Discrimination by Sex and Native Country (In Spanish)
...uskall-Wallis test was also used, well-known like "analysis of variancia in a sense by ranks of Kruskall-Wallis", which is applied to see if two or more populations have the same average and it is possible to be applied for ordinal data, in addition to not requiring normality of the data. This way, this resistance is the one that we must apply necessarily when it is not fulfilled some of the conditions that are needed to apply this method. Like the other nonparametric techniques, this one leans in the use of the ranks assigned to the observations. For the exhibition of this test, we suppose that we have k samples represented in a table as it follows: Levels Observations of X Level x11 x12 x1n1 Level x21 x22 x2n2...... Level xk1 xk2 xknk the total number of elements in all the samples is: The hypothesis to contrast is: The way to make the resistance is the following one: The observations of minor to greater are ordered, assigning to each one of them their rank (1 for the minor, 2 for the following one...,Npara the greater one). For each one of the samples, Ri calculates, i=1,2... k, like the sum of the ranks of the observations that correspond to them. If H0 is false, is possible to hope that those amounts are very different. The statistical one calculates: H0 is rejected if the value of the statistical one surpasses the theoretical value. As example of this test elaborated in our study, we take the asseveration number 9: "To a person with good appearance it is facilitated to him to be related to his fellow workers", in the case of the test of differences between sorts, we have the following results, according to the NCSS: Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 3,998686 0,045536 Reject Ho for Corrected Ties 1 4,645928 0,031127 Reject Ho We see in this case that the test of Kruskal Wallis indicates difference between the sorts. OF this same form the 25 aseveraciones by sort and nationality were evaluated, in the annexes appear the results obtained in the NCSS. A test of signs was made (nonparametric test) to identify if a greater preference between "agreeing" exists or "being in discord" with each one of the aseveraciones of the survey. The medium one of a distribution is a value of the variate X so that the probability that a observed value of X is smaller or equal, or greater or just as the medium one, is 0.5 Since the normal distribution is symmetrical, the medium one of a normal distribution is equal to the medium one, the test of the sign can be used to prove hypothesis on the average of a normal distribution. When proving the null hypothesis Ho that U=Uo against an appropriate alternative of a random sample of size, we replaced each value of the sample that exceeds to Uo with a sign (+) and each smaller value of Uo with a sign (-). the P values for the unilateral and bilateral alternative can be calculated with the use of the binomial distribution, for example: Ho in favor of H, single is rejected if the proportion of signs (+) is sufficiently smaller than 0,5, then P calculates: Ho in favor of H is rejected if the proportion of signs (+) is quite greater than 0,5, when x is great. Whenever n the 10 binomiales probabilities can be approximated to the normal curve: Where R+ is I number of signos(+) in the observation. Like example, we take asseveration 8: "the appearance of a use applicant influences in the attitude of the interviewer". We would have: Where Ho would be that the proportion of encuestados that is in agreement with the asseveration is the same proportion of which they do not agree. In this case, 142 answers in agreement of the 153 were had, reason why if we calculated the statistical Z We compared the obtained Z is greater than. Therefore, Ho is rejected. The 25 aseveraciones were evaluated in Excel, in the annexes appears the complete calculation for all the aseveraciones. IV. - RESULTS a descriptive analysis was elaborated to show the distribution of preferences in each one of the questions. In addition hypothesis tests were made to verify if difference between the populations according to the sort and to the nationality existed. Next appear the affirmations of the survey in which was evidence that difference between the populations exists, with a level? = 0.05. In the case of the questions of the survey in which was statistical evidence that difference between sort or nationality exists, is a legend underneath the graphs that this difference indicates. Results of the surveys on discrimination by sort: "the administrative work better is made generally by men" * Significant difference between sorts "the married women do not have to work, must dedicate themselves to the home" Significant difference between sorts "Although also they are enabled, the men obtain better positions than the women" "the women are more conflicting reason why usually they have more labor conflicts" "the women usually are participativas than the men" Significant difference between sorts "the women work while they marry and/or only have children" Significant difference between sorts "the man better is enabled than the woman to hold directive positions" Significant difference between sorts "At the present time the machista mentality in the organizations prevails" The following questions are raised in form of discrimination negation: "the women are as able as the men" Significant difference between sorts "the pays between men and women, at the same level, must be equal" Significant difference between sorts "the women are as responsible as the men" Significant difference between sorts "It must have equality of labor opportunities for men and women" "the women have the same opportunities that the men to occupy stops positions in the companies" The women with similar degree of studies and labor experience that the men have the same opportunities of use that the men Significant difference between sorts Results discrimination by appearance: Given the same capacities, the discrimination by physical appearance is justified when the position requires direct deal with the client. Given the same capacities, the discrimination by physical appearance for a marketing research management is justified and/or relations you publish. An obese person is less efficient in an administrative work that a person esbelta. A person with good physical appearance has greater possibilities of professional success. A person with good aspect evolves better in the work. To be a good leader she requires herself of an excellent physical appearance. The appearance of a use applicant influences in the attitude of the interviewer. To a person with good appearance it is facilitated to him to be related to his fellow workers significant Difference between sorts A person with excellent image has greater opportunities to hold directive positions The following questions are raised in form of discrimination negation: The physical appearance does not matter in since it has null contact with the client Significant difference between the nations It does not concern the physical appearance of a person but its capacities for the labor promotions Evidence of discrimination between the population the 25 aseveraciones of the survey were analyzed to look for evidence of an inclination towards the discrimination, with a level to = 0.05. In the following aseveraciones was this tendency: The appearance of a use applicant influences in the attitude of the interviewer. To a person with good appearance it is facilitated to him to be related to his fellow workers Although also they are enabled, the men obtain better positions than the women A person with excellent image has greater opportunities to hold directive positions At the present time the machista mentality in the organizations prevails V. CONCLUSIONS Since the organizations are compound of people, the study of the human behavior and its interrelation in the organizacionales processes constitute elements of extreme importance to understand and to explain the human relations in the work. We considered that this behavior and this interaction of the people in the organizations are influenced by a series of dimensions related to the own characteristics of the personality of each individual, to their aspirations, their values, their attitudes, their motivations, to their aptitudes, among others. Also these personal characteristics are, as well, also influenced by the behavior of the other people. These individual differences cause that the people act under diverse parameters of conduct. This diversity explains the existence of certain deformations in the behavior and conduct of the individuals that are themselves reflected in the organization. One of the greater human problems than exists in the organizations is the discrimination that exists towards certain groups of people to belong to one or another human group. In this context, we have tried in this investigation, to investigate about the perception of the people on the level of existing discrimination in the Latin American companies related to the sort and the physical appearance. As we have commented it, in the previous chapters, we have taken as it bases from the study to three Latin American countries: Mexico, Peru and Nicaragua, with the purpose of being able to compare statistical results in the 3 populations. On the basis of the results thrown by the field study, we can comment out following with respect to the population that was used for this study: In the 3 countries where the opinion of 153 people was compiled a remarkable difference as far as discrimination of the woman does not exist talks about, the answers are statistically similar in all and each one of the questions analyzed in the survey. Observing that because to the being Mexico, Peru and Nicaragua Latin countries in which the labor and social participation of the woman has been developed of similar way (the woman obtains her right to the vote in the same decade in the 3 countries, the decade of 50s), exists consistency in the opinion about the concept of which it is discrimination of the woman in the work. Taking from base this consistency in the 3 countries, we think that it is an advantage to construct the structure of human resources in the organizations in these countries. It is important to take into account that could be standardized processes of recruitment, selection and regulations within the governmental companies and institutions and inclusively be shared information between the 3 countries about experiences, statistics and information in general who could serve to improve and to understand the behaviors and opinions of the men and women in each country to take remedial actions where are opportunity areas and to reinforce the processes and regulations that are favorable to the interaction and labor opportunity of the woman. In terms of discrimination by appearance, the opinion of the people encuestadas in the three nations was very similar, without statistically significant differences, with the exception of the question about the importance of the physical aspect in a work in which null contact with the client is had; whereas in Peru and Mexico the opinion is of which in effect the physical appearance does not matter for those who positions exert in which the contact with the client is null, in Nicaragua the percentage of people is very small who are totally in agreement with this asseveration and by the other side the percentage of people who say to be totally in discord is statistically but high that in Mexico and Peru. By this, he would be interesting to take I finish a study of the reasons for which the Nicaraguans think that the physical appearance in a position of this nature is important, and to take actions on the matter, or to change this form to think or so that the people in general become aware from the situation that is lived in that country. When we analyzed the survey by sort, we found statistically significant difference in several of the analyzed proposals. 48% of the men agree completely in which the administrative work better is made by they themselves than by a woman, whereas the women create the opposite in a 76%. This sample an excellent machista culture that exists in the 3 Latin American countries in where made the surveys, in fact as much encuestados men and women thought to agree in which at the present time the machista mentality in the organizations prevails. This tendency can be due to that the men (and some women) think that the woman is less able than the man and also that the woman is not equally responsible, and entails to that similarly the men do not agree so in that the woman is able to take directive positions. Although as much men and women think that the pays between men and women must be equal, the percentage of men is much smaller that is completely in agreement with this asseveration (77%) that the one of the women (100%), in addition, both sorts think that as much men as women must have the same opportunities of use. Finally, both sorts although in different proportion, think to be in discord with the fact that the married women do not have to work, reason why exists, at least within the encuestadas people, a change in the culture of passed generations in which the woman did not have to dedicate itself to another thing that not outside its home. With which the mentality is opened to accept the professional development of the women. As far as the discrimination by single physical appearance we found difference of statistically excellent opinion in which a person with good physical appearance facilitates itself to him to be related to her fellow workers, although is possible to emphasize that this opinion between the men predominates. Evaluating the points in which as much the nations as the sorts thought of similar way, we found that in effect the physical appearance of a use applicant influences in the attitude that took the interviewer (above of 90% of the encuestados ones they thought of this form) A slight tendency exists to think that a person with good physical appearance facilitates itself to him to be related to her fellow workers, and that a person with excellent image time greater opportunities to hold directive positions. Also we identified a general tendency of the sample that was interviewed to think that the machista mentality in the organizations prevails and who although also the men are enabled obtain better positions than the women at the present time. We create in the equality of opportunities, in which as much men and women must compete with the same opportunities nonsingle at the professional scope if not in social, the political one, educative etc. From this type of studies the opportunity is derived to deepen in some of the questions to identify the reason for which the people think or tend towards certain positions of discrimination. Taking into account the vital importance which they have the human resources in the organizations, and focusing to the organization like an interactive, dynamic and opened process, where the decisions and actions of the people are going to also repel directly not only in the results of the company but in the behavior of the other people; it is necessary that the departments of human resources implement formal and informal tools that allow to identify the discrimination levels that can exist in the work center. Some suggestions that we can raise the department of Human Resources of a company are the following ones: To make direct pursuit to the processes of recruitment and selection of personnel in order that they are made of a way is transparent and clear? To establish position profiles in order that all the people who fulfill the requirements shaped in the profile have the same possibilities of being selected? To make direct pursuit to the processes of evaluation of performance, promotions and ascents with the purpose of which they are developed of a way is transparent and clear? To implement evaluations 360° that allow to know? To carry out surveys of perception of the level of discrimination in the company? To implement informal channels of communication like anonymous communications through mailbox of suggestions, conversations opened with members of the organization, among others. I SAW. - BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrier, Michael (2004); "Should Looks Count"; HR Magazine; Global ABI/INFORM; pg. 64. Anderson, Sweeny and Williams (2000); Estadistica for Administracion and Economia. The Thompson International Publishing. Septima edition, CAP 15. Central bank of Nicaragua. Statistics of population. [ In Line ]. . [ Consulta: 12 November 2004]. National institute of Statistics and Censuses. (Nicaragua). Estadisticas Sociodemograficas. [ In Line ]. . [ Consulta: 12 November 2004]. Women Today. [ In Line ]. . [ Consulta: 15 November 2004]. House of Humanities UNAM. Presentation. [ In Line ]. . [ Consulta: 15 November 2004]. Groups MSN. Peru Education. [ In Line ]. . [ Consulta: 15 November 2004]. Organization the International of the Work. Active Economicamente Population (Nicaragua). [ In Line ]. . [ Consulta: 15 November 2004]. National institute of Estadistica and Informatica de Peru. Estadisticas Sociodemograficas. [ In Line ]. . [ Consulta: 15 November 2004]. Central bank of Reserve of Peru. Estadisticas of Population. [ In Line ]. . [ Consulta: 15 November 2004]. APPLIED SURVEY ANNEXED: TESTS OF KRUSKAL WALLIS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SORTS Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:56 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg1 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 0,9871 0,323611 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -2,8906 0,003845 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 9,3298 0,009420 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 1,0670 0,303272 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 0,24088 0,623571 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 0,270654 0,602893 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 393984 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg1 F M F 0,0000 0,5202 M 0,5202 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg2 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -0,5714 0,567714 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -2,9720 0,002958 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 9,1595 0,010257 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,0085 0,926605 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 6.339491E-02 0,801208 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 7.04706È-02 0,790653 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 359598 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5783,00 76,09 -0,2518 3 Ms 77 5998,00 77,90 0,2518 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg2 F M F 0,0000 0,2655 M 0,2655 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg3 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -5,2873 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 1,9843 0,047222 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 31,8935 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,0043 0,947851 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 3.811218E-02 0,845218 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 5.19878Ë-02 0,819640 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 3 Multiplicity Factor 955890 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5798,50 76,30 -0,1952 4 Ms 77 5982,50 77,69 0,1952 4 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg3 F M F 0,0000 0,2280 M 0,2280 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg4 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 0,5639 0,572799 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -1,9798 0,047720 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 4,2378 0,120162 Accept Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,3585 0,550227 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 0,0769101 0,781529 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 0,088144 0,766550 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 456450 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5928,00 78,00 0,2773 3 Ms 77 5853,00 76,01 -0,2773 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg4 F M F 0,0000 0,2969 M 0,2969 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg5 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -5,3735 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 2,6504 0,008038 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 35,8996 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 2,4563 0,119149 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 1,548335 0,213381 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 2,016107 0,155638 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 830952 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6193,00 81,49 1,2443 4 Ms 77 5588,00 72,57 -1,2443 4 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg5 F M F 0,0000 1,4199 Ms 1,4199 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg6 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 2,3429 0,019137 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -3,0328 0,002423 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 14,6867 0,000647 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,3234 0,570425 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 0,9996716 0,317390 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 1,102626 0,293691 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 334404 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5578,00 73,39 -0,9998 2 Ms 77 6203,00 80,56 0,9998 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg6 F M F 0,0000 1,0501 Ms 1,0501 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg7 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -4,1277 0,000037 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 1,3085 0,190719 Accept Omnibus Normality of Residuals 18,7502 0,000085 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 2,5758 0,110597 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 0,3893574 0,532637 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 0,4710118 0,492522 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 620874 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6023,00 79,25 0,6240 3,5 Ms 77 5758,00 74,78 -0,6240 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg7 F M F 0,0000 0,6863 M 0,6863 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg8 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 4,1408 0,000035 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 3,3208 0,000897 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 28,1743 0,000001 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,1432 0,705643 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 0,9996716 0,317390 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 1,389072 0,238562 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 1003986 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6126,00 80,61 0,9998 2 Ms 77 5655,00 73,44 -0,9998 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg8 F M F 0,0000 1,1786 Ms 1,1786 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg9 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 1,9291 0,053713 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -1,4354 0,151167 Accept Omnibus Normality of Residuals 5,7820 0,055520 Accept Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,6702 0,414278 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 3,998686 0,045536 Reject Ho for Corrected Ties 1 4,645928 0,031127 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 498942 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6400,00 84,21 1,9997 3 Ms 77 5381,00 69,88 -1,9997 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg9 F M F 0,0000 2,1554 Ms 2,1554 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg10 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -4,5472 0,000005 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 2,0666 0,038770 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 24,9483 0,000004 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 21,9182 0,000006 Reject Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 10,76157 0,001036 Reject Ho for Corrected Ties 1 14,83026 0,000118 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 3 Multiplicity Factor 982566 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6751,00 88,83 3,2805 4 Ms 77 5030,00 65,32 -3,2805 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg10 F M F 0,0000 3,8510 Ms 3,8510 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg11 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 9,1483 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 6,3324 0,000000 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 123,7910 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 4,7611 0,030655 Reject Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 3,600501 0,057762 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 8,455308 0,003640 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 3 Multiplicity Factor 2056356 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5332,00 70,16 -1,8975 1 Ms 77 6449,00 83,75 1,8975 1 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg11 F M F 0,0000 2,9078 Ms 2,9078 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg12 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -7,6167 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 4,9883 0,000001 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 82,8973 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 5,2327 0,023555 Reject Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 2,93513 0,086672 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 5,162724 0,023077 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 1545300 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6321,50 83,18 1,7132 4 Ms 77 5459,50 70,90 -1,7132 4 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg12 F M F 0,0000 2,2722 Ms 2,2722 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg13 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 8,9634 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 6,3085 0,000000 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 120,1396 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 3,4302 0,065968 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 4,987226 0,025535 Reject Ho for Corrected Ties 1 10,21766 0,001391 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 3 Multiplicity Factor 1833336 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5240,00 68,95 -2,2332 1 Ms 77 6541,00 84,95 2,2332 1 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg13 F M F 0,0000 3,1965 Ms 3,1965 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg14 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 9,4489 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 6,8083 0,000000 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 135,6360 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 6,2322 0,013619 Reject Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 2,708378 0,099822 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 7,311713 0,006851 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 3 Multiplicity Factor 2254806 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5401,00 71,07 -1,6457 1 Ms 77 6380,00 82,86 1,6457 1 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg14 F M F 0,0000 2,7040 Ms 2,7040 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg15 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 2,2729 0,023034 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -1,0920 0,274818 Accept Omnibus Normality of Residuals 6,3585 0,041617 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 3,5221 0,062484 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 1,222479 0,268875 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 1,402045 0,236381 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 458688 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5549,00 73,01 -1,1057 2 Ms 77 6232,00 80,94 1,1057 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg15 F M F 0,0000 1,1841 Ms 1,1841 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg16 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 9,6639 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 6,7808 0,000000 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 139,3694 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 4,3846 0,037935 Reject Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 3,559076 0,059221 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 9,594644 0,001951 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 3 Multiplicity Factor 2252916 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5335,00 70,20 -1,8866 1 Ms 77 6446,00 83,71 1,8866 1 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg16 F M F 0,0000 3,0975 Ms 3,0975 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg17 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -0,9002 0,367996 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -2,7410 0,006125 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 8,3236 0,015580 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,8073 0,370340 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 3,119227 0,077373 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 3,523203 0,060515 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 410652 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6336,00 83,37 1,7661 3 Ms 77 5445,00 70,71 -1,7661 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg17 F M F 0,0000 1,8770 Ms 1,8770 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg18 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 0,5851 0,558491 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -1,0886 0,276315 Accept Omnibus Normality of Residuals 1,5275 0,465927 Accept Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,0357 0,850316 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 20,88871 0,000005 Reject Ho for Corrected Ties 1 23,25451 0,000001 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 364356 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 4599,50 60,52 -4,5704 2 Ms 77 7181,50 93,27 4,5704 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg18 F M F 0,0000 4,8223 Ms 4,8223 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg19 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -3,6786 0,000235 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 1,7595 0,078489 Accept Omnibus Normality of Residuals 16,6280 0,000245 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,0048 0,944590 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 7,203135 0,007278 Reject Ho for Corrected Ties 1 8,872743 0,002895 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 673926 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6587,50 86,68 2,6839 4 Ms 77 5193,50 67,45 -2,6839 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg19 F M F 0,0000 2,9787 Ms 2,9787 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg20 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -6,1276 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 3,8924 0,000099 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 52,6989 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 14,2925 0,000225 Reject Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 14,94714 0,000111 Reject Ho for Corrected Ties 1 20,38314 0,000006 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 955134 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6911,50 90,94 3,8662 4 Ms 77 4869,50 63,24 -3,8662 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg20 F M F 0,0000 4,5148 Ms 4,5148 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg21 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -1,0148 0,310188 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -4,1717 0,000030 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 18,4329 0,000099 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,1736 0,677501 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 0,6770945 0,410589 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 0,7598429 0,383378 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 390024 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6077,50 79,97 0,8229 3 Ms 77 5703,50 74,07 -0,8229 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg21 F M F 0,0000 0,8717 M 0,8717 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg22 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 2,5274 0,011492 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 0,7004 0,483678 Accept Omnibus Normality of Residuals 6,8781 0,032095 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,1106 0,739884 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 0,2164595 0,641751 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 0,2698731 0,603417 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 708840 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5979,50 78,68 0,4653 2 Ms 77 5801,50 75,34 -0,4653 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg22 F M F 0,0000 0,5195 M 0,5195 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg23 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -1,2743 0,202548 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -0,7092 0,478224 Accept Omnibus Normality of Residuals 2,1268 0,345277 Accept Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 2,4397 0,120396 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 7,600202 0,005836 Reject Ho for Corrected Ties 1 8,843878 0,002941 Reject Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 503640 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 6607,50 86,94 2,7568 3 Ms 77 5173,50 67,19 -2,7568 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg23 F M F 0,0000 2,9739 Ms 2,9739 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg24 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 2,3373 0,019424 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 1,0375 0,299508 Accept Omnibus Normality of Residuals 6,5393 0,038019 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,4148 0,520531 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 0,7862647 0,375232 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 1,020253 0,312459 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 821376 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5609,00 73,80 -0,8867 2 Ms 77 6172,00 80,16 0,8867 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg24 F M F 0,0000 1,0101 Ms 1,0101 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:01:57 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg25 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 3,7001 0,000215 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -0,0873 0,930455 Accept Omnibus Normality of Residuals 13,6985 0,001060 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,6346 0,426913 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 1 0,0588843 0,808268 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 1 6.861748E-02 0,793360 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 508014 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Z-Value Median F 76 5785,50 76,13 -0,2427 2 Ms 77 5995,50 77,86 0,2427 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Preg25 F M F 0,0000 0,2619 M 0,2619 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1.9600 ANNEXED: TESTS OF KRUSKAL WALLIS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NATIONS Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:00:47 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg1 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 1,0314 0,302341 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -2,9636 0,003040 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 9,8470 0,007274 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,9332 0,395550 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 2 0,1396192 0,932571 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 2 0,1568768 0,924559 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 393984 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Peruvian Z-Value Median Mexican 59 4642,50 78,69 0,3730 2 Nicaraguan 54 4096,00 75,85 -0,2367 2 40 3042,50 76,06 -0,1557 2 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Mexican Peruvian Nicaraguan Preg1 Mexican 0,0000 0,3601 Nicaraguan 0,3065 0,3601 0,0000 Peruvian 0,0242 0,3065 0,0242 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 2.3940 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:00:47 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg2 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -0,3830 0,701710 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -3,1958 0,001394 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 10,3601 0,005628 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 1,4869 0,229379 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 2 2,310872 0,314920 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 2 2,568796 0,276817 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 359598 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Peruvian Z-Value Median Mexican 59 4268,50 72,35 -1,0289 3 Nicaraguan 54 4078,00 75,52 -0,3054 3 40 3434,50 85,86 1,4719 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Peruvian Mexican Peruvian Preg2 Mexican Nicaraguan 0,0000 0,4006 1,5701 Nicaraguan 0,4006 0,0000 1,1798 1,5701 1,1798 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 2.3940 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:00:47 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg3 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -5,3519 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 2,1568 0,031020 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 33,2947 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,7302 0,483504 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 2 1,772302 0,412239 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 2 2,417552 0,298563 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 3 Multiplicity Factor 955890 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Peruvian Z-Value Median Mexican 59 4884,50 82,79 1,2801 4 Nicaraguan 54 4039,50 74,81 -0,4524 4 40 2857,00 71,43 -0,9259 4 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Mexican Peruvian Nicaraguan Preg3 Mexican Nicaraguan 0,0000 1,1172 1,4623 1,1172 0,0000 Peruvian 0,4271 1,4623 0,4271 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 2.3940 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:00:47 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg4 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals 0,5060 0,612842 Accept Kurtosis Normality of Residuals -2,0744 0,038039 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 4,5593 0,102319 Accept Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,9148 0,402805 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 2 2.094438E-02 0,989582 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 2 2.40036É-02 0,988070 Accept Ho Number Sets of Ties 4 Multiplicity Factor 456450 Group Detail Sum of Mean Group Count Ranks Rank Peruvian Z-Value Median Mexican 59 4510,00 76,44 -0,1237 2 Nicaraguan 54 4161,00 77,06 0,0115 3 40 3110,00 77,75 0,1246 3 Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison Z-Value Test Mexican Peruvian Nicaraguan Preg4 Mexican 0,0000 0,0789 Nicaraguan 0,1544 0,0789 0,0000 Peruvian 0,0804 0,1544 0,0804 0,0000 To regulate Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 1,9600 Bonferroni Test: Medians significantly different if z-value 2.3940 Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 19/11/2004 07:00:47 p.m. Database C:ABRAHAMMAESTRIA ADMONEG... CCIÓNPROY FINALENCNUMER.S0 Response Preg5 Tests of Assumptions Section Prob Test Decision Assumption Value Level (0.05) Skewness Normality of Residuals -5,6874 0,000000 Reject Kurtosis Normality of Residuals 3,1714 0,001517 Reject Omnibus Normality of Residuals 42,4040 0,000000 Reject Modified-Levene Equal-Variance Test 0,2912 0,747768 Accept Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Ranks Hypotheses Ho: All medians plows equal. It has: AT least two medians plows different. Test Results Chi-Square Prob Method DF (h) Level Decision(0.05) Not for Corrected Ties 2 2,402535 0,300813 Accept Ho for Corrected Ties 2 3,128371 0,209258 Accept Ho Number Sets of Tie...