Top Tutors
The team is composed solely of exceptionally skilled graduate writers, each possessing specialized knowledge in specific subject areas and extensive expertise in academic writing.
Click to fill the order details form in a few minute.
Posted: December 16th, 2022
Statistics Project, Part 1: Opening Data in Microsoft® Excel® and Running Descriptive Statistics
Name
University of
PSYCH/625: Statistics for the Behavior Sciences
Name
August 17, 2020
Statistics Project – Part I: Opening Data in Excel and Running Descriptive Statistics
o Gender
o Male:24, Female:26
o Age
o Mean:32.02 Median:31 Mode:29
o Relationship with Direct Supervisor
o Mean:2.5 Median:3 Mode:3
o
o Telecommute Schedule
o Mean:1.18 Median:1 Mode:1
o
o Relationship with Coworkers
o Mean:1.92 Median:2 Mode:2
o
o Workplace Happiness Rating
o Mean:7.4 Median:8 Mode:8
o
o Workplace Engagement Rating
o Mean:7.64 Median:7 Mode:8
Descriptive Statistics – Extract from Excel
Descriptives on Gender
Mean 1.52
Standard Error 0.071371
Median 2
Mode 2
Standard Deviation 0.504672
Sample Variance 0.254694
Kurtosis -2.07801
Skewness -0.08256
Range 1
Minimum 1
Maximum 2
Sum 76
Count 50
Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.143426
Age Descriptives
Mean 32.02
Standard Error 0.613780523
Median 31.5
Mode 29
Standard Deviation 4.340083701
Sample Variance 18.83632653
Kurtosis -1.086420147
Skewness 0.188689657
Range 15
Minimum 25
Maximum 40
Sum 1601
Count 50
Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.23343814
Supervisor Descriptives
Mean 2.5
Standard Error 0.14357
Median 3
Mode 3
Standard Deviation 1.015191
Sample Variance 1.030612
Kurtosis -1.06177
Skewness -0.06096
Range 3
Minimum 1
Maximum 4
Sum 125
Count 50
Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.288514
Telecommute Descriptives
Mean 1.18
Standard Error 0.054884
Median 1
Mode 1
Standard Deviation 0.388088
Sample Variance 0.150612
Kurtosis 0.988872
Skewness 1.717824
Range 1
Minimum 1
Maximum 2
Sum 59
Count 50
Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.110293
Coworkers Descriptives
Mean 1.92
Standard Error 0.094069
Median 2
Mode 2
Standard Deviation 0.665168
Sample Variance 0.442449
Kurtosis -0.65243
Skewness 0.08876
Range 2
Minimum 1
Maximum 3
Sum 96
Count 50
Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.189039
Workplace Happiness Descriptives
Mean 7.4
Standard Error 0.2
Median 8
Mode 8
Standard Deviation 1.414214
Sample Variance 2
Kurtosis -0.24984
Skewness -0.71252
Range 5
Minimum 4
Maximum 9
Sum 370
Count 50
Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.401915
Workplace Engagement Descriptives
Mean 7.64
Standard Error 0.175569046
Median 8
Mode 8
Standard Deviation 1.241460628
Sample Variance 1.54122449
Kurtosis 0.859898343
Skewness -0.934455767
Range 6
Minimum 4
Maximum 10
Sum 382
Count 50
Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.352819207
Summary
Variable Description of Values
Gender 1= Male, 2=Female
Age Chronological Age (in years)
Relationship With Direct Supervisor 1 = negative relationship, 2 = neutral relationship, 3 = positive relationship, 4 = great relationship
Telecommute Schedule 1= no ability to telecommute, 2 = able to telecommute at least 2 days per week
Relationship With Coworkers 1 = negative relationship, 2 = no relationship, 3 = positive relationship
Workplace Happiness Rating Scale 0-10, 0 = no happiness, 10 = completely happy
Workplace Engagement Rating Scale 0-10, 1 = no engagement, 10 = highly engaged
Overall Combined Rating Scale 0-20, 0 = not happy and not engaged, 20 = completely happy and highly engaged
According to the presented data, there are 50 people. Twenty-four were males, while twenty-six were females ranging from the age of 25-40. The average age was estimated to be 32.02, while the median was 31, and most of the participants were age twenty-nine. When asked about relationship with supervisor they were told that 1 = negative relationship, 2 = neutral relationship, 3 = positive relationship, 4 = great relationship. The mean of this data was 2.5; the median was three and also the mode. The telecommute portion was 1= no ability to telecommute, two = able to telecommute at least two days per week; the mean of these results was 1.18, the median was a one and the mode remained a one as well. In the relationship with coworkers, the mean was 1.92, the median was two, and the mode was also 2; 1 = negative relationship, two = no relationship, 3 = positive relationship. Workplace Happiness Rating Scale 0-10, 10 = completely happy, its mean was a 7.4, median, and mode an 8. Workplace Engagement Rating Scale 0-10, 10 = highly engaged, its mean was 7.64, the median 7 and the mode 8.
Study Notes & Homework Samples: Aquifer assignment »Tracing the historical justification for the evolution of the multiple use management approach as a response to the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS)We prioritize delivering top quality work sought by students.
The team is composed solely of exceptionally skilled graduate writers, each possessing specialized knowledge in specific subject areas and extensive expertise in academic writing.
Our writing services uphold the utmost quality standards while remaining budget-friendly for students. Our pricing is not only equitable but also competitive in comparison to other writing services available.
Guaranteed Plagiarism-Free Content: We assure you that every product you receive is entirely free from plagiarism. Prior to delivery, we meticulously scan each final draft to ensure its originality and authenticity for our valued customers.
When you decide to place an order with Dissertation Help, here is what happens:
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.