Statistical Analysis.02.06.2022 (1).pdf
- 1. Chapter - Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretations Introduction Data Analysis is a key phase of research work. The present chapter entitled ‘Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation comprised of four sections Part ‘A’, Part ‘B’ and the details of each section are given below, A. Presentation, analysis and interpretation of data is done with help of sorting the raw data, its coding, classification and tabulation, percentage calculation and drawing the inferences. B. Statistical Analysis is done by using measures of central tendency, measures of variation, Testing of Hypothesis is done by using statistical tools like One Sample t test, ANOVA etc. In the present chapter the information comprising to several variables is presented in order to pertain a fair comprehensive profile of respondents This chapter begins with the information on the Clinical results and the description of the respondent’s demographic information. The descriptive analysis of the variables used in this study is also presented. This is followed closely by the testing of the hypotheses formulated for this study and presented in the order of the hypotheses. Each hypothesis focused on the variables of the research with dependent and independent variable. The analysis of the hypotheses is carried out based on the statistical tools adopted. The researcher’s position in this study is clearly stated under result presentation and discussion. These views are within the theoretical framework of this study. Reliability test is the most common measure of internal consistency ("Reliability"). It is most commonly used. After testing the reliability we can conclude for normality of the data so here we checked the normality. As researcher found that the data is normal, we used the parametric test so researcher used the one sample t test, ANOVA for analysis. Note:For all the statistical tests, p<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, keeping α error at 5% and β error at 20%, thus giving a power to the study as 80%. * = statistically significant difference (p<0.05) ** = statistically highly significant difference (p<0.01) # = non significant difference (p>0.05) … for all tables Survey Results Survey Results of this study are analyzed using SPSS 25 (SPSS, Inc., 2020) statistical program.
- 2. Table No 1: Age Distribution Age Group Distribution Parameter Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 30 To 40 9 25.0 25.0 25.0 40 To 50 14 38.9 38.9 63.9 50 to 60 8 22.2 22.2 86.1 60 to 70 5 13.9 13.9 100.0 Total 36 100.0 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic Age 36 31 66 46.56 1.769 10.611 112.597 Graph No 1: Age Group Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: Age distribution has scattered in the age group of 40 to 30 with sample size of 36 was 38.9 percent. In the age group 30 to 40, it was 25 percent while in the age group of 50 to 60 it was 22.2 percent. Age distribution has mean 46.56 with S.D. 10.611. 0 10 20 30 40 30 To 40 40 To 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 Age Group Distribution Series1 Series2
- 3. Table No 1: Gender Distribution Gender Parameter Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Female 20 55.6 55.6 55.6 Male 16 44.4 44.4 100.0 Total 36 100.0 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 2: Gender Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: Gender distribution has scattered in the female group 55.6 percent and in a male group it is 44.4 6 percent . Table No 3: Diet Distribution Diet Parameter Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Mixed 36 100.0 100.0 100.0 Veg 0 0 0 0 Total 37 100.0 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From table no 3 , it was seen that in a sample size of 36 , 100 percent respondents having mixed diet . 44.4% 55.6 % Gender Distribution 1 2
- 4. Table No 4: Occupation Distribution Occupation Parameter Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Business 1 2.8 2.8 2.8 Employe 1 2.8 2.8 5.6 Engineer 6 16.7 16.7 22.2 farming 1 2.8 2.8 25.0 Housewife 12 33.3 33.3 58.3 Job 6 16.7 16.7 75.0 Lawyer 1 2.8 2.8 77.8 Peon 1 2.8 2.8 80.6 Retired 1 2.8 2.8 83.3 Salesman 1 2.8 2.8 86.1 shopkeeper 2 5.6 5.6 91.7 Teacher 1 2.8 2.8 94.4 veg.vendor 1 2.8 2.8 97.2 webdesigner 1 2.8 2.8 100.0 Total 36 100.0 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 3: Occupation Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table, 33.3 % respondents were housewife, 16.7 % was engineer and 16.7 % were having job, rest 2.8 were from all sectors like business, employment, farming, lawer, poen, retired person, salespersons, shopkeepers etc. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Business Employe Engineer farming Housewife Job Lawyer Peon Retired Salesman shopkeeper Teacher veg.vendor webdesigner Occupation Distribution Series1 Series2
- 5. Table No 5: HODM Distribution HODM Distribution Parameters Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Absent 24 66.7 66.7 66.7 Present 12 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 36 100.0 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 4: HODM Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: In HODM was absent 66.7 % as well as it was present 33.3 % respondents. 26% 74% HODM 1 2
- 6. Table No 5: Shoulder Joint Involvement Distribution Shoulder joint Involvement Parameters Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Bilateral 5 13.9 13.9 13.9 Left 17 47.2 47.2 61.1 Right 14 38.9 38.9 100.0 Total 36 100.0 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 5: Shoulder Joint Involvement Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table , respondents had shoulder joint involvement 47.2 % at right side , 38.9 % at right side and 13.9 % had bilateral side. 14% 47% 39% Shoulder Joint Involvement Bilateral Left Right
- 7. Table No 6: Chronicity Distribution Chronicity_1 Chronic in Months Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .5 2 5.6 5.6 5.6 .6 2 5.6 5.6 11.1 1.0 18 50.0 50.0 61.1 2.0 2 5.6 5.6 66.7 3.0 5 13.9 13.9 80.6 5.0 3 8.3 8.3 88.9 6.0 4 11.1 11.1 100.0 Total 36 100.0 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 6: Chronicity Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table , respondents had maximum joint pain of 1 month as 50 % ,3 months chronic pain as 13.9 % , and 6 months chronic pain was for 11.1 % , 5 months chronic pain was for 8.3 % .Total near about 80 % respondents had chronic pain. 0 10 20 30 40 50 .5 .6 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 Chronicity Distribution Series1 Series2
- 8. Table No 7: Bahushool Distribution Bahushool Distribution Bahushool Scale Before Treatment After Treatment Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Valid No Pain 0 0 1 2.8 Mild pain,can do strenuous work with difficulty 3 8.3 25 69.4 Moderate pain can do normal work with support 23 63.9 10 27.8 Severe pain,unable to do any work at all 10 27.8 0 0.0 Total 36 100.0 36 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 7: Bahushool Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: It was seen that before treatment ,there was 63.9 % respondents has a moderate pain that is they can work with support ,27.8 % has severe pain that they was unable to work but only 8.3 % has mild pain but after the treatment 69.4% respondents reduced to mild pain and 27.8 % respondents reduced to moderate pain . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Before Treatment After Treatment Bahushool Distribution No Pain Mild pain,can do strenuous work with difficulty Moderate pain can do normal work with support Severe pain,unable to do any work at all
- 9. Table No 8: Bahuprapanditahar Distribution Bahupraspanditahar Distribution Bahupraspanditahar Scale Before Treatment After Treatment Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Valid No stiffness 0 0 9 25.0 Mild,has difficulty in moving the joint without support 12 33.3 24 66.7 Moderate,has difficulty in moving,can lift only with support 22 61.1 3 8.3 Severe,unable to lift 2 5.6 0 0.0 Total 36 100.0 36 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 8: Bahupraapanditahar Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: It was seen that before treatment ,there was 61.1 % respondents has a moderate difficulty in moving bahu can lift only with support, 33.3 % has mild difficulty in moving the joint without support ,only 5.6 % has severe difficulty but after the treatment 66.7% respondents reduced to mild pain and 25 % respondents reduced to no stiffness in bahuprapanditahar . 0 20 40 60 80 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Before Treatment After Treatment Bahupraspanditahar Scale No stiffness Mild,has difficulty in moving the joint without support Moderate,has difficulty in moving,can lift only with support Severe,unable to lift
- 10. Table No 9: Abduction Distribution Abduction Distribution Abduction scale Before Treatment After Treatment Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Valid 0-45 Degree 12 33.3 0 0.0 45-90 Degree 24 66.7 9 25.0 90-135 Degree 23 63.9 24 66.7 135-180 Degree 10 27.8 3 8.3 Total 36 100.0 36 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 9: Abduction Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: It was seen that before treatment, there was 66.6 % respondents who can move their abduction in 45 to 95 degree , 63.9 % respondents who can move their abduction in 90 to 135 degree, 33.3 % has respondents who can move in 0 to 45 degree and 27.8 % respondents who can move in 135 to 180 degree but after treatment 66.7 % respondents who can move their abduction in 90 to 135 degree, there was 25 % respondents who can move their abduction in 45 to 95 degree. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Before Treatment After Treatment Abduction Distribution 0-45 Degree 45-90 Degree 90-135 Degree 135-180 Degree
- 11. Table No 10: Extension Distribution Extension Distribution Extension Scale Before Treatment After Treatment Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Valid 0-45 Degree 5 13.9 0 0.0 45-90 Degree 25 69.4 11 30.6 90-135 Degree 6 16.7 18 50.0 135-180 Degree 0 0.0 7 19.4 Total 36 100.0 36 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 10: Extension Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: It was seen that before treatment, there was 69.4 % respondents who have extension in 45 to 95 degree , 16.7 % respondents who can move their extension in 90 to 135 degree, 13.9 % has respondents who has extension in 0 to 45 degree but after treatment 50 % respondents who can move their extension in 90 to 135 degree, there was 30.6 % respondents who has extension in 45 to 95 degree and 19.4% respondents has extension 135 to 180 degree. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Before Treatment After Treatment Extension Distribution 0-45 Degree 45-90 Degree 90-135 Degree 135-180 Degree
- 12. Table No 11: Flexion Distribution Flexion Distribution Flexion Scale Before Treatment After Treatment Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Valid 0-45 Degree 9 25.0 0 0.0 45-90 Degree 25 69.4 7 19.4 90-135 Degree 2 5.6 25 69.4 135-180 Degree 0 0.0 4 11.1 Total 36 100.0 36 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 11: Flexion Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: It was seen that before treatment, there was 69.4 % respondents who have extension in 45 to 95 degree , 5.6 % respondents who can move their extension in 90 to 135 degree, 25 % has respondents who has extension in 0 to 45 degree but after treatment 69.4% respondents who can move their extension in 90 to 135 degree, there was 19.4 % respondents who has extension in 45 to 95 degree and 11.1% respondents has extension 135 to 180 degree. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Before Treatment After Treatment Flexion Distribution 0-45 Degree 45-90 Degree 90-135 Degree 135-180 Degree
- 13. Table No 12: Internal Rotation Distribution Internal Rotation Distribution Internal Rotation Flexion Scale Before Treatment After Treatment Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Valid Upto 90 Degree 0 0.0 7 19.4 Upto 60 Degree 6 16.7 26 72.2 Upto 30 Degree 29 80.6 3 8.3 Upto 0 Degree 1 2.8 0 0.0 Total 36 100.0 36 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 12: Internal Rotation Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: It was seen that before treatment, there was 80.6 % respondents who has internal rotation flexion scale upto 30 degree , 16.7 % has internal rotation upto 60 degree and 2.8 % respondents has internal rotation upto 0 degree but after treatment 72.2% respondents has internal rotation upto 60 degree and 19.4 % respondents has internal rotation upto 90 degree. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Before Treatment After Treatment Internal Rotation Distribution Upto 90 Degree Upto 60 Degree Upto 30 Degree Upto 0 Degree
- 14. Table No 13: External Rotation Distribution External Rotation Distribution External Rotation Flexion Scale Before Treatment After Treatment Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Valid Upto 90 Degree 0 0.0 7 19.4 Upto 60 Degree 21 58.3 27 75.0 Upto 30 Degree 15 41.7 2 5.6 Upto 0 Degree 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 36 100.0 36 100.0 (Source: Primary Data) Graph No 13: External Rotation Distribution (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: It was seen that before treatment, there was 58.3 % respondents who has external rotation flexion scale upto 60 degree , 41.7 % has external rotation upto 30 degree but after treatment 75% respondents has external rotation upto 60 degree and 19.4 % respondents has external rotation upto 90 degree. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Before Treatment After Treatment External Rotation Distribution Upto 90 Degree Upto 60 Degree Upto 30 Degree Upto 0 Degree
- 15. Table No 14: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Parameter N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Confidence Interval Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic Statistic Chronicity_1 36 0.5 6.0 2.172 0.3103 1.8620 3.467 2.172± 1.86 Bahushool 0 BT 36 1 3 2.19 0.096 0.577 0.333 2.19 ± 0.577 AT 36 0 2 1.25 0.083 0.500 0.250 1.25 ± 0.50 Bahupraspanditahar 0 BT_A 36 1 3 1.72 0.094 0.566 0.321 1.72 ± 0.566 AT_A 36 0 2 0.83 0.093 0.561 0.314 0.83 ± 0.566 ABDUCTION 0 BT_B 36 2 3 2.33 0.080 0.478 0.229 2.33 ± 0.478 AT_B 36 0 2 1.17 0.093 0.561 0.314 1.172± 0.562 Extension 0 BT_C 36 1 3 1.97 0.093 0.560 0.313 1.97 ± 0.56 AT_C 36 0 2 1.11 0.118 0.708 0.502 1.11 ± 0.708 Flexion 0 BT_D 36 1 3 2.19 0.087 0.525 0.275 2.19 ± 5.25 AT_D 36 0 2 1.08 0.092 0.554 0.307 1.08 ± 0.554 Internal Rotation 0 BT_E 36 1 3 1.86 0.071 0.424 0.180 1.86 ± 0.424 AT_E 36 0 2 0.89 0.087 0.523 0.273 0.89 ± 0.523 External Rotation 0 BT_F 36 1 2 1.42 0.083 0.500 0.250 1.42 ± 0.500 AT_F 36 0 2 0.86 0.081 0.487 0.237 0.86 ± 0.487 Valid N (listwise) 0 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table it was seen that chronity has mean 2.172 with Standard deviation of 3.467 and follows in a confidence interval of 2.172± 1.86. Bhabushool has mean 2.19 which was reduced to 1.25 after treatment with S.D. 0.250. Bahupraspanditahar has mean 1.72 which was reduced to 0.83 with standard deviation 0.561 .Abduction has mean 2.33 which was reduced to 1.17 with standard deviation 0.561 as confidence interval 1.172± 0.562. Extension has mean 1.97 which was reduced to 1.11 with standard deviation 0.708 as confidence interval 1.11 ± 0.708.
- 16. Flexion has mean 2.19 which was reduced to 1.08 with standard deviation 0.092 with C.F. 1.08 ± 0.554. Internal rotation has mean 1.86 which was reduced to 0.89 with standard deviation 0.523 with C.F. 0.89 ± 0.523. External rotation has mean 1.42 which was reduced to 0.86 with standard deviation 0.237 with C.F. 0.86 ± 0.487 Table No 15: Tests of Normality Tests of Normality Parameters Time Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Bahushol BT 0.354 36 0.000 0.742 36 0.000 AT 0.414 36 0.000 0.662 36 0.000 Bahupraspanditahar BT_A 0.355 36 0.000 0.731 36 0.000 AT_A 0.367 36 0.000 0.730 36 0.000 Abduction BT_B 0.424 36 0.000 0.596 36 0.000 AT_B 0.367 36 0.000 0.730 36 0.000 Extension BT_C 0.353 36 0.000 0.732 36 0.000 AT_C 0.257 36 0.000 0.805 36 0.000 Flexion BT_D 0.395 36 0.000 0.696 36 0.000 AT_D 0.365 36 0.000 0.727 36 0.000 Internal Rotation BT_E 0.462 36 0.000 0.569 36 0.000 AT_E 0.390 36 0.000 0.696 36 0.000 External Rotation BT_F 0.381 36 0.000 0.627 36 0.000 AT_F 0.418 36 0.000 0.656 36 0.000 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table , researcher observe that by both the test Kolmogorov Smimnov test ,we can see that all the values are gtreater than 0.05 which was totally significant to prove the normality of the data .
- 17. Table No 16: Paired t Test-A H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment H1:There is a significant mean difference after the treatment Here researcher used the paired t test to observe the difference before and after treatment at sample size of 36 with considering the level; of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval of data. Paired Samples Statistics Parameter Scale Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Bahushol Pair 1 BT 2.19 36 0.577 0.096 AT 1.25 36 0.500 0.083 Bahupraspanditahar Pair 2 BT_A 1.72 36 0.566 0.094 AT_A 0.83 36 0.561 0.093 Abduction Pair 3 BT_B 2.33 36 0.478 0.080 AT_B 1.17 36 0.561 0.093 Extension Pair 4 BT_C 1.97 36 0.560 0.093 AT_C 1.11 36 0.708 0.118 Flexion Pair 5 BT_D 2.19 36 0.525 0.087 AT_D 1.08 36 0.554 0.092 Internal Rotation Pair 6 BT_E 1.86 36 0.424 0.071 AT_E 0.89 36 0.523 0.087 External Rotation Pair 7 BT_F 1.42 36 0.500 0.083 AT_F 0.86 36 0.487 0.081 (Source: Primary Data) Table No 16: Paired t Test-B Paired Samples Correlations Parameter Scale N Correlation Sig. Bahushol Pair 1 BT & AT 36 0.718 0.000 Bahupraspanditahar Pair 2 BT_A & AT_A 36 0.570 0.000 Abduction Pair 3 BT_B & AT_B 36 0.426 0.010 Extension Pair 4 BT_C & AT_C 36 0.224 0.189 Flexion Pair 5 BT_D & AT_D 36 0.532 0.001 Internal Rotation Pair 6 BT_E & AT_E 36 0.444 0.007 External Rotation Pair 7 BT_F & AT_F 36 0.479 0.003 (Source: Primary Data)
- 18. Table No 16: Paired t Test-C Paired Samples Test Parameter Scale Paired Differences Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference t df Sig. (2- tailed) Lower Upper Bahushol Pair 1 BT - AT 0.944 0.410 0.068 0.806 1.083 13.815 35 0.000 Bahupraspanditahar Pair 2 BT_A - AT_A 0.889 0.523 0.087 0.712 1.066 10.207 35 0.000 Abduction Pair 3 BT_B - AT_B 1.167 0.561 0.093 0.977 1.356 12.486 35 0.000 Extension Pair 4 BT_C - AT_C 0.861 0.798 0.133 0.591 1.131 6.472 35 0.000 Flexion Pair 5 BT_D - AT_D 1.111 0.523 0.087 0.934 1.288 12.759 35 0.000 Internal Rotation Pair 6 BT_E - AT_E 0.972 0.506 0.084 0.801 1.144 11.521 35 0.000 External Rotation Pair 7 BT_F - AT_F 0.556 0.504 0.084 0.385 0.726 6.614 35 0.000 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table , researcher observe that Bahushool has mean difference 94.4 % , Bahupraspanditahar has mean difference 88.9 % , abduction has mean difference 1.167 % , extension has mean difference 86 % , flexion has mean difference 1.111% , internal rotation has mean difference 97% while external rotation has 55.6% mean difference . From above table no 16 ,it was seen that t statistics values are more significant and all significance p values are less than 0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference after the treatment at 5 % level of significance and 36 degree of freedom.
- 19. Table No 17: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Bahushool. H1: There is a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Bahushool. Here researcher used the ANOVA test to observe the difference & internal consistency of data at sample size of 36 with considering the level of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval of data. ANOVA Parameter Scale Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F Sig. Bahushool BT Between Groups 0.311 6 0.052 0.133 0.991 Within Groups 11.328 29 0.391 Total 11.639 35 AT Between Groups 0.883 6 0.147 0.543 0.771 Within Groups 7.867 29 0.271 Total 8.750 35 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table, it was seen that F values are significantly higher but p values are greater than 0.05 so we accept the null hypothesis and conclude that there is significant difference in internal consistency at 5 % level of significance.
- 20. Table No 18: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Bahupraspanditahar. H1: There is a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Bahupraspanditahar. Here researcher used the ANOVA test to observe the difference & internal consistency of data at sample size of 36 with considering the level of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval of data. ANOVA Parameter Scale Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F Sig. Bahupraspanditahar BT_A Between Groups 1.922 6 0.320 0.999 0.445 Within Groups 9.300 29 0.321 Total 11.222 35 AT_A Between Groups 3.172 6 0.529 1.959 0.105 Within Groups 7.828 29 0.270 Total 11.000 35 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table, it was seen that F values are significantly higher but p values are less than 0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is not a significant difference in internal consistency at 5 % level of significance.
- 21. Table No 19: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Abduction. H1: There is a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Abduction. Here researcher used the ANOVA test to observe the difference & internal consistency of data at sample size of 36 with considering the level of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval of data. ANOVA Parameter Scale Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F Sig. Abduction BT_B Between Groups 1.439 6 0.240 1.060 0.409 Within Groups 6.561 29 0.226 Total 8.000 35 AT_B Between Groups 2.222 6 0.370 1.224 0.323 Within Groups 8.778 29 0.303 Total 11.000 35 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table, it was seen that F values are significantly higher but p values are less than 0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is not a significant difference in internal consistency at 5 % level of significance.
- 22. Table No 20: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Extension. H1: There is a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Extension. Here researcher used the ANOVA test to observe the difference & internal consistency of data at sample size of 36 with considering the level of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval of data. ANOVA Parameter Scale Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Extension BT_C Between Groups 1.311 6 0.219 0.656 0.685 Within Groups 9.661 29 0.333 Total 10.972 35 AT_C Between Groups 2.744 6 0.457 0.896 0.511 Within Groups 14.811 29 0.511 Total 17.556 35 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table, it was seen that F values are significantly higher but p values are greater than 0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference in internal consistency at 5 % level of significance.
- 23. Table No 21: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in flexion. H1: There is a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in flexion. Here researcher used the ANOVA test to observe the difference & internal consistency of data at sample size of 36 with considering the level of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval of data. ANOVA Parameter Scale Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Flexion BT_D Between Groups 0.589 6 0.098 0.315 0.924 Within Groups 9.050 29 0.312 Total 9.639 35 AT_D Between Groups 1.256 6 0.209 0.639 0.698 Within Groups 9.494 29 0.327 Total 10.750 35 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table, it was seen that F values are significantly higher but p values are greater than 0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference in internal consistency at 5 % level of significance.
- 24. Table No 22: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in internal rotation . H1: There is a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in internal rotation . Here researcher used the ANOVA test to observe the difference & internal consistency of data at sample size of 36 with considering the level of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval of data. ANOVA Parameter Scale Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Internal Rotation BT_E Between Groups 0.994 6 0.166 0.905 0.505 Within Groups 5.311 29 0.183 Total 6.306 35 AT_E Between Groups 1.644 6 0.274 1.005 0.441 Within Groups 7.911 29 0.273 Total 9.556 35 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table, it was seen that F values are significantly higher but p values are greater than 0.05 so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference in internal consistency at 5 % level of significance.
- 25. Table No 23: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE H0:There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in external rotation. H1: There is a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in external rotation . Here researcher used the ANOVA test to observe the difference & internal consistency of data at sample size of 36 with considering the level of significance at 5% with 95% confidence interval of data. ANOVA Parameter Scale Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. External Rotation BT_F Between Groups 1.439 6 0.240 0.951 0.475 Within Groups 7.311 29 0.252 Total 8.750 35 AT_F Between Groups 2.561 6 0.427 2.155 0.077 Within Groups 5.744 29 0.198 Total 8.306 35 (Source: Primary Data) Interpretation: From the above table, it was seen that F values are significantly higher but p values are less than 0.05 so we accept the null hypothesis and conclude that there is not a significant difference in internal consistency at 5 % level of significance.
- 26. Table No 24: Summary Table of Testing of Hypothesis Testing of Hypothesis Sr.no. Hypothesis Test used Level of Significance Test Statistics P value Decision 1 There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment Paired t test 5% Table no 16 > 0.05 Reject the Hypothesis 2 There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Bahushool. ANOVA 5% Table no 17 < 0.05 Accept the Hypothesis 3 There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Bahupraspanditahar. ANOVA 5% Table no 18 > 0.05 Reject the Hypothesis 4 There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in Abduction. ANOVA 5% Table no 19 > 0.05 Reject the Hypothesis 5 There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in flexion. ANOVA 5% Table no 20 > 0.05 Reject the Hypothesis 6 There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in internal rotation . ANOVA 5% Table no 21 > 0.05 Reject the Hypothesis 7 There is not a significant mean difference after the treatment with internal consistency in external rotation. ANOVA 5% Table no 22 > 0.05 Reject the Hypothesis (Source: Primary Data)