Scribd
Upload
81 views5 pages

Research Tally

The document appears to contain data from an experiment comparing mechanical harvesting to manual harvesting. It includes the results from 114 respondents for each harvesting method, with an average score of 3.532 for mechanical and 3.707 for manual. A z-test was conducted and determined the difference in average scores between the two harvesting methods was statistically significant with a p-value less than 0.05, suggesting manual harvesting had a higher average score.

Uploaded by

Bjorn Sweet
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views5 pages

Research Tally

The document appears to contain data from an experiment comparing mechanical harvesting to manual harvesting. It includes the results from 114 respondents for each harvesting method, with an average score of 3.532 for mechanical and 3.707 for manual. A z-test was conducted and determined the difference in average scores between the two harvesting methods was statistically significant with a p-value less than 0.05, suggesting manual harvesting had a higher average score.

Uploaded by

Bjorn Sweet
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Respondents Mechanical Harvesting Manual Harvesting

1 3.6 4
2 3.5 3.7
3 2.9 3
4 2.8 3
5 3.8 3.9 t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
6 3.4 4
7 4 4 Mechanical Harvesting
8 4 4 Mean
9 3.9 4 Variance
10 3.3 3.7 Observations
11 3.6 4.1 Pearson Correlation
12 3.9 4 Hypothesized Mean Diff
13 3.8 3.9 df
14 3.4 4 t Stat
15 3.4 4 P(T<=t) one-tail
16 3.8 4 t Critical one-tail
17 3.6 3.6 P(T<=t) two-tail
18 3.6 3.6 t Critical two-tail
19 3.2 3.6
20 3.4 3.6
21 3.2 3.5
22 3.3 3.6
23 3.4 3.6
24 3.7 3.6
25 3.3 3
26 3.3 3.6
27 3.4 3.6
28 3 2.8
29 3.2 3.6
30 3.3 3.3
31 3.2 3.6
32 3.2 3.6
33 3.2 3.4
34 3.3 3.6
35 3.4 3.5
36 3.5 3.5
37 3.4 3.5
38 3.3 3.5
39 3.5 3.6
40 3.1 3.6
41 3.9 4
42 3.3 3.5
43 3.2 3.5
44 3.3 3.7
45 3.8 4
46 3.8 3.9
47 3.8 4
48 3.6 3.7
49 3.8 4
50 3.6 3.6
51 3.8 3.6
52 3.7 3.5
53 3.4 3.6
54 3.2 4
55 2.9 3.1
56 3.8 4
57 3.8 4
58 3.1 3
59 2.6 3.4
60 3.7 4
61 3.8 3.8
62 4 4
63 3.9 4
64 4 4
65 3.9 3.9
66 3.9 4
67 3.2 3.6
68 3.7 4
69 3.9 4
70 3.5 3.8
71 3.9 4
72 3.6 3.9
73 3.4 3.7
74 3.7 3.7
75 3.8 3.8
76 3.7 3.9
77 3.9 3.8
78 3 3
79 3 3
80 3.1 4
81 3.4 3.9
82 3.7 3.8
83 3.7 3.9
84 3.9 3.9
85 3.7 3.9
86 3.9 4
87 3.8 3.8
88 3.7 3.7
89 3.6 3.9
90 3.5 3.5
91 3.5 3.5
92 3.7 3.7
93 3.7 3.9
94 3.8 3.5
95 3.8 3.8
96 3.7 3.8
97 3.6 4
98 3.7 3.9
99 3.5 2.5
100 3.8 3.8
101 3 3.3
102 3 3.4
103 3.8 4
104 3.8 4
105 3.5 3.8
106 3 3.3
107 4 3.9
108 3.7 4
109 3.5 3.7
110 3.8 4
111 3.8 4
112 3 3.9
113 3.7 4
114 3.3 3.3
z-Test: Two Sample for Means

Mechanical Harvesting
Mean 3.53245614035088
d Two Sample for Means Known Variance 0.097255861
Observations 114
Mechanical Harvesting Manual Harvesting Hypothesized Mean 0
3.53245614035088 3.70701754385965 z -4.23326251296508
0.097255860891166 0.0965874864151529 P(Z<=z) one-tail 1.151626936069E-05
114 114 z Critical one-tail 1.64485362695147
0.68699574207885 P(Z<=z) two-tail 2.303253872138E-05
0 z Critical two-tail 1.95996398454005
113
-7.56653847184769
5.5596181259987E-12
1.65845021633994
1.1119236251997E-11
1.98118035941466
Manual Harvesting
3.70701754386
0.096587486
114

You might also like