Hypotheses Testing Sample Clauses

Hypotheses Testing. Panel A: Scenario 1 T-Test Split N (=82) Mean Two-Sided p t Collectivism/individualisma Justice 1 41 4.8537 0.007** 2.776 Relativism 1 41 4.3293 0.006** 2.806 Utilitarianism 1 41 4.4512 0.310 1.022 Deontology 1 41 3.9024 0.785 0.273 Orientation 1 41 4.9268 0.002** 3.219 Intention 1 41 4.7073 0.133 1.517 Femininity/masculinityb Justice 1 47 4.7943 0.008** 2.707 Relativism 1 47 4.3085 0.003** 3.101 Utilitarianism 1 47 4.3404 0.724 0.355 Deontology 1 47 3.7872 0.497 -0.683 Orientation 1 47 4.6809 0.047* 2.021 Intention 1 47 4.5745 0.477 0.715 Uncertainty avoidancec Justice 1 41 4.9593 0.001** 3.667 2 41 3.9919 Relativism 1 41 4.3659 0.003** 3.114 2 41 3.5488 Utilitarianism 1 41 4.4268 0.391 0.863 2 41 4.1585 Deontology 1 41 4.1951 0.012* 2.559 2 41 3.5366 Orientation 1 41 4.9756 0.001** 3.541 2 41 3.7561 Intention 1 41 4.5366 0.717 0.364 2 41 4.4268 a 1 = Collectivist ; 2 = Individualist b 1 = Feminist ; 2 = Masculist c 1 = Uncertainty avoider ; 2 = Less uncertainty avoider *Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Based on the results from the correlation matrix, we have already received an indication that our proposed hypotheses for the first scenario are correct. We will check this using t-tests. Here, we will use averages and significance levels to see whether these suspicions, and thus our hypotheses, can be confirmed. The t-test can be defined as a parametric statistical test that checks whether there is a difference between the averages of two groups in the population (X. Xxxxx, 2022). Furthermore, t-value and p-value are inseparably linked as the higher the value of the t- value is, the lower the value of p-value is. When this p-value is very low and the t-value thus high, you can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a statistically significant difference between the two averages (X. Xxxxx, 2022). Specifically, the t-test takes a sample from the two sets made up by the mean split. So, two groups each based on the cultural dimensions. A null hypothesis is then constructed within the t-tests that assumes that the averages of those two groups are equal. If the t-values are high, this null hypothesis can be rejected, which indicates that the groups are different. Then, we can examine the averages, and thus the differences of the groups, which leads to us being able to test our hypotheses. If the means of one group is higher than the other group with which it is compared, it implies that that grou...
Sample 1
Hypotheses Testing. The first hypothesis is that co-morbid internalizing behavior problems will predict worse treatment outcomes. This hypothesis was tested using multiple regression analyses with CBCL externalizing behavior scores and self reported delinquency as the dependent measures. These analyses revealed a significant positive association between internalizing scores at pre-treatment and delinquency scores at post-treatment (β =.16, p=.04), controlling for age, gender, and delinquency scores at pre-treatment. It was found that internalizing scores at pre-treatment accounted for 2.3% of the variance in delinquency scores at post-treatment. No significant association was found between internalizing scores at pre-treatment and CBCL externalizing scores at post-treatment (β =.05, p=.50). The second hypothesis was that co-morbid internalizing behavior problems would be associated with greater stress during treatment. Regression analyses found a significant association between internalizing scores at pre-treatment and total caregiver stress (β =.24, p=.01), controlling for age and gender. The regression showed that internalizing scores at pre- treatment accounted for 5.1% of the variance in total caregiver stress. Regression analyses also found a significant association between internalizing scores at pre-treatment and youth-related caregiver stress (β =.21, p=.01), controlling for age and gender. Internalizing scores at pre- treatment accounted for 4.0% of the variance in youth-related caregiver stress.
Sample 1
Hypotheses Testing. The first hypothesis in this study was that higher levels of stress would be correlated with increased externalizing behaviors prior to treatment. A partial correlation controlling for ethnicity and SES did not yield significant correlations between the different types of stressors and externalizing behavior (see Table 3). Regression analyses testing for a curvilinear relationship between cortisol and externalizing behaviors at pretreatment also yielded nonsignificant results (F Change=.
Sample 1
Hypotheses Testing. In chapter three, we proposed three hypotheses. These were tested using statistical results from regression estimates. The hypotheses were: The hypothesis is supported by the results of our regression model. The model is significant at F= 10.65 at p<0.01, however as we look in the equation given below. δRN ⁄ δLogRD = 5.524 – 1.670 (logRD) + 0.305 (LSP) = -1.670 + 0.305 (LSP) The value of coefficient of interaction effect is 0.305 which is obviously non zero, and the t- value = 3.475 at p<.01 which shows that the value of interaction effect is highly significant and depending upon the level of logistic service of the seller. Therefore, we can safely say that the effect of relationship duration on relational norms is contingent on the level of logistic performance which is our main hypothesis H1. Similarly, from the above graph of Figure 6.1, the value of interaction effect of relationship duration and relational norms is -1.670 (which is a negative value). So, when the logistic performance level is zero or less than 5.47, the value of interaction effect remains in the negative region of the graph. Thus, we can interpret from this result that at a low or modest level of logistic service performance the effect of relationship duration on relational norms is negative which proves our second hypothesis (H2) which states that the effect of relationship duration is negative on the relational norms when the logistic performance is low / modest. The same can be discussed by elaborating the results from the model / graph in the following matrix. Table 6-3: Extended Relationship Matrix When the relationship duration is short and the level of logistic performance is low / modest, we are in cell 3. This shows the modestly negative relationship between relationship duration and relational norms. We can land into cell 3 from cell 1 as well. In this situation it may be a case of adverse selection that the performance level of the seller deteriorated sharply but the buyer is still in relationship with this seller. This situation may be attributed to various reasons, for example, the buyer is new entrant into this marker and is unaware of the market dynamics, other situation may be that market structure is monopolistic in nature for this particular product and the buyer is not left with any other option in the short term. But this is a transitionary stage and soon it will end up by moving in either cell 2 or cell 4. If on the feedback of the buyer, seller improves its logis...
Sample 1

Related to Hypotheses Testing

  • Random Testing Notwithstanding any provisions of the Collective Agreement or any special agreements appended thereto, section 4.6 of the Canadian Model will not be applied by agreement. If applied to a worker dispatched by the Union, it will be applied or deemed to be applied unilaterally by the Employer. The Union retains the right to grieve the legality of any imposition of random testing in accordance with the Grievance Procedure set out in this Collective Agreement.

  • ODUF Testing 6.6.1 Upon request from TWTC, AT&T shall send ODUF test files to TWTC. The Parties agree to review and discuss the ODUF file content and/or format. For testing of usage results, AT&T shall request that TWTC set up a production (live) file. The live test may consist of TWTC’s employees making test calls for the types of services TWTC requests on ODUF. These test calls are logged by TWTC, and the logs are provided to AT&T. These logs will be used to verify the files. Testing will be completed within thirty (30) days from the date on which the initial test file was sent.

  • Substance Abuse Testing The Parties agree that it is in the best interest of all concerned to promote a safe working environment. The Union has no objection to pre-employment substance abuse testing when required by the Employer and further, the Union has no objection to voluntary substance abuse testing to qualify for employment on projects when required by a project owner. The cost and scheduling of such testing shall be paid for and arranged by the Employer. The Union agrees to reimburse the Employer for any failed pre-access Alcohol and Drug test costs.

  • Alcohol Testing Alcohol testing will be conducted by using an evidential breath testing device (EBT) approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Non-EBT devices may be used for initial screening tests. A screening test will be conducted first. If the result is an alcohol concentration level of less than 0.02, the test is considered a negative test. If the alcohol concentration level is 0.02 or more, a second confirmation test will be conducted. Levels of .04 or greater on the confirmation test will be considered positive.

  • Meter Testing Company shall provide at least twenty-four (24) hours' notice to Seller prior to any test it may perform on the revenue meters or metering equipment. Seller shall have the right to have a representative present during each such test. Seller may request, and Company shall perform, if requested, tests in addition to the every fifth-year test and Seller shall pay the cost of such tests. Company may, in its sole discretion, perform tests in addition to the fifth year test and Company shall pay the cost of such tests. If any of the revenue meters or metering equipment is found to be inaccurate at any time, as determined by testing in accordance with this Section 10.2 (Meter Testing), Company shall promptly cause such equipment to be made accurate, and the period of inaccuracy, as well as an estimate for correct meter readings, shall be determined in accordance with Section 10.3 (Corrections).

  • Stability Testing Patheon shall conduct stability testing on the Products in accordance with the protocols set out in the Specifications for the separate fees specified in Schedule C. Patheon shall not make any changes to these testing protocols without prior written approval from the Client. In the event that any batch of Products fails stability testing, Patheon and the Client shall jointly determine the proceedings and methods to be undertaken to investigate the causes of such failure, including which party shall bear the cost of such investigation, provided that Patheon shall not be liable for any such costs unless there has been a failure by it to provide the Manufacturing Services in accordance with the Specifications and cGMPs. Patheon will provide any and all data and results relating to the stability testing upon request by the Client.

  • Drug Testing (A) The state and the PBA agree to drug testing of employees in accordance with section 112.0455, F.S., the Drug-Free Workplace Act. (B) All classes covered by this Agreement are designated special risk classes for drug testing purposes. Special risk means employees who are required as a condition of employment to be certified under Chapter 633 or Chapter 943, F.S. (C) An employee shall have the right to grieve any disciplinary action taken under section 112.0455, the Drug-Free Workplace Act, subject to the limitations on the grievability of disciplinary actions in Article 10. If an employee is not disciplined but is denied a demotion, reassignment, or promotion as a result of a positive confirmed drug test, the employee shall have the right to grieve such action in accordance with Article 6.

  • Human Leukocyte Antigen Testing This plan covers human leukocyte antigen testing for A, B, and DR antigens once per member per lifetime to establish a member’s bone marrow transplantation donor suitability in accordance with R.I. General Law §27-20-36. The testing must be performed in a facility that is: • accredited by the American Association of Blood Banks or its successors; and • licensed under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act as it may be amended from time to time. At the time of testing, the person being tested must complete and sign an informed consent form that also authorizes the results of the test to be used for participation in the National Marrow Donor program.

  • Performance Testing (a) All performance tests of the Project, including any Initial Performance Test required in Section 2 of Appendix VIII, will be performed in accordance with the test procedures set forth in Appendix VIII (“Performance Test”), including additional procedures and protocols related to Performance Testing as mutually agreed between Buyer and Seller (“Test Procedures”). Seller shall bear all costs and receive all revenues, if applicable, associated with all Performance Tests. (b) After the Initial Delivery Date and during the Delivery Term, Buyer will have the right to conduct a Performance Test (“Buyer Performance Test”) no more than once a calendar year to demonstrate whether the Project is capable of delivering the Distribution Services at the Contract Capacity. Within 30 calendar days following a Buyer Performance Test, Seller will have the right to retest the Project with a Performance Test (“Seller Retest”). For the avoidance of doubt, the results of any Seller Retest will supersede the results of the preceding Buyer Performance Test. (i) If a Buyer Performance Test or, if a corresponding Seller Retest has occurred, a Seller Retest demonstrates the Project is capable of delivering Distribution Services at or above ninety-nine percent (99%) of the Initial Contract Capacity, the Contract Capacity will remain the Initial Contract Capacity; (ii) If a Buyer Performance Test or, if a corresponding Seller Retest has occurred, a Seller Retest demonstrates the Project is capable of delivering Distribution Services at more than or equal to eighty-five (85%) of the Initial Contract Capacity, but less than ninety-nine percent (99%) of the Initial Contract Capacity (“Testing Band”), the Contract Capacity will be automatically adjusted (upwards or downwards) to the capacity commensurate with the amount of Distribution Services the Project delivered during the Performance Test within the Testing Band. (iii) If a Buyer Performance Test or, if a corresponding Seller Retest has occurred, a Seller Retest demonstrates the Project is not capable of delivering Distribution Services of at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the Initial Contract Capacity, an Event of Default shall occur in accordance with Section 7.1(a)(viii).

  • Follow-up Testing An employee shall submit to unscheduled follow-up drug and/or alcohol testing if, within the previous 24-month period, the employee voluntarily disclosed drug or alcohol problems, entered into or completed a rehabilitation program for drug or alcohol abuse, failed or refused a preappointment drug test, or was disciplined for violating the provisions of this Agreement and Employer work rules. The Employer may require an employee who is subject to follow-up testing to submit to no more than six unscheduled drug or alcohol tests within any 12 month period.