314 0.83 ± 0.566
ABDUCTION 0
BT_B 36 2 3 2.33 0.080 0.478 0.229 2.33 ± 0.478
AT_B 36 0 2 1.17 0.093 0.561 0.314 1.172± 0.562
Extension 0
BT_C 36 1 3 1.97 0.093 0.560 0.313 1.97 ± 0.56
AT_C 36 0 2 1.11 0.118 0.708 0.502 1.11 ± 0.708
Flexion 0
BT_D 36 1 3 2.19 0.087 0.525 0.275 2.19 ± 5.25
AT_D 36 0 2 1.08 0.092 0.554 0.307 1.08 ± 0.554
Internal Rotation 0
BT_E 36 1 3 1.86 0.071 0.424 0.180 1.86 ± 0.424
AT_E 36 0 2 0.89 0.087 0.523 0.273 0.89 ± 0.523
External Rotation 0
BT_F 36 1 2 1.42 0.083 0.500 0.250 1.42 ± 0.500
AT_F 36 0 2 0.86 0.081 0.487 0.237 0.86 ± 0.487
Valid N (listwise) 0
Interpretation:
From the above table it was seen that chronity has mean 2.172 with Standard deviation of 3.467
and follows in a confidence interval of 2.172± 1.86.
Bhabushool has mean 2.19 which was reduced to 1.25 after treatment with S.D. 0.250.
Bahupraspanditahar has mean 1.72 which was reduced to 0.83 with standard deviation 0.561
.Abduction has mean 2.33 which was reduced to 1.17 with standard deviation 0.561 as
confidence interval 1.172± 0.562.
Extension has mean 1.97 which was reduced to 1.11 with standard deviation 0.708 as confidence
interval 1.11 ± 0.708.

Flexion has mean 2.19 which was reduced to 1.08 with standard deviation 0.092 with C.F. 1.08 ±
0.554.
Internal rotation has mean 1.86 which was reduced to 0.89 with standard deviation 0.523 with
C.F. 0.89 ± 0.523.
External rotation has mean 1.42 which was reduced to 0.86 with standard deviation 0.237 with
C.F. 0.86 ± 0.487
Table No 15: Tests of Normality
Tests of Normality
Parameters Time
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Bahushol
BT 0.354 36 0.000 0.742 36 0.000
AT 0.414 36 0.000 0.662 36 0.000
Bahupraspanditahar
BT_A 0.355 36 0.000 0.731 36 0.000
AT_A 0.367 36 0.000 0.730 36 0.000
Abduction
BT_B 0.424 36 0.000 0.596 36 0.000
AT_B 0.367 36 0.000 0.730 36 0.000
Extension
BT_C 0.353 36 0.000 0.732 36 0.000
AT_C 0.257 36 0.000 0.805 36 0.000
Flexion
BT_D 0.395 36 0.000 0.696 36 0.000
AT_D 0.365 36 0.000 0.727 36 0.000
Internal Rotation
BT_E 0.462 36 0.000 0.569 36 0.000
AT_E 0.390 36 0.000 0.696 36 0.000
External Rotation
BT_F 0.381 36 0.000 0.627 36 0.000
AT_F 0.418 36 0.000 0.656 36 0.000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Interpretation:
From the above table , researcher observe that by both the test Kolmogorov Smimnov test ,we
can see that all the values are gtreater than 0.05 which was totally significant to prove the
normality of the data .

Table No 16: Paired t Test-A
H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment
H1:There is a significant mean difference after the treatment
Here researcher used the paired t test to observe the difference before and after treatment at
sample size of 36 with considering the level; of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval
of data.
Paired Samples Statistics
Parameter Scale Mean N
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Bahushol Pair 1
BT 2.19 36 0.577 0.096
AT 1.25 36 0.500 0.083
Bahupraspanditahar Pair 2
BT_A 1.72 36 0.566 0.094
AT_A 0.83 36 0.561 0.093
Abduction Pair 3
BT_B 2.33 36 0.478 0.080
AT_B 1.17 36 0.561 0.093
Extension Pair 4
BT_C 1.97 36 0.560 0.093
AT_C 1.11 36 0.708 0.118
Flexion Pair 5
BT_D 2.19 36 0.525 0.087
AT_D 1.08 36 0.554 0.092
Internal Rotation Pair 6
BT_E 1.86 36 0.424 0.071
AT_E 0.89 36 0.523 0.087
External Rotation Pair 7
BT_F 1.42 36 0.500 0.083
AT_F 0.86 36 0.487 0.081
Table No 16: Paired t Test-B
Paired Samples Correlations
Parameter Scale N Correlation Sig.
Bahushol Pair 1 BT & AT 36 0.718 0.000
Bahupraspanditahar Pair 2 BT_A & AT_A 36 0.570 0.000
Abduction Pair 3 BT_B & AT_B 36 0.426 0.010
Extension Pair 4 BT_C & AT_C 36 0.224 0.189
Flexion Pair 5 BT_D & AT_D 36 0.532 0.001
Internal Rotation Pair 6 BT_E & AT_E 36 0.444 0.007
External Rotation Pair 7 BT_F & AT_F 36 0.479 0.003

Table No 16: Paired t Test-C
Paired Samples Test
Parameter Scale
Paired Differences
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Lower Upper
Bahushol
Pair
1
BT -
AT
0.944 0.410 0.068 0.806 1.083 13.815 35 0.000
Bahupraspanditahar
Pair
2
BT_A
-
AT_A
0.889 0.523 0.087 0.712 1.066 10.207 35 0.000
Abduction
Pair
3
BT_B
-
AT_B
1.167 0.561 0.093 0.977 1.356 12.486 35 0.000
Extension
Pair
4
BT_C
-
AT_C
0.861 0.798 0.133 0.591 1.131 6.472 35 0.000
Flexion
Pair
5
BT_D
-
AT_D
1.111 0.523 0.087 0.934 1.288 12.759 35 0.000
Internal Rotation
Pair
6
BT_E
-
AT_E
0.972 0.506 0.084 0.801 1.144 11.521 35 0.000
External Rotation
Pair
7
BT_F
-
AT_F
0.556 0.504 0.084 0.385 0.726 6.614 35 0.000
Interpretation:
From the above table , researcher observe that Bahushool has mean difference 94.4 % ,
Bahupraspanditahar has mean difference 88.9 % , abduction has mean difference 1.167 % ,
extension has mean difference 86 % , flexion has mean difference 1.111% , internal rotation has
mean difference 97% while external rotation has 55.6% mean difference .
From above table no 16 ,it was seen that t statistics values are more significant and all
significance p values are less than 0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is
a significant difference after the treatment at 5 % level of significance and 36 degree of freedom.

Table No 17: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency
in Bahushool.
H1: There is a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in
Bahushool.
Here researcher used the ANOVA test to observe the difference & internal consistency of data at
sample size of 36 with considering the level of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval
of data.
ANOVA
Parameter Scale
Sum of
Squares
d.f.
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Bahushool
BT
Between
Groups
0.311 6 0.052
0.133 0.991
Within
Groups
11.328 29 0.391
Total 11.639 35
AT
Between
Groups
0.883 6 0.147
0.543 0.771
Within
Groups
7.867 29 0.271
Total 8.750 35
Interpretation:
From the above table, it was seen that F values are significantly higher but p values are greater
than 0.05 so we accept the null hypothesis and conclude that there is significant difference in
internal consistency at 5 % level of significance.

in Bahupraspanditahar.
Bahupraspanditahar.
of data.
ANOVA
Parameter Scale
Sum of
Squares
d.f. Mean Square F Sig.
Bahupraspanditahar
BT_A
Between
Groups
1.922 6 0.320
0.999 0.445
Within
Groups
9.300 29 0.321
Total 11.222 35
AT_A
Between
Groups
3.172 6 0.529
1.959 0.105
Within
Groups
7.828 29 0.270
Total 11.000 35
Interpretation:
From the above table, it was seen that F values are significantly higher but p values are less than
0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is not a significant difference in

in Abduction.
Abduction.
of data.
ANOVA
Parameter Scale
Sum of
Squares d.f.
Mean
Square F Sig.
Abduction
BT_B
Between
Groups
1.439 6 0.240
1.060 0.409
Within
Groups
6.561 29 0.226
Total 8.000 35
AT_B
Between
Groups
2.222 6 0.370
1.224 0.323
Within
Groups
8.778 29 0.303
Total 11.000 35
Interpretation:
0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is not a significant difference in

in Extension.
Extension.
of data.
ANOVA
Parameter Scale
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Extension
BT_C
Between
Groups
1.311 6 0.219
0.656 0.685
Within
Groups
9.661 29 0.333
Total 10.972 35
AT_C
Between
Groups
2.744 6 0.457
0.896 0.511
Within
Groups
14.811 29 0.511
Total 17.556 35
Interpretation:
than 0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference in

in flexion.
flexion.
of data.
ANOVA
Parameter Scale
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Flexion
BT_D
Between
Groups
0.589 6 0.098
0.315 0.924
Within
Groups
9.050 29 0.312
Total 9.639 35
AT_D
Between
Groups
1.256 6 0.209
0.639 0.698
Within
Groups
9.494 29 0.327
Total 10.750 35
Interpretation:

in internal rotation .
internal rotation .
of data.
ANOVA
Parameter Scale
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Internal
Rotation
BT_E
Between
Groups
0.994 6 0.166
0.905 0.505
Within
Groups
5.311 29 0.183
Total 6.306 35
AT_E
Between
Groups
1.644 6 0.274
1.005 0.441
Within
Groups
7.911 29 0.273
Total 9.556 35
Interpretation:

in external rotation.
external rotation .
of data.
ANOVA
Parameter Scale
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
External
Rotation
BT_F
Between
Groups
1.439 6 0.240
0.951 0.475
Within
Groups
7.311 29 0.252
Total 8.750 35
AT_F
Between
Groups
2.561 6 0.427
2.155 0.077
Within
Groups
5.744 29 0.198
Total 8.306 35
Interpretation:
0.05 so we accept the null hypothesis and conclude that there is not a significant difference in

Table No 24: Summary Table of Testing of Hypothesis
Testing of Hypothesis
Sr.no. Hypothesis
Test
used
Level of
Significance
Test
Statistics
P value Decision
1
There is not a significant
mean difference after the
treatment
Paired t
test
5%
Table no
16
> 0.05
Reject the
Hypothesis
2
treatment with internal
consistency in Bahushool.
ANOVA 5%
Table no
17
< 0.05
Accept the
Hypothesis
3
consistency in
Bahupraspanditahar.
ANOVA 5%
Table no
18
> 0.05
Reject the
Hypothesis
4
consistency in Abduction.
ANOVA 5%
Table no
19
> 0.05
Reject the
Hypothesis
5
consistency in flexion.
ANOVA 5%
Table no
20
> 0.05
Reject the
Hypothesis
6
consistency in internal
rotation .
ANOVA 5%
Table no
21
> 0.05
Reject the
Hypothesis
7
consistency in external
rotation.
ANOVA 5%
Table no
22
> 0.05
Reject the
Hypothesis

Statistical Analysis.02.06.2022 (1).pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Statistical Analysis.02.06.2022 (1).pdf

Similar to Statistical Analysis.02.06.2022 (1).pdf (20)

More from statsanjal

More from statsanjal (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Statistical Analysis.02.06.2022 (1).pdf