Category: Mean</th
-
p=. 018) at the 95% confidence interval. Therefore
—
by
in .018</td, .359</td, .829</td, </p, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </tr, <div class=""list-content"", <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <em, <p, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <th, <tr, 2.01</td, 2.430</td, 3.670</td, 6.78</td, 66</td, 95% Confidence</strong, Df</strong, Gokulsing, Lower</strong, Mean Square</td, Mean</strong, Pair 1</strong, Paired Differences</strong, Post-total</td, Pre-total</td, Sig.</strong, Std. Deviation</strong, t</td, Table 9. Paired Sample T-Test Results of Pre-service Teachers self-efficacy after the Content Pedagogy Courses.</em, Therefore, these results indicate that pre-service teachers self-efficacy decreased between the beginning and the end of mathematics content pedagogy courses.</p, Upper</strongp=. 018) at the 95% confidence interval. Therefore the paired T-Test results in Table 9 indicate that there were differences between the pre-test and post-test instrument scores in self-efficacy among the respondents (t=2.43
-
descriptive statistics helps to spot correlation between variables. Finally
—
by
in -.148</td, -1.095</td, -1.104</td, .048</td, .287</td, .287</td, .566</td, .566</td, .651</td, .684</td, </p, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, <div class=""list-content"", <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <th, 14.10</td, 14.50</td, 16.00</td, 16.17</td, 25</td, 25</td, 5, 5.451</td, 5.726</td, 5</td, 5</td, Gokulsing, Kurtosis</strong, Maximum</strong, Mean</strong, Median</strong, Minimum</strong, Motivation, Motivation</strong, Physical Activity</strong, Skewness</strong, Std. Deviation</strong, Std. Error of Kurtosis</strong, Std. Error of Mean</strong, Std. Error of Skewness</strong, Table 2. Descriptive statistics</emdescriptive statistics helps to spot correlation between variables. Finally the descriptive statistics provides crucial information about the variables using a unified format. Second
-
Laissez faire is the least popular. Further
—
by
in (9), </p, </tbody, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, <div class=""list-content"", <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <figure class=""wp-block-table"", <p, <p, <strong, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <th, <th, <th, <th, <tr, 0.9622</td, 1, 1.2139</td, 1.2331</td, 1.5671</td, 2</td, 200</td, 3</td, 4.5383</td, 4.5584</td, 4.6698</td, 4.8094</td, 4</td, Based on the data collected from a sample of 200 employees, CHAPTER ONE -INTRODUCTION</td, Corporate image</td, Effectiveness of communication</th, Employee satisfaction</td, Financial strength</td, Gokulsing, Growth of revenue</td, Mean</th, Rank</th, Sample size</th, Standard deviation</th, the standard deviation shows that there is less variation of the values observed from the mean. This implies that the respondents were consistent in their responses.</p, There are various indicators that give information on the quality of organizational communication. Some of these indicators are indicated in the table below.</p, Which management style is prevalent in the UK retail industry?</strongLaissez faire is the least popular. Further standard deviation and the ranking of the four management styles used in the analysis. Management style Sample size Mean Standard deviation Rank Participatory 200 5.2939 0.9095 1 Democratic 200 4.8559 1.1121 2 Autocratic 200 4.4896 0.8644 3 Laissez faire 200 4.1757 1.1321 4 The table below shows that…