This paper is an illustration of quantitative data analysis using the IBM SPSS Statistics software. It does not provide the details of technical skill to operate SPSS but focuses on developing a set of decisions and actions in order to set up, describe, manipulate and analyse data in the specific context of the study of Jackson and Mullarkey (2000). In order to fulfil the task, this paper illustrates a step-by-step of actions that were made on the data. It also gives the insight into the determination of each step that helps interpret the findings from the data. 1. DATA SET UP IN SPSS It is important to set up the data before conducting further activities on data by using SPSS. The establishment of data needs a preliminary handling of the …show more content…
B, 3 = C, 4 = D Age Age of Participant None Gender Gender 1 = Female, 2 = Male Auto1 Individual Timing Control 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Auto2 Individual Method Control 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Demand4 Production Pressure 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Auto5 Role Breadth 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Demand3 Monitoring Demands 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Auto6 Task Variety 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Demand1 Problem-solving Demands 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Demand5 Production Responsibility 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Demand2 Skill Utilisation 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Auto3 Collective Timing Control 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Auto4 Collective Method Control 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Social1 Social Contact 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Social4 Social Support 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = A great deal Social2 Group Cohesiveness 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree,
2. My actual score had me ranging from high to low - Initiator (thirteen), Encourager (eight), Gatekeeper and Summarizer (seven), and Harmonizer (six).
6. The instructions so simple and direct I'm pretty sure anybody who can comprehend and follow each function has a number that you follow and complete a task.
How do you feel towards your body currently, on a scale of 1-10, with 1 feeling very negatively towards your body, 5 being neutral, and 10 feeling very positive about your body? Explain your numerical answer in a few sentences.
4.They come in many different colors, which people have come to name over the years.
His response to “Strongly Like” showed his Total Percentage as 4, in normal percentage range.
7. The boy’s words were slurred so I couldn’t figure what his was saying almost as if he were born with an impediment.
5. Also this book reminds me that if I joke around too much I will get in trouble and I don’t want that to
2. What’s
The wings of a five are four and six. I consider myself a loyal, anxious, and cautious individual. These are characteristics of the six wing that blend over into the five. However, if I had more of a four wing I would be empathetic and self-absorbed. With a stronger six wing, I am more interested in sciences and subjects where thinking is involved. The arrows of a five are seven and eight. Fives suddenly become hyperactive and scattered at seven when they are stressed. Sevens contain characteristics that are drastically different than a five. These include being spontaneous and imaginative. However, when moving in
Question1: On a scale from 0 to 10, we would like to mark it with 2.
In the following areas my thinking is okay, but not great, but not terrible either:
1. What are the results of your Big Five Test? Don’t just cut and paste. Please explain your
favorable) to 1(e.g. unfavorable). The observed frequencies of each category, however, are counted and being weighted to imply that a greater importance is attached to respondents with certain characteristics of the scale. The arithmetic means produced of scale's categories guide only the analysis and merely generate a directional insight, and do not provide specific numerical magnitude. Our methodology endorses such a rating scale.
▪ This structure creates bias with the wording. A numerical scale from 1-5 or 1-7 would be ideal.
5,1% (4) of the participants strongly disagreed, 48,1% (37) of the participants disagreed, 20,8% (16) of the participants was neutral, 18,2% (14) of the participants agreed, and 7,8% (6) of the participants strongly