Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

and Statistics, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-8. doi: /ajams-4-1-1

Advertisements

Intermediate-level learner

Research, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 6, doi: /education

Figure 3. Comparison of class performance

Table 3. Quran memorization students survey responses about App

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. Sample Size No Category Sample Size (F) Percentage (%) 1

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Regression Statistics

Source Sum of Squares (SS) df Mean Square (MS) F p-value

Table 3. Student’s Mathematical Critical Thinking Ability Description

Teachers Response (N= 11)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. General Characteristics of the Study Subjects

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio

student achievement scores

Table 11. Chi-Square Analysis Based on Grade Shift for Study Group

No. 8, doi: /education Table 9. t-Test Analysis Based on Average Quiz Scores from Last Six Quizzes t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Knowledge about elderly care

Table 2. Student's t–test (Tensile Strength)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Test Mean Std. Dev. Mathematics English Language

Table 1. Student’s attitude towards technology (%)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Significant (2- tailed)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Number of categories that are mentioned (0% < categories < 5%)

Table 1. Characteristics (age, height, and weight) of the participants

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Overall Average Female Overall Average Male/Female

Entrapment Efficiency (%) ± S.D.

Table 2. Test of Normality

To what extend do you buy products or services through SMA?

Group Male Female Total Astrocytoma Grade 2 (%65)13 (%35)7 (%100)20

Number of questionnaires sent out

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Training Programs in Management and Leadership

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Behavioral strategies

Table 4. Summary of Multi ways ANOVA results

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

t-test for Equality of Means

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

chemistry that are involved in peer group

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

institution N Mean S.D SEM df t P

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 3. (d) Summary of two way ANOVA for overall adjustment

post intervention (n=60)

Category Quantity Secondary school 3 Student participant

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. Illiteracy distribution by Gender and Place (No. in million)

Table 7. The Result of T Test After Treatment

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Twice daily regimen N=45 MDI regimen N=28 P Value

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Educational Attainment

Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig Health Between Groups

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 4. Independent Samples Test Application of ICT by Gender

Table 6. Range Comparisons amongst Subgroups and grade levels

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Gender N Mean S.D Df t-cal P

Presentation transcript:

Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio Pair of comparison N Mean S.D df t-value Male 112 83.12 16.33 207 4.27* Female 97 74.84 10.60 Rural 81 84.59 17.99 4.17* Urban 128 76.32 10.63 Rural male 48 93.22 16.07 79 6.98* Rural female 33 70.63 11.18 Urban male 64 75.62 11.53 126 0.73** Urban female 77.01 9.68 95 2.91* 110 6.45* *Significance at 0.05 level, **Not significance at 0.05 level. Tapas Karmakar et al. Intelligence in Relation to Height and Weight among Secondary School Students. American Journal of Educational Research, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 16, 1145-1148. doi:10.12691/education-4-16-4 © The Author(s) 2015. Published by Science and Education Publishing.