EDF 802
Dr. Jeffrey Oescher
Formative Exercise 3 Answers
Revised 19 March 2013
Requisite Information
1. Statistical Hypotheses
H0: μ1 - μ2 = 0
H1: μ1 - μ2 ≠ 0
2. Alpha Level
The researcher has indicated some concern about committing a Type I error. To protect
against this, an alpha level of .01 was selected.
3. Test Statistic and Sampling Distribution
Assuming the null hypothesis is true, a sampling distribution of F with 1 and 189 degrees
of freedom was generated. The actual test statistic is an F-statistic.
This information was taken from the printout once the analysis was complete. You can
calculate the degrees of freedom using the formulas in the outline or text, but they are
contained in the ANOVA table between the Sums of Squares and Means Squares
columns.
Results
1. Statistical Information Describing the Sample and Relevant Variables
Very little information is given about the sample beyond the fact that teachers in two
types of schools were surveyed. Both types of schools were high poverty; one type was
high performing (HPHP) while the other was low performing (HPLP). Eighty-seven and
104 teachers responded from HPHP and HPLP schools respectively. Table 2 presents
the descriptive statistics for the total score for each type of school.
Table 2A
Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Health by Type of School
Type of School
HPHP
HPLP
Total
N
87
104
191
Mean
3.05
2.69
2.85
SD
0.47
0.45
0.49
In general, teachers in high poverty, high performing schools perceived their schools as
healthy organizations (see Table 2 in Formative Exercise 3). Teacher’s perceptions
varied moderately in these schools. In contrast, teachers in high poverty, low performing
schools perceived their schools as healthy in some respects and unhealthy in others.
Teacher’s perceptions in these schools varied moderately also.
An alternative perspective for examining this data is presented below. This information is
offered only to provide some insight into the analysis and reporting of data. Please note
the MOST important aspect of reporting this information is the interpretation of the
scores. Please take note of the manner by which the six scores within each group were
discussed.
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for each subscale and the total scale for each
type of school.
Table 2A
Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Health by Type of School
Type of School
HPHP
HPLP
Subscale
CL
II
RI
TA
AE
Total
CL
II
RI
TA
AE
Total
N
87
87
87
87
87
87
104
104
104
104
104
104
Mean
3.11
3.03
3.07
3.21
2.65
3.05
2.77
2.95
2.59
2.83
2.11
2.69
SD
0.76
0.57
0.49
0.61
0.46
0.47
0.82
0.52
0.59
0.63
0.58
0.45
An examination of the data in Table 2 indicates teachers in HPHP schools perceive their
schools as healthy organizations. Their total scores as well as four of the five subscale
scores fell into this higher category of healthiness. The exception was the AE subscale
(i.e., Academic Emphasis) where teachers perceived some healthy as well as unhealthy
characteristics. Teacher’s perceptions tended to vary greatly or moderately on the
subscales and moderately on the total scale. In contrast to these findings, teachers in
HPLP schools perceive their schools as healthy in some respects and unhealthy in
others. Scores across all subscales and the total scale were consistent in this regard.
Teacher’s perceptions varied greatly to moderately on all subscales and moderately on
the total scale.
2. Inferential Results
Table 3 presents the results of the ANVOA. The computed F-statistic was statistically
significant (F1,189 = 28.90, p = .000). The following information is the typical format for
reporting the results of an ANOVA. The F-statistic for the analysis must be reported, all
assumptions must be discussed, observed effect size mentioned, and the observed level
of power identified. The assumption of normality was not tested as the ANOVA procedure
is robust with respect to its violation. The assumption of the independence of
observations is assumed to be true. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was
tested using Levene’s statistic. The result (F1,189 = 0.00, p = .984) was non-significant
indicating equivalent variances across the two groups. The level of power was 1.00,
indicating very little if any chance of a Type II error. The effect size as measured by
partial eta squared (  p ) was .13. This is considered large using the criteria established
2
by Huck (2010).
Table 3
ANOVA Results
Source
SS
Type of School
6.14
df
1
MS
F
Sig
 p2
Power
6.14
28.90
.000
.13
1.00
Error
Total
40.17
46.32
189
190
.21
Table 3 in my file is split between two pages. This is unacceptable in APA. Sometimes it
is the result of using a particular printer; other times the issue is with the margins. Either
way, you cannot split a table unless it is longer than a single page. In Word, you can
highlight the text you want to keep together, use the PARAGRAPH menu, select LINE
AND PAGE BREAKS, and click on KEEP LINES TOGETHER. This will keep all of the
highlighted text together on the same page. You DO NOT want to adjust you margins.
3. Statistical Conclusions
The null hypothesis was rejected. There is a statistically significant difference in the
organizational health of HPHP and HPLP schools. HPHP schools are more healthy
organizations than are HPLP schools.
Note: The statistical conclusions are only about the acceptance or rejection of the null
hypothesis. This decision should lead directly from the statistical results and be
consistent with them. There is no need to mention any statistical information in this
section.
Conclusions Relating the Statistical Results to the Research Questions
1. The underlying conceptual framework for this study suggested that organizational health
represented a holistic view of the characteristics of a school that transcends culture and
climate. Although both culture and climate are known to be related to student
achievement, they represent rather narrow constructs in comparison to organizational
health. That is, culture and climate are important, but not sufficient, to define the
construct of organizational health. The results of this study validate - at a descriptive level
- the hypothesis that organizational health is related to student achievement. However,
additional research is needed to explore the relationships between leadership and
organizational health in general as well as the specific leadership characteristics and
behaviors that contribute to those factors of organizational health that are most influential
on student achievement.
This section is purely conjecture without some deeper understanding of the research that
was undertaken and the conceptual framework behind it. An acceptable response need
only refer to some conceptual interpretation of the results.
Inferential Logic
1. The null and alternative hypotheses were stated. A conservative alpha level of .01 was
established to protect against a Type I error. The null hypothesis was assumed to be
true, allowing a sampling distribution of F with 1 and 189 degrees of freedom to be
generated. An observed F-statistic was computed (F1,189 = 28.90) and mapped into the
underlying sampling distribution. It was determined to be atypical of the F-statistics in this
distribution (p = .000). Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative
hypothesis accepted.