Calculate an independent-samples t-test in StatCrunch comparing differences in a value in the dataset between leaders and non-leaders and report your findings in APA format. The values in the dataset include altruism, management, independence, and variety.
Instructions for Calculating independent-samples t-tests.
Calculate an independent-samples t-test in StatCrunch comparing differences in a personality trait in the dataset between leaders and non-leaders and report your findings in APA format. The personality traits in the dataset include extraversion, contentiousness, assertiveness, compassion, responsibility, and anxiousness.
Calculate an independent-samples t-test in StatCrunch comparing differences in a skill in the dataset between leaders and non-leaders and report your findings in APA format. The skills in the dataset include innovative/creative, self-management, social management, and cooperation.
Discuss your findings and suggestions for future directions.
What is one takeaway you have from any of the data you reported? Did you find any of the findings surprising? Did any of your findings confirm your hypotheses?
The data compare characteristics of people who are leaders versus those who are not leaders, but we do not have data on whether the leaders are considered “good” leaders. How might we better determine whether a person is effective as a leader or not?
Altruism
μ1 : Mean of V Altruism where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of V Altruism where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0.15306122 | 0.12571154 | 193.96623 | 1.217559 | 0.2249 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare altruism for leaders and non-leaders. There was no significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (193) =1.21, p = 0.224
Management
μ1 : Mean of V Management where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of V Management where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0.25816327 | 0.12968971 | 192.02554 | 1.9906226 | 0.0479 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the management capacity of leaders and non-leaders. There was a significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (192) =1.99, p = 0.0479.
Independence
Two sample T hypothesis test:
μ1 : Mean of V Independence where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of V Independence where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0.31183673 | 0.11472074 | 191.13131 | 2.7182247 | 0.0072 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the independence of leaders and non-leaders. There was a significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (191) =2.72, p = 0.007.
Variety
μ1 : Mean of V Variety where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of V Variety where Leadership = “1”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
Difference Sample Diff. Std. Err. DF T-Stat P-value
μ1 – μ2 0 0.13207911 194 0 1
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare a variety of leaders and non-leaders. There was no significant difference in the scores for leaders and nonreaders; t (194) =0, p = 1
Personality
Extraversion
μ1 : Mean of P Extraversion where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of P Extraversion where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0.17183673 | 0.10719325 | 191.66377 | 1.6030555 | 0.1106 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare extraversion for leaders and non-leaders. There was no significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (191) =1.66, p = 011.
Conscientiousness
μ1 : Mean of P Contientiousness where Leadership = “2”
μ2 : Mean of P Contientiousness where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0 | 0.098645098 | 194 | 0 | 1 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the contentiousness of leaders and non-leaders. There was no significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (194) =0, p = 1.
Assertiveness
μ1 : Mean of P Assertiveness where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of P Assertiveness where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0.31122449 | 0.12680827 | 193.02212 | 2.4542917 | 0.015 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the contentiousness of leaders and non-leaders. There was a significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (193) =2.454, p = 0.015.
Compassion
μ1 : Mean of P Compassion where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of P Compassion where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | -0.071428571 | 0.11721308 | 193.82462 | -0.60939079 | 0.543 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare compassion for leaders and non-leaders. There was a significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (193) =0.609, p = 0.543.
Responsibility
μ1 : Mean of P Responsibility where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of P Responsibility where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0.040816327 | 0.1002151 | 193.90961 | 0.40728719 | 0.6842 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the responsibilities of leaders and non-leaders. There was a significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (193) =0.407, p = 0.684.
Anxious
μ1 : Mean of P Anxious where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of P Anxious where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | -0.26020408 | 0.14698381 | 193.85641 | -1.7702908 | 0.0783 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare anxiety for leaders and non-leaders. There was a significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (193) =-1.77, p = 0.07.
Difference in Skills
Innovative/Creative
μ1 : Mean of S Innovative/Creative where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of S Innovative/Creative where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0.23979592 | 0.10936096 | 193.89763 | 2.1927012 | 0.0295 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the innovativeness/creativity of leaders and non-leaders. There was a significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (193) =2.193, p = 0.0395.
Self-Management
μ1 : Mean of S Self-Management where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of S Self-Management where Leadership = “1”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0 | 0.090810505 | 194 | 0 | 1 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare self-management for leaders and non-leaders. There was no significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (194) =0, p = 1
Social Management
μ1 : Mean of S Social Management where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of S Social Management where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0.2894898 | 0.11321835 | 192.44483 | 2.5569159 | 0.0113 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare social management for leaders and non-leaders. There was a significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (192) =2.556, p = 0.011.
Corporation
μ1 : Mean of S Corporation where Leadership = “1”
μ2 : Mean of S Corporation where Leadership = “2”
μ1 – μ2 : Difference between two means
H0 : μ1 – μ2 = 0
HA : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
(without pooled variances)
Hypothesis test results:
| Difference | Sample Diff. | Std. Err. | DF | T-Stat | P-value |
| μ1 – μ2 | 0.24611395 | 0.11730017 | 191.98718 | 2.0981551 | 0.0372 |
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare corporations for leaders and non-leaders. There was a significant difference in the scores for leaders and non-leaders; t (191) =2.098, p = 0.0372.
Based on the findings, altruism and variety had non-significant scores for leaders and non-leaders. On the other hand, leaders and non-leaders scores for independence and management were significantly different. Regarding personality, the scores of leaders and non-leaders were not significantly different in extraversion, contentiousness, compassion, responsibility and anxiousness. However, the scores for leaders and non-leaders were significantly different in assertiveness. Regarding the differences in skill, the leaders and non-leaders scores were significantly different in the innovativeness/creativity, social management, and corporation categories, and they were not significantly different in the self-management category. From these findings, some of the results were confirmed, while others discarded the hypothesis. Therefore, when hiring, the NGO must consider the variables that confirm the hypothesis.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
