SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Dominion Training Survey

eliot avatar
eliot
19 diapositives · 326 Views · Sep 02, 2014

This report analyzes test scores from a training survey conducted on October 19, 2005. The study evaluates the impact of geographic location on participants' test scores, revealing significant differences between regions. Central locations performed significantly higher, while Northeastern regions scored lower than average. Additionally, the correlation between perceived preparation time and test scores was examined, showing no predictive ability. The report suggests potential factors affecting scores, including speaker quality and audience differences.

#dominion training survey #dominion training survey ppt #powerpoint #presentation
Dominion Training Survey - slide 1
01 / 19Dominion Training Survey
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Dominion Training Survey
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. Dominion Training Survey BADM 621 October 19,2005 Shawn Miller Kylee Fink Soumya Prasad Thomas O’Neill Casey Brown

  2. Area Explanation

  3. Geographic Location & Test Scores • Ho – There is no difference in test scores when comparing the four geographic locations. • P-value = 0.01338 • F = 3.79354, F crit = 2.71734 • Conclusion – There is a difference (Ha).

  4. Location/Test Score Detail • Central performed significantly higher in comparison to the sample average. • Mean = 9.142857, P-value = 0.015935 • Northeastern performed significantly lower in comparison to the sample average. • Mean = 8.041667, P-value = 0.015724

  5. Practice makes perfect? • Hypothesis: Talks given in the Northeastern and Central regions were better because the instructors had given the talk at least twice already, at the Southern and Western regions.

  6. Cont… • 2 columns: Early sessions (Southern + Western) vs. later ones (Northeastern + Central). • 2 categories (early vs. late) compared on a continuous variable (test score, quality score): Use t-test.

  7. Test score: • F-test gives a p-value of 0.26 => Equal variances; • T-test: p-value: 0.25 • Statistically speaking…Test score did not show that the instructors “practice” had helped.

  8. Quality score: • F-test gives a p-value of 0.44=> Equal variances; • T-test: p-value: 0.163 • Statistically speaking…The quality score did not show that the instructors “practice” had helped.

  9. Quality Score (cont.) • In theory, practice should improve scores. • Perhaps: (a) The time period between the early and late sessions (1 week) was not adequate. (b) Inherent difference in quality of speakers. (c) Inherent difference in quality of audiences.

  10. Why did some people fare better? • Hypothesis: Perception of having enough time resulted in a better test score. • Relationship between the 2 continuous variables of time and test score: Correlation function • Correlation = 0.19; Yes, there is a positive linear correlation between perception of having enough time and final test score.

  11. Cont… • Did the perception of having time predict a better test score? Use simple linear regression. • Dependent variable = Test score, independent variable = perception of time. • Regression: P-value: 0.08 • Perception of more time did not predict a better test score.

  12. Supporting Evidence • Hypothesis: Perception of higher knowledge before training resulted in a better test score. • Correlation = 0.22; Yes, there is a positive linear correlation between perception of knowledge base and final test score.

  13. Helpful talks? • Was there a relationship between perception of base knowledge and gain in knowledge from the talks? • Correlation: r=0.69, positive linear correlation exists.

  14. Cont.. • Does the perceived higher base knowledge predict a higher post-talk knowledge? • Regression: Dependent variable = knowledge after, independent = base knowledge.

  15. P-value= 1.26E-13, almost 0 • Knowledge after = knowledge before (0.43) + 5.53 • R square = 0.48 • 48% of the variance in the data can be explained by this regression; “Goodness of fit” is high.

  16. Self Assessment Scores • Is there a relationship between self assessment scores and actual test scores? • At first glance, individuals in the Northeastern Area indicated they learned more than others during the training – an average increase of 2.95 on a 10 point scale. • Northeastern had the poorest test scores.

  17. Self Assessment Scores (cont.) • Is this significant? • F-test yields p value of 0.34 • T-test (for equal variances) yields P value of 0.99 – not significantly different from the mean across all areas.

  18. Questions?