A231

SMS1012

GROUP PROJECT
DATA ANALYTICS

LECTURER:
PUAN NURHATIAH BINTI AHMAD CHUKARI

CLASS:
KSC

GROUP LAB:
MSC04

GROUP 23

PREPARED BY:
NAME MATRIC NO
AISYA NUR BALQIS BINTI AHMAD KHAIRUL 1220541
ALIYAH AFIQAH BINTI MOHD SENAN 1220503
NURUL FARAH NABILA BINTI MAT SARI 1220523
SITI NUR’AINI AYUNNI BINTI MD JAILANI 1220537

1
 PART 1: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYTICS

STEP 1: DATA EXPLORATION

1. Familiarize yourself with the financial literacy score dataset categorized by gender,
year, and faculties.
2. Sort and separate the dataset according to each category.

The table below shows the score dataset categorized by

i. Gender (male and female)
ii. Year (1, 2, 3, 4)
iii. Faculties (FEM, FKP and FST).

i. First category: Gender

First category: Gender

The financial literacy score data set for male students
No Gender Year Faculty Score
1 6 Male 1 FEM 32.3
2 19 Male 1 FEM 37.9
3 43 Male 1 FEM 43.8
4 63 Male 1 FEM 34.6
5 143 Male 1 FEM 27
6 163 Male 1 FEM 30
7 185 Male 1 FEM 44.7
8 194 Male 1 FEM 43.6
9 2 Male 2 FEM 38.4
10 131 Male 2 FEM 41.1
11 156 Male 2 FEM 43.2
12 162 Male 2 FEM 43.8
13 186 Male 2 FEM 50.1
14 197 Male 2 FEM 39.5
15 200 Male 2 FEM 31.3
16 11 Male 3 FEM 27.4
17 82 Male 3 FEM 55.9
18 145 Male 3 FEM 53.8
19 191 Male 3 FEM 40.2
20 15 Male 4 FEM 33
21 34 Male 4 FEM 31.4
22 35 Male 4 FEM 29.2
23 61 Male 4 FEM 47.3
24 80 Male 4 FEM 50.2

2
25 97 Male 4 FEM 53.2
26 114 Male 4 FEM 52.4
27 136 Male 4 FEM 68.9
28 14 Male 1 FKP 39.9
29 31 Male 1 FKP 54.1
30 33 Male 1 FKP 50.9
31 41 Male 1 FKP 57.9
32 46 Male 1 FKP 29.2
33 54 Male 1 FKP 50.5
34 70 Male 1 FKP 56
35 74 Male 1 FKP 40.7
36 86 Male 1 FKP 38.3
37 95 Male 1 FKP 43.8
38 126 Male 1 FKP 50.5
39 148 Male 1 FKP 57
40 149 Male 1 FKP 50.9
41 151 Male 1 FKP 46.3
42 133 Male 2 FKP 55.2
43 167 Male 2 FKP 46.1
44 174 Male 2 FKP 38.5
45 176 Male 2 FKP 48.7
46 179 Male 2 FKP 30.6
47 180 Male 2 FKP 34
48 30 Male 3 FKP 39.2
49 37 Male 3 FKP 41.4
50 42 Male 3 FKP 49.4
51 78 Male 3 FKP 54.3
52 91 Male 3 FKP 33.2
53 94 Male 3 FKP 47.9
54 99 Male 3 FKP 23.7
55 138 Male 3 FKP 42.4
56 188 Male 3 FKP 51.3
57 9 Male 4 FKP 35.3
58 13 Male 4 FKP 46.4
59 36 Male 4 FKP 29
60 109 Male 4 FKP 48
61 120 Male 4 FKP 39.4
62 124 Male 4 FKP 46
63 146 Male 4 FKP 32.8
64 181 Male 4 FKP 28.5
65 182 Male 4 FKP 47.1
66 187 Male 4 FKP 48.1
67 1 Male 1 FST 48.6
68 18 Male 1 FST 39.9
69 40 Male 1 FST 24.9
70 116 Male 1 FST 40.8
71 119 Male 1 FST 28.5
72 123 Male 1 FST 35

3
 73 132 Male 1 FST 75.7
74 154 Male 1 FST 54.1
75 169 Male 1 FST 59.2
76 172 Male 1 FST 40
77 27 Male 2 FST 40.5
78 68 Male 2 FST 39.6
79 84 Male 2 FST 66.5
80 113 Male 2 FST 43.8
81 144 Male 2 FST 28.9
82 147 Male 2 FST 76.8
83 195 Male 2 FST 49.4
84 26 Male 3 FST 38.6
85 56 Male 3 FST 61.1
86 67 Male 3 FST 45.3
87 90 Male 3 FST 59.8
88 117 Male 3 FST 32.8
89 127 Male 3 FST 35.6
90 140 Male 3 FST 56.7
91 141 Male 3 FST 47.8
92 142 Male 3 FST 72.8
93 152 Male 3 FST 50.9
94 159 Male 3 FST 47.2
95 184 Male 3 FST 39.5
96 8 Male 4 FST 23
97 38 Male 4 FST 44.5
98 39 Male 4 FST 44.2
99 101 Male 4 FST 33.4
100 164 Male 4 FST 62.5

Table 1.1

4
The financial literacy score data set for female students

No Gender Year Faculties Score

1 7 Female 1 FEM 54.7
2 45 Female 1 FEM 50.2
3 48 Female 1 FEM 36.4
4 103 Female 1 FEM 55
5 129 Female 1 FEM 58.4
6 155 Female 1 FEM 49.7
7 158 Female 1 FEM 41.6
8 166 Female 1 FEM 35.8
9 183 Female 1 FEM 57.2
10 196 Female 1 FEM 51.7
11 12 Female 2 FEM 34.9
12 69 Female 2 FEM 61.5
13 98 Female 2 FEM 46.4
14 47 Female 3 FEM 60.1
15 51 Female 3 FEM 48.6
16 53 Female 3 FEM 41.7
17 59 Female 3 FEM 30.8
18 62 Female 3 FEM 37.8
19 85 Female 3 FEM 26.9
20 102 Female 3 FEM 44.3
21 150 Female 3 FEM 40.2
22 161 Female 3 FEM 55
23 175 Female 3 FEM 43.3
24 17 Female 4 FEM 49.9
25 49 Female 4 FEM 48.7
26 57 Female 4 FEM 34.2
27 65 Female 4 FEM 46.9
28 73 Female 4 FEM 33.3
29 87 Female 4 FEM 42.3
30 93 Female 4 FEM 29.2
31 115 Female 4 FEM 50.7
32 134 Female 4 FEM 32.6
33 153 Female 4 FEM 33.1
34 171 Female 4 FEM 51.9
35 173 Female 4 FEM 17.9
36 3 Female 1 FKP 29.7
37 22 Female 1 FKP 36.5
38 23 Female 1 FKP 47.9
39 64 Female 1 FKP 51.7
40 105 Female 1 FKP 45.8
41 118 Female 1 FKP 41.5
42 139 Female 1 FKP 45.7
43 177 Female 1 FKP 49.7
44 52 Female 2 FKP 48.5

5
45 66 Female 2 FKP 39.8
46 96 Female 2 FKP 47.8
47 100 Female 2 FKP 49.9
48 130 Female 2 FKP 46.1
49 165 Female 2 FKP 48.6
50 192 Female 2 FKP 75.8
51 193 Female 2 FKP 66.9
52 24 Female 3 FKP 51.6
53 25 Female 3 FKP 31.9
54 55 Female 3 FKP 50.7
55 58 Female 3 FKP 43.5
56 76 Female 3 FKP 42.3
57 81 Female 3 FKP 53.8
58 92 Female 3 FKP 55.2
59 112 Female 3 FKP 38
60 189 Female 3 FKP 47.1
61 4 Female 4 FKP 24.9
62 60 Female 4 FKP 38.7
63 72 Female 4 FKP 53
64 104 Female 4 FKP 33.8
65 106 Female 4 FKP 53
66 111 Female 4 FKP 35.9
67 198 Female 4 FKP 44.3
68 20 Female 1 FST 47.1
69 88 Female 1 FST 51.7
70 121 Female 1 FST 35.5
71 135 Female 1 FST 39.6
72 137 Female 1 FST 36.8
73 157 Female 1 FST 45
74 190 Female 1 FST 31.1
75 5 Female 2 FST 51.6
76 16 Female 2 FST 40.8
77 29 Female 2 FST 36.6
78 110 Female 2 FST 41.2
79 170 Female 2 FST 38
80 178 Female 2 FST 60
81 21 Female 3 FST 49
82 28 Female 3 FST 69.2
83 32 Female 3 FST 42.8
84 44 Female 3 FST 27.6
85 50 Female 3 FST 38.2
86 71 Female 3 FST 20.6
87 77 Female 3 FST 60.4
88 79 Female 3 FST 71.9
89 83 Female 3 FST 56.4
90 89 Female 3 FST 60.5
91 108 Female 3 FST 39.1
92 128 Female 3 FST 47.4

6
 93 160 Female 3 FST 24.3
94 168 Female 3 FST 40
95 10 Female 4 FST 33.7
96 75 Female 4 FST 61.7
97 107 Female 4 FST 62.4
98 122 Female 4 FST 36.4
99 125 Female 4 FST 46.5
100 199 Female 4 FST 26.6

Table 1.2

The financial literacy score data set for male and female students.

GENDER FREQUENCY
SCORE MIDPOINT
MALE FEMALE
17.9-23.8 20.85 2 2
23.9-29.8 26.85 9 7
29.9-34.8 32.35 12 9
34.9-40.8 37.85 20 20
40.9-46.8 43.85 17 17
26.9-52.8 49.85 20 24
52.9-58.8 55.85 11 10
58.9-64.8 61.85 4 7
64.9-70.8 67.85 2 2
70.9-76.8 73.85 3 2

Table 1.3

7
 ii. Second category: Year

The financial literacy score data set for year 1 students

No Gender Year Faculty Score

1 7 Female 1 FEM 54.7
2 45 Female 1 FEM 50.2
3 48 Female 1 FEM 36.4
4 103 Female 1 FEM 55
5 129 Female 1 FEM 58.4
6 155 Female 1 FEM 49.7
7 158 Female 1 FEM 41.6
8 166 Female 1 FEM 35.8
9 183 Female 1 FEM 57.2
10 196 Female 1 FEM 51.7
11 6 Male 1 FEM 32.3
12 19 Male 1 FEM 37.9
13 43 Male 1 FEM 43.8
14 63 Male 1 FEM 34.6
15 143 Male 1 FEM 27
16 163 Male 1 FEM 30
17 185 Male 1 FEM 44.7
18 194 Male 1 FEM 43.6
19 3 Female 1 FKP 29.7
20 22 Female 1 FKP 36.5
21 23 Female 1 FKP 47.9
22 64 Female 1 FKP 51.7
23 105 Female 1 FKP 45.8
24 118 Female 1 FKP 41.5
25 139 Female 1 FKP 45.7
26 177 Female 1 FKP 49.7
27 14 Male 1 FKP 39.9
28 31 Male 1 FKP 54.1
29 33 Male 1 FKP 50.9
30 41 Male 1 FKP 57.9
31 46 Male 1 FKP 29.2
32 54 Male 1 FKP 50.5
33 70 Male 1 FKP 56
34 74 Male 1 FKP 40.7
35 86 Male 1 FKP 38.3
36 95 Male 1 FKP 43.8
37 126 Male 1 FKP 50.5
38 148 Male 1 FKP 57
39 149 Male 1 FKP 50.9
40 151 Male 1 FKP 46.3
41 20 Female 1 FST 47.1

8
42 88 Female 1 FST 51.7
43 121 Female 1 FST 35.5
44 135 Female 1 FST 39.6
45 137 Female 1 FST 36.8
46 157 Female 1 FST 45
47 190 Female 1 FST 31.1
48 1 Male 1 FST 48.6
49 18 Male 1 FST 39.9
50 40 Male 1 FST 24.9
51 116 Male 1 FST 40.8
52 119 Male 1 FST 28.5
53 123 Male 1 FST 35
54 132 Male 1 FST 75.7
55 154 Male 1 FST 54.1
56 169 Male 1 FST 59.2
57 172 Male 1 FST 40

Table 1.4

9
The financial literacy score data set for year 2 students

No Gender Year Faculty Score

1 12 Female 2 FEM 34.9
2 69 Female 2 FEM 61.5
3 98 Female 2 FEM 46.4
4 2 Male 2 FEM 38.4
5 131 Male 2 FEM 41.1
6 156 Male 2 FEM 43.2
7 162 Male 2 FEM 43.8
8 186 Male 2 FEM 50.1
9 197 Male 2 FEM 39.5
10 200 Male 2 FEM 31.3
11 52 Female 2 FKP 48.5
12 66 Female 2 FKP 39.8
13 96 Female 2 FKP 47.8
14 100 Female 2 FKP 49.9
15 130 Female 2 FKP 46.1
16 165 Female 2 FKP 48.6
17 192 Female 2 FKP 75.8
18 193 Female 2 FKP 66.9
19 133 Male 2 FKP 55.2
20 167 Male 2 FKP 46.1
21 174 Male 2 FKP 38.5
22 176 Male 2 FKP 48.7
23 179 Male 2 FKP 30.6
24 180 Male 2 FKP 34
25 5 Female 2 FST 51.6
26 16 Female 2 FST 40.8
27 29 Female 2 FST 36.6
28 110 Female 2 FST 41.2
29 170 Female 2 FST 38
30 178 Female 2 FST 60
31 27 Male 2 FST 40.5
32 68 Male 2 FST 39.6
33 84 Male 2 FST 66.5
34 113 Male 2 FST 43.8
35 144 Male 2 FST 28.9
36 147 Male 2 FST 76.8
37 195 Male 2 FST 49.4

Table 1.5

10
The financial literacy score data set for year 3 students

No Gender Year Faculty Score

1 47 Female 3 FEM 60.1
2 51 Female 3 FEM 48.6
3 53 Female 3 FEM 41.7
4 59 Female 3 FEM 30.8
5 62 Female 3 FEM 37.8
6 85 Female 3 FEM 26.9
7 102 Female 3 FEM 44.3
8 150 Female 3 FEM 40.2
9 161 Female 3 FEM 55.0
10 175 Female 3 FEM 43.3
11 11 Male 3 FEM 27.4
12 82 Male 3 FEM 55.9
13 145 Male 3 FEM 53.8
14 191 Male 3 FEM 40.2
15 24 Female 3 FKP 51.6
16 25 Female 3 FKP 31.9
17 55 Female 3 FKP 50.7
18 58 Female 3 FKP 43.5
19 76 Female 3 FKP 42.3
20 81 Female 3 FKP 53.8
21 92 Female 3 FKP 55.2
22 112 Female 3 FKP 38
23 189 Female 3 FKP 47.1
24 30 Male 3 FKP 39.2
25 37 Male 3 FKP 41.4
26 42 Male 3 FKP 49.4
27 78 Male 3 FKP 54.3
28 91 Male 3 FKP 33.2
29 94 Male 3 FKP 47.9
30 99 Male 3 FKP 23.7
31 138 Male 3 FKP 42.4
32 188 Male 3 FKP 51.3
33 21 Female 3 FST 49
34 28 Female 3 FST 69.2
35 32 Female 3 FST 42.8
36 44 Female 3 FST 27.6
37 50 Female 3 FST 38.2
38 71 Female 3 FST 20.6
39 77 Female 3 FST 60.4
40 79 Female 3 FST 71.9
41 83 Female 3 FST 56.4
42 89 Female 3 FST 60.5
43 108 Female 3 FST 39.1
44 128 Female 3 FST 47.4

11
45 160 Female 3 FST 24.3
46 168 Female 3 FST 40
47 26 Male 3 FST 38.6
48 56 Male 3 FST 61.1
49 67 Male 3 FST 45.3
50 90 Male 3 FST 59.8
51 117 Male 3 FST 32.8
52 127 Male 3 FST 35.6
53 140 Male 3 FST 56.7
54 141 Male 3 FST 47.8
55 142 Male 3 FST 72.8
56 152 Male 3 FST 50.9
57 159 Male 3 FST 47.2
58 184 Male 3 FST 39.5

Table 1.6

12
The financial literacy score data set for year 4 students

No Gender Year Faculty Score

1 17 Female 4 FEM 49.9
2 49 Female 4 FEM 48.7
3 57 Female 4 FEM 34.2
4 65 Female 4 FEM 46.9
5 73 Female 4 FEM 33.3
6 87 Female 4 FEM 42.3
7 93 Female 4 FEM 29.2
8 115 Female 4 FEM 50.7
9 134 Female 4 FEM 32.6
10 153 Female 4 FEM 33.1
11 171 Female 4 FEM 51.9
12 173 Female 4 FEM 17.9
13 15 Male 4 FEM 33
14 34 Male 4 FEM 31.4
15 35 Male 4 FEM 29.2
16 61 Male 4 FEM 47.3
17 80 Male 4 FEM 50.2
18 97 Male 4 FEM 53.2
19 114 Male 4 FEM 52.4
20 136 Male 4 FEM 68.9
21 4 Female 4 FKP 24.9
22 60 Female 4 FKP 38.7
23 72 Female 4 FKP 53
24 104 Female 4 FKP 33.8
25 106 Female 4 FKP 53
26 111 Female 4 FKP 35.9
27 198 Female 4 FKP 44.3
28 9 Male 4 FKP 35.3
29 13 Male 4 FKP 46.4
30 36 Male 4 FKP 29
31 109 Male 4 FKP 48
32 120 Male 4 FKP 39.4
33 124 Male 4 FKP 46
34 146 Male 4 FKP 32.8
35 181 Male 4 FKP 28.5
36 182 Male 4 FKP 47.1
37 187 Male 4 FKP 48.1
38 10 Female 4 FST 33.7
39 75 Female 4 FST 61.7
40 107 Female 4 FST 62.4
41 122 Female 4 FST 36.4
42 125 Female 4 FST 46.5
43 199 Female 4 FST 26.6
44 8 Male 4 FST 23

13
 45 38 Male 4 FST 44.5
46 39 Male 4 FST 44.2
47 101 Male 4 FST 33.4
48 164 Male 4 FST 62.5

Table 1.7

The financial literacy score data set for year 1, 2, 3 and 4 students

YEAR FREQUENCY
SCORE MIDPOINT
1 2 3 4
17.9-23.8 20.85 0 0 2 2
23.9-29.8 26.85 5 1 4 6
29.9-34.8 32.35 4 3 4 10
34.9-40.8 37.85 14 10 11 5
40.9-46.8 43.85 10 8 9 7
26.9-52.8 49.85 13 8 12 11
52.9-58.8 55.85 9 1 8 3
58.9-64.8 61.85 1 2 5 3
64.9-70.8 67.85 0 2 1 1
70.9-76.8 73.85 1 2 2 0

Table 1.8

14
iii. Third category: Faculties

The financial literacy score data set for FEM students

No Gender Year Faculty Score

1 7 Female 1 FEM 54.7
2 45 Female 1 FEM 50.2
3 48 Female 1 FEM 36.4
4 103 Female 1 FEM 55
5 129 Female 1 FEM 58.4
6 155 Female 1 FEM 49.7
7 158 Female 1 FEM 41.6
8 166 Female 1 FEM 35.8
9 183 Female 1 FEM 57.2
10 196 Female 1 FEM 51.7
11 12 Female 2 FEM 34.9
12 69 Female 2 FEM 61.5
13 98 Female 2 FEM 46.4
14 47 Female 3 FEM 60.1
15 51 Female 3 FEM 48.6
16 53 Female 3 FEM 41.7
17 59 Female 3 FEM 30.8
18 62 Female 3 FEM 37.8
19 85 Female 3 FEM 26.9
20 102 Female 3 FEM 44.3
21 150 Female 3 FEM 40.2
22 161 Female 3 FEM 55
23 175 Female 3 FEM 43.3
24 17 Female 4 FEM 49.9
25 49 Female 4 FEM 48.7
26 57 Female 4 FEM 34.2
27 65 Female 4 FEM 46.9
28 73 Female 4 FEM 33.3
29 87 Female 4 FEM 42.3
30 93 Female 4 FEM 29.2
31 115 Female 4 FEM 50.7
32 134 Female 4 FEM 32.6
33 153 Female 4 FEM 33.1
34 171 Female 4 FEM 51.9
35 173 Female 4 FEM 17.9
36 6 Male 1 FEM 32.3
37 19 Male 1 FEM 37.9
38 43 Male 1 FEM 43.8
39 63 Male 1 FEM 34.6
40 143 Male 1 FEM 27
41 163 Male 1 FEM 30
42 185 Male 1 FEM 44.7

15
43 194 Male 1 FEM 43.6
44 2 Male 2 FEM 38.4
45 131 Male 2 FEM 41.1
46 156 Male 2 FEM 43.2
47 162 Male 2 FEM 43.8
48 186 Male 2 FEM 50.1
49 197 Male 2 FEM 39.5
50 200 Male 2 FEM 31.3
51 11 Male 3 FEM 27.4
52 82 Male 3 FEM 55.9
53 145 Male 3 FEM 53.8
54 191 Male 3 FEM 40.2
55 15 Male 4 FEM 33
56 34 Male 4 FEM 31.4
57 35 Male 4 FEM 29.2
58 61 Male 4 FEM 47.3
59 80 Male 4 FEM 50.2
60 97 Male 4 FEM 53.2
61 114 Male 4 FEM 52.4
62 136 Male 4 FEM 68.9

Table 1.9

16
The financial literacy score data set for FST students

No Gender Year Faculty Score

1 20 Female 1 FST 47.1
2 88 Female 1 FST 51.7
3 121 Female 1 FST 35.5
4 135 Female 1 FST 39.6
5 137 Female 1 FST 36.8
6 157 Female 1 FST 45
7 190 Female 1 FST 31.1
8 5 Female 2 FST 51.6
9 16 Female 2 FST 40.8
10 29 Female 2 FST 36.6
11 110 Female 2 FST 41.2
12 170 Female 2 FST 38
13 178 Female 2 FST 60
14 21 Female 3 FST 49
15 28 Female 3 FST 69.2
16 32 Female 3 FST 42.8
17 44 Female 3 FST 27.6
18 50 Female 3 FST 38.2
19 71 Female 3 FST 20.6
20 77 Female 3 FST 60.4
21 79 Female 3 FST 71.9
22 83 Female 3 FST 56.4
23 89 Female 3 FST 60.5
24 108 Female 3 FST 39.1
25 128 Female 3 FST 47.4
26 160 Female 3 FST 24.3
27 168 Female 3 FST 40
28 10 Female 4 FST 33.7
29 75 Female 4 FST 61.7
30 107 Female 4 FST 62.4
31 122 Female 4 FST 36.4
32 125 Female 4 FST 46.5
33 199 Female 4 FST 26.6
34 1 Male 1 FST 48.6
35 18 Male 1 FST 39.9
36 40 Male 1 FST 24.9
37 116 Male 1 FST 40.8
38 119 Male 1 FST 28.5
39 123 Male 1 FST 35
40 132 Male 1 FST 75.7
41 154 Male 1 FST 54.1
42 169 Male 1 FST 59.2
43 172 Male 1 FST 40
44 27 Male 2 FST 40.5

17
45 68 Male 2 FST 39.6
46 84 Male 2 FST 66.5
47 113 Male 2 FST 43.8
48 144 Male 2 FST 28.9
49 147 Male 2 FST 76.8
50 195 Male 2 FST 49.4
51 26 Male 3 FST 38.6
52 56 Male 3 FST 61.1
53 67 Male 3 FST 45.3
54 90 Male 3 FST 59.8
55 117 Male 3 FST 32.8
56 127 Male 3 FST 35.6
57 140 Male 3 FST 56.7
58 141 Male 3 FST 47.8
59 142 Male 3 FST 72.8
60 152 Male 3 FST 50.9
61 159 Male 3 FST 47.2
62 184 Male 3 FST 39.5
63 8 Male 4 FST 23
64 38 Male 4 FST 44.5
65 39 Male 4 FST 44.2
66 101 Male 4 FST 33.4
67 164 Male 4 FST 62.5

Table 1.10

18
The financial literacy score data set for FKP students

No Gender Year Faculty Score

1 3 Female 1 FKP 29.7
2 22 Female 1 FKP 36.5
3 23 Female 1 FKP 47.9
4 64 Female 1 FKP 51.7
5 105 Female 1 FKP 45.8
6 118 Female 1 FKP 41.5
7 139 Female 1 FKP 45.7
8 177 Female 1 FKP 49.7
9 52 Female 2 FKP 48.5
10 66 Female 2 FKP 39.8
11 96 Female 2 FKP 47.8
12 100 Female 2 FKP 49.9
13 130 Female 2 FKP 46.1
14 165 Female 2 FKP 48.6
15 192 Female 2 FKP 75.8
16 193 Female 2 FKP 66.9
17 24 Female 3 FKP 51.6
18 25 Female 3 FKP 31.9
19 55 Female 3 FKP 50.7
20 58 Female 3 FKP 43.5
21 76 Female 3 FKP 42.3
22 81 Female 3 FKP 53.8
23 92 Female 3 FKP 55.2
24 112 Female 3 FKP 38
25 189 Female 3 FKP 47.1
26 4 Female 4 FKP 24.9
27 60 Female 4 FKP 38.7
28 72 Female 4 FKP 53
29 104 Female 4 FKP 33.8
30 106 Female 4 FKP 53
31 111 Female 4 FKP 35.9
32 198 Female 4 FKP 44.3
33 14 Male 1 FKP 39.9
34 31 Male 1 FKP 54.1
35 33 Male 1 FKP 50.9
36 41 Male 1 FKP 57.9
37 46 Male 1 FKP 29.2
38 54 Male 1 FKP 50.5
39 70 Male 1 FKP 56
40 74 Male 1 FKP 40.7
41 86 Male 1 FKP 38.3
42 95 Male 1 FKP 43.8
43 126 Male 1 FKP 50.5
44 148 Male 1 FKP 57

19
45 149 Male 1 FKP 50.9
46 151 Male 1 FKP 46.3
47 133 Male 2 FKP 55.2
48 167 Male 2 FKP 46.1
49 174 Male 2 FKP 38.5
50 176 Male 2 FKP 48.7
51 179 Male 2 FKP 30.6
52 180 Male 2 FKP 34
53 30 Male 3 FKP 39.2
54 37 Male 3 FKP 41.4
55 42 Male 3 FKP 49.4
56 78 Male 3 FKP 54.3
57 91 Male 3 FKP 33.2
58 94 Male 3 FKP 47.9
59 99 Male 3 FKP 23.7
60 138 Male 3 FKP 42.4
61 188 Male 3 FKP 51.3
62 9 Male 4 FKP 35.3
63 13 Male 4 FKP 46.4
64 36 Male 4 FKP 29
65 109 Male 4 FKP 48
66 120 Male 4 FKP 39.4
67 124 Male 4 FKP 46
68 146 Male 4 FKP 32.8
69 181 Male 4 FKP 28.5
70 182 Male 4 FKP 47.1
71 187 Male 4 FKP 48.1

Table 1.11

20
 The financial literacy score data set for FKP, FST and FEM students

FACULTY FREQUENCY
SCORE MIDPOINT
FKP FST FEM
17.9-23.8 20.85 1 2 1
23.9-29.8 26.85 5 6 5
29.9-34.8 32.35 6 4 11
34.9-40.8 37.85 12 19 9
40.9-46.8 43.85 14 8 12
26.9-52.8 49.85 21 10 13
52.9-58.8 55.85 10 3 8
58.9-64.8 61.85 0 9 2
64.9-70.8 67.85 1 2 1
70.9-76.8 73.85 1 4 0

Table 1.12

21
 62
STEP 2: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ANALYSIS

YEAR
1 2 3 4
MEAN 44.43158 46.4973 45.48966 41.57083
MODE 51.7 43.8 53.8 29.2
MEDIAN 44.7 43.8 44.8 43.25
RANGE 50.8 47.9 52.2 51
VARIANCE 98.86041 134.0803 138.363 128.9387
STANDARD DEVIATION 9.94286 11.5793 11.76278 11.35512

Table 2.1

FACULTY
FST FEM FKP
MEAN 45.63582 42.85645 44.67746
MODE 40.8 29.2 47.9
MEDIAN 43.8 43.25 46.1
RANGE 56.2 51 52.1
VARIANCE 179.9948 106.7536 89.69463
STANDARD DEVIATION 13.41621 10.33217 9.47073

Table 2.2

GENDER
MALE FEMALE
MEAN 44.146 44.722
MODE 43.8 51.7
MEDIAN 43.8 45.35
RANGE 53.8 57.9
VARIANCE 127.295 124.3104
STANDARD DEVIATION 11.28251 11.14946

Table 2.3

22
 Sample
No. Category Q1 Q3 Max Min
size

1. MALE 35.525 50.6 100 76.8 23

2. FEMALE 36.575 51.625 100 75.8 17.9

3. YEAR 1 36.8 50.9 57 75.7 24.9

4. YEAR 2 39.5 49.9 37 76.8 24.9

5. YEAR 3 38.975 53.925 58 72.8 20.6

6. YEAR 4 33.075 49.0 48 68.9 17.9

7. FST 36.7 55.25 67 76.8 20.6

8. FEM 34.3 50.2 62 68.9 17.9

9. FKP 38.6 50.6 71 38.6 23.7

Table 2.4

23
STEP 3: GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
STEP 4: INTERPRETATION
First, the first information is for the gender category. There are two genders, male and
female. Among the 200 students, 100 of them are male while about 100 of them are female.
The mean score for males is 44.146 and for females is 44.722. Next, the minimum and
maximum for males are 23.00000 and 76.80000, and for females, it is 17.90000 and 75.80000.
For the first quartile, median, and third quartile for males, it is 35.52500, 43.80000, and
50.60000 while for females it is 36.57500, 45.35000, and 51.62500. Moreover, the variance for
males is 126.0221, and for females, it is 123.067. Additionally, for males, the standard deviation
is 11.28251, and for females, it is 11.1495. Lastly for the range, the male has 53.8 while the
female has a 57.9 range. Based on the Financial Literacy Score for Male and Female Students
histogram graph, the graph shows that the minimum score for the male and female students is
23.0 and 17.9 and the maximum score for male and female students is 76.8 and 75.8. The female
students have the lowest minimum score than the male students and the male students have the
highest maximum score than the female with a small different value. The range of the score for
the male and female students is 53.8 and 57.90 where the female students have a higher range
than the male students. The mean for the male and the female students is 44.146 and 44.722.
The median for the male and the female graph is 43.8 and 45.35. The variance for the male
student is higher than the female student’s with a score of 127.295 while the female student’s
variance is 124.3104. The standard deviation for the male students is 11.28251 and for the
female students is 11.14946. The male students have the higher frequency than the female
students where 40 male students have a score between 40 to 50 but the highest frequency for
the female students is 35 where the score is between 40 and 50.

Next, for the year category. The students who participated in this survey were Year 1,
Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4. Among the 200 students, there were 57 students from Year 1, 37
from Year 2, 58 from Year 3, and 48 from Year 4. The mean scores for students in Year 1, Year
2, Year 3, and Year 4 are 44.43158, 46.4973, 45.48966, and 41.57083. The median for Year 1,
Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 students is 44.7, 43.8, 44.8, and 43.25. For variance Year 1 is
98.86041, Year 2 is 134.0803, Year 3 is 138.363, and Year 4 is 128.9387. Next, for standard
deviation according to the order of the year is 9.94286, 11.5793, 11.76278, and 11.35512. Year
3 had the highest range, which was 52.2 followed by year 4 at 51, then year 1 at 50.8, and lastly
year 2 at 47.9. Based on the Financial Literacy Score for Year 1, Year2, Year 3, and Year 4
Students histogram graph, the graph shows that the minimum score for the Year 1, Year 2, Year
3, and Year 4 students is 24.9, 24.9, 20.6, and 17.9 and for the maximum score is 75.7, 76.8,

33
72.8, and 68.9. Year 4 students have the lowest minimum score than the other year's students,
and Year 2 students have the highest maximum score than the other year's students with a small
difference in value. The range of the scores for Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 students is
50.8, 47.9, 52.2, and 51 where the Year 3 students have a higher range than the other year
students.

Lastly, for the faculty category. The students who participated in this survey consisted
of FEM, FKP, and FST. Among the 200 students, there were 62 FEM students, 71 FKP students,
and 67 FST students. Moreover, the mean score according to the order of faculties is 42.85645,
44.67746, and 45.63582. The median for the FEM, the FKP and the FST graph are 43.25, 46.10,
and 43.80. Next for the variance, FEM has 106.7536, FKP has 89.69463 and FST has 179.9948.
Lastly for the standard deviation. FEM students have 10.33217, FKP has 9.47073, and FST has
13.41621. The pie chart displays the distribution of students across faculties, with FEM
accounting for 37.7%, FKP accounting for 36.6 %, and FST accounting for 25.8%. Based on
the Financial Literacy Score for FEM, FKP, and FST Students histogram graph, the graph shows
that the minimum score for the FEM, FKP, and FST students is 17.90, 23.70, and 20.6, while
the maximum score for the FEM, FKP, and FST students is 68.90, 38.60 and 76.80. The FEM
students have the lowest minimum score among those three faculties, but FST has the highest
maximum score among those three faculties. The range of the scores for the FEM, FKP, and
FST students are 51.0, 52.1, and 56.2 where the FST students have the highest range than the
FEM and FKP students. The FKP students have the highest frequency than the FST and FEM
students where 21 students have a score between 26.9 to 52.8. The highest mode can be seen in
the FKP graph, which is 47.9.

34
 PART 2: INFERENTIAL ANALYTICS

1. Another lecture claimed that the average financial literacy score for FEM students
is better than other faculties, with an average of more than 48. Assuming the
population is normally distributed with a standard deviation of 9.5, do you have
enough evidence to support the claim at α = 0.05?

1) Identify the claim and state H0 and Ha.

It is stated that Fem students have higher average financial literacy scores than students
from other faculties, with scores averaging above 48.

𝐻𝑜 = µ ≤ 48

𝐻𝑎 = µ > 48 (𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚)

2) Determine whether the hypothesis test is left-tailed, right-tailed, or two-tailed and

whether to use a z-test, a t-test or a chi-square test. Explain your reasoning.

the alternative hypothesis, which asserts that the average financial literacy score
among FEM students is higher than 48, makes the hypothesis test right - tailed.

The population standard deviation(σ) is known, and the sample size(n) is small
(n<30), therefore a t-test makes sense.

When the sample size is small or the population standard deviation is unknown, the
t-test is the suitable statistical method.

3) Choose one of the options.

• OPTION 1: Find the critical value(s), identify the rejection region(s), and the
appropriate standardised test statistic.
To find the critical value, we need to determine the significance of level (α) and
degrees of freedom (df). The significance level is given as α=0.05. the degree of
freedom is calculated as df = n -1 = 62 – 1 = 61.

Using the t-distribution table or statistical software, we find the critical value for
a right – tailed test with df = 61 and α=0.05 is approximately 1.67.

• OPTION 2: Find the appropriate standardised test statistic and the P-value.

• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

35
 Calculate the test statistic (t -score)

(𝑥̅ − 𝜇)
𝑡= 𝜎
( ) σ = 9.5
√𝑛
α = 0.05

(45.63582 − 48) n = 62
𝑡=
9.5
( ) 𝑥̅ = 45.63582
√62

𝑡 ≈ −1.96
Compare the test statistic to the critical value:
The test statistic ( -1.96) is not greater than the critical value (1.67).

• Interpret the decision in the context of the original claim.

We are unable to reject the null hypothesis in light of the analysis. At the
significance level of 0.05 (α=0.05), there is insufficient data to substantiate the
assertion that FEM students had higher average financial literacy scores than
students from other faculties. This implies that the typical financial. Students in
FEM have reading scores that are not appreciably different from 48 or below.

36
2. The same lecturer also claims that the average financial literacy score for FST and
FKP students is less than 45. Assuming the population is normally distributed with
a standard deviation of 10.5, do you have enough evidence to support the claim for
each faculty at α = 0.05?

#Set the significant level

alpha=0.05
#Set the population means and standard deviations
mu0 <- 45
sigma <- 10.5
#Set the sample means and standard deviations
xbarFST=45.64
xbarFKP=44.68
xbar_sample= ((xbarFST+xbarFKP)/2)
# Set the sample size
n <- 138
# Calculate the test statistic
z0 <- (xbar_sample - mu0) / (sigma / sqrt(n))
# Find the p-value
p_value <- pnorm(z0, lower.tail = TRUE)
# Print the p-value
cat("P-value:", p_value)
if (p_value <= alpha) {
print("Reject H0")
} else {
print("Fail to reject H0")
}
z0

> #Set the significant level

> alpha=0.05
> #Set the population means and standard deviations
> mu0 <- 45
> sigma <- 10.5
> #Set the sample means and standard deviations
> xbarFST=46.10
> #Set the significant level
> alpha=0.05
> #Set the population means and standard deviations
> mu0 <- 45
> sigma <- 10.5
> #Set the sample means and standard deviations
> xbarFST=45.64
> xbarFKP=44.68
> xbar_sample= ((xbarFST+xbarFKP)/2)
> # Set the sample size

37
 > n <- 138
> # Calculate the test statistic
> z0 <- (xbar_sample - mu0) / (sigma / sqrt(n))
> # Find the p-value
> p_value <- pnorm(z0, lower.tail = TRUE)
> # Print the p-value
> cat("P-value:", p_value)
P-value: 0.5710339
> if (p_value <= alpha) {
+ print("Reject H0")
+ } else {
+ print("Fail to reject H0")
+ }
[1] "Fail to reject H0"
> z0
[1] 0.1790071

>

1. Identify the claim and state H0 and Ha.

The claim is "that FST and FKP students' average financial literacy score is less than
45.". So, H0: m ³ 45 and Ha: m < 45. (Claim)
2. Determine whether the hypothesis test is left-tailed, right-tailed, or two-tailed and
whether to use a z-test, a t-test or a chi-square test. Explain your reasoning.

The hypothesis test is left-tailed and uses a z-test. This is because the claim is Ha:  >
45 and because  is known ( =), the sample is random, and n = 138  45 so z-test can
be used

3. Choose one of the options.

• OPTION 1: Find the critical value(s), identify the rejection region(s), and the
appropriate standardised test statistic.

• OPTION 2: Find the appropriate standardised test statistic and the P-value.
The level of significance is  = 0.05. The standardized test statistic is 0.1790071.
Using the Standard Normal Distribution table, the area corresponding to z =
0.1790071 is 0.5714. Because this test is a left-tailed test, the P-value is equal to the
area to the left of z = 0.1790071, as shown in the figure. So, P = 0.5710339.

• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Because the P-value is more than  = 0.05, 0.5710339> 0.05, failed to reject the
null hypothesis.

• Interpret the decision in the context of the original claim.

There is not enough evidence at the 5% level of significance to support the claim
that the average financial literacy score for FST and FKP students is less than 45.

38
3. The previous researcher claimed that the average financial literacy score of female
students is better than male students. At α = 0.05, do you think you can support
the claim? Assume the population variances are not equal.

1. Identify the claim and state H0 and Ha.

The claim is that the average financial literacy score of female students is better than male
students.
𝐻0 = 𝜇𝐹 ≤ 𝜇𝑀
𝐻𝑎 = 𝜇𝐹 > 𝜇𝑀 : Claim

2. Determine whether the hypothesis test is left-tailed, right-tailed, or two-tailed and whether to
use a z-test, a t-test or a chi-square test. Explain your reasoning.

The hypothesis test is right tailed test because the claim which is (Ha) hypothesis alternative
state that the average financial literacy score of female students is better than male students.
Also, we use T-test because the population variances are not equal.

3. Choose one of the options.

• OPTION 1: Find the critical value(s), identify the rejection region(s), and the
appropriate standardised test statistic.

• OPTION 2: Find the appropriate standardised test statistic and the P-value.

Test statistic = -0.3631303

P_value = 0.3584475

• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis

Fail to reject the null hypothesis.

• Interpret the decision in the context of the original claim.

There is not enough evidence to support the claim at α = 0.05 that the average
financial literacy score of female students is better than male students. The critical
value is not in the rejection region, so the null hypothesis fails to be rejected.
> #Perform two-sample t test
> t_test <- t.test(score.female,score.male,alternative="greater", va
r.equal=FALSE)
> View(t_test)
> #Extract t-value and p-value
> t_value<-t_test$statistic

39
> p_value<-t_test$p.value
> #Calculate the t_test
> result<-t.test(score.male,score.female,var.equal=FALSE,alternative
="less")
> #Extract the t-statistic
> test_statistic<-result$statistic
> #Print the value
> t_value
t
0.3631303
> p_value
[1] 0.3584475
> test_statistic
t
-0.3631303
> #Compare the test statistic with critical value
> if (p_value < alpha ) {
+ print("Reject the null hypothesis")
+ } else {
+ print("Fail to reject the null hypothesis")
+ }
[1] "Fail to reject the null hypothesis"

40
4. The USIM Senate is interested to know if there is any evidence of a difference in
average financial literacy scores between the faculties. Assume the populations
are normally distributed, and the population variances are equal.

i. Test the average financial literacy score of FEM against FST at a 5%

significance level.

1) Identify the claim and state Ho and Ha

Ho: μfem = μfst

Ha: μfem ≠ μfst (claim)

2) Determine whether the hypothesis test is left-tailed, right-tailed, or two-tailed and

whether to use a z-test, a t-test, or a chi-square test. Explain your reasoning.

Due to the presence of the symbol ≠ in the Ha, the hypothesis test is a two-tailed test.
Because the population variances are equal and regularly distributed, the test type is a
t-test.

3) Choose one of the options.

• OPTION 1: Find the critical value(s), identify the rejection region(s), and the
appropriate standardized test statistic.

# FEM scores
FEM_scores <- c(19.1, 27.2, 32.3, 34.8, 43.2, 54.6, 56.5, 57.7, 65.6, 22.8, 28, 29.7,
35, 36.4, 41.5, 42.2, 42.2, 43.5, 45.2, 48.1, 49.6, 51.9, 53.4, 56.4, 61.4, 63.7, 67.1,
24.3, 33.3, 35.1, 40.1, 44.3, 45.2, 46.9, 47.2, 49.7, 57, 29.5, 40.5, 43.4, 44.4, 45,
46.2, 48.4, 53.6, 31.1, 31.9, 49.3, 49.5, 53.2, 53.4, 53.6, 57.9, 57.9, 66.3, 25.1, 35.6,
45.5, 53.8, 39.3, 40.9, 43, 43.1, 45.4, 47.3, 48.3, 49.4, 49.6, 52.2, 33, 34.7, 34.9, 44,
44.6, 54.9)
# FST scores
FST_scores < c(33, 35.4, 36, 38.1, 39.7, 45.2, 45.5, 47.2, 54.1, 59.9, 28.3, 29.3, 29.8,
32.5, 35, 42.5, 44.5, 49.7, 50.8, 20.5, 39.8, 40.9, 44.4, 44.5, 45.4, 48.1, 53, 50.2,
33.4, 33.5, 37.7, 39.8, 43.2, 45.9, 46.7, 48.3, 59.1, 65.6, 67, 25.6, 29.4, 32.4, 34,
39.6, 41.7, 52.4, 55, 39.1, 47, 31.3, 34.4, 39, 70.1)
# Define the sample sizes
n1 <- length(FEM_scores)
n2 <- length(FST_scores)
# Define the significance level and degrees of freedom

41
alpha <- 0.05
dfN <- n1 - 1
dfD <- n2 - 1

# Find the critical value using the `qf()` function

cv <- qf(1 - alpha, dfN, dfD, lower.tail = FALSE)

#Print critical value

cv

# Calculate the test statistic

F <- var(FEM_scores) / var(FST_scores)

#Print test statistic

F

# Print the rejection region

cat("Rejection region:", "(", cv, ",", Inf, ")\n")

# Compare the F-statistic to the critical value

if (F > cv) { cat("Reject H0\n")
} else {
cat("Fail to reject H0\n")
}

42
• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

> #Print critical value

> cv
[1] 0.6601986
>
> # Calculate the test statistic
> F <- var(FEM_scores) / var(FST_scores)
>
> #Print test statistic
> F
[1] 1.029595
> # Compare the F-statistic to the critical value
> if (F > cv) { cat("Reject H0\n")
+ } else {
+ cat("Fail to reject H0\n")
+ }
Reject H0

• Interpret the decision in the context of the original claim.

If the null hypothesis is rejected, it means there is sufficient data at a 5% level of

significance to prove that there is a difference in the average financial literacy scores
for the faculties of FEM and FST.

ii. Test the average financial literacy score of FEM against FKP at a 5%
significance level.

1) Identify the claim and state Ho and Ha

Ho: μfem = μfkp

Ha: μfem ≠ μfkp (claim)

2) Determine whether the hypothesis test is left-tailed, right-tailed, or two-

tailed and whether to use a z-test, a t-test, or a chi-square test. Explain your
reasoning.

43
 Due to the presence of the symbol ≠ in the Ha, the hypothesis test is a two-
tailed test. Because the population variances are equal and regularly
distributed, the test type is a t-test.

3) Choose one of the options.

• OPTION 1: Find the critical value(s), identify the rejection region(s),

and the appropriate standardized test statistic.
# FEM scores
FEM_scores <- c(19.1, 27.2, 32.3, 34.8, 43.2, 54.6, 56.5, 57.7, 65.6, 22.8, 28,
29.7, 35, 36.4, 41.5, 42.2, 42.2, 43.5, 45.2, 48.1, 49.6, 51.9, 53.4, 56.4, 61.4,
63.7, 67.1, 24.3, 33.3, 35.1, 40.1, 44.3, 45.2, 46.9, 47.2, 49.7, 57, 29.5, 40.5,
43.4, 44.4, 45, 46.2, 48.4, 53.6, 31.1, 31.9, 49.3, 49.5, 53.2, 53.4, 53.6, 57.9,
57.9, 66.3, 25.1, 35.6, 45.5, 53.8, 39.3, 40.9, 43, 43.1, 45.4, 47.3, 48.3, 49.4,
49.6, 52.2, 33, 34.7, 34.9, 44, 44.6, 54.9)

# FKP scores
FKP_scores<- c(23.8, 33.1, 48, 49.5, 53, 57.7, 25.4, 32.9, 33.5, 35.1, 37.9,
41.8, 44.5, 50, 53.2, 57.1, 57.4, 57.5, 59.6, 60.1, 22, 35.6, 36.8, 41.3, 46.2,
50.8, 51.9, 19.8, 31.4, 33.8, 35.6, 38.3, 38.8, 40.4, 42.5, 42.6, 46, 51.3, 35.1,
36.2, 37, 39.1, 41.6, 43, 45.6, 49.3, 51.8, 57.1, 57.1, 31.6, 35.9, 42.9, 43.6,
46.8, 51.1, 61.5, 61.6, 23.5, 28.7, 32.7, 34.8, 35.5, 49.9, 51.1, 60.4, 64.6,
71.1, 36.7, 39.4, 41.5, 41.8, 50.9, 52.1)

# Define the sample sizes

n1 <- length(FEM_scores)
n2 <- length(FKP_scores)
# Define the significance level and degrees of freedom
alpha <- 0.05
dfN <- n1 - 1
dfD <- n2 - 1

# Find the critical value using the `qf()` function

cv <- qf(1 - alpha, dfN, dfD, lower.tail = FALSE)

44
 #Print critical value
cv

# Calculate the test statistic

F <- var(FEM_scores) / var(FKP_scores)

#Print test statistic

F

# Print the rejection region

cat("Rejection region:", "(", cv, ",", Inf, ")\n")

# Compare the F-statistic to the critical value

if (F > cv) { cat("Reject H0\n")
} else {
cat("Fail to reject H0\n")
}

• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

> #Print critical value

> cv
[1] 0.6790966
>
> # Calculate the test statistic
> F <- var(FEM_scores) / var(FKP_scores)>
> #Print test statistic
> F
[1] 0.9484798
>
> # Print the rejection region

45
 > cat("Rejection region:", "(", cv, ",", Inf,
")\n")
Rejection region: (0.6790966, Inf)
>
> # Compare the F-statistic to the critical value
> if (F > cv) { cat("Reject H0\n")
+ } else {
+ cat("Fail to reject H0\n")
+ }
Reject H0

• Interpret the decision in the context of the original claim.

If the null hypothesis is rejected, it means there is sufficient data at a 5%

level of significance to prove that there is a difference in the average
financial literacy scores for the faculties of FEM and FKP.

iii. Test the average financial literacy score of FST against FKP at a 5%
significance level.

1) The claim is there is a difference in average financial literacy scores between

FST and FKP faculties.

𝐻𝑜: 𝜇(𝐹𝑆𝑇) = 𝜇(𝐹𝐾𝑃)

𝐻𝑎: 𝜇(𝐹𝑆𝑇) ≠ 𝜇(𝐹𝐾𝑃) (Claim)

2) The alternative hypothesis claims that the average financial literacy scores
of FST and FKP differ, the hypothesis test is two-tailed.

We have independent samples from both faculties; therefore, we can apply

a two-sample t – test because the population variances are equal.

3) Choose one of the options.

• OPTION 1: Find the critical value(s), identify the rejection region(s),

and the appropriate standardized test statistic.

To calculate the test statistic, we will use the formula for a two-sample t-
test:

46
 𝑠12 𝑠22
𝑡 = (𝑥̅ 1 − 𝑥̅ 2)/√[( ) + ( )
𝑛1 𝑛2

Where:

𝑥̅ 1 = sample mean of FST = 45.6358

𝑥̅ 2 = sample mean of FKP = 44.6775

𝑠1 = standard deviation of FST = 13.4162

𝑠2 = standard deviation of FKP = 9.47072

𝑛1 = sample size of FST = 67

n2 = sample size of FKP = 71

Substitute the values:

13.41622 9.470722
𝑡 = (45.6358 − 44.6775)/√[( )+( )
67 71

𝑡 ≈ 0.482

The crucial value(s) for a two-tailed test with a significance threshold of

0.05 (5%) are then required.
We must divide the significance threshold equally between the two tails of
the two-tailed test. The test’s degrees of freedom can be computed as
follows:

𝑑𝑓 = (𝑛1 − 1) + (𝑛2 − 1) = 67 − 1 + 71 − 1 = 136

The critical value for a two-tailed test with α/2 = 0.025 and degrees of
freedom 𝑑𝑓 = 136 is roughly 0.685, which may be found using a t– t-
distribution table or statistical software.

The rejection region(s) would be in the tails of the distribution, beyond the
critical value of -0.685 and 0.685.

• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis:

We can compare the absolute value of the test statistic (|t| = 0.482) to the
critical value(s) (±0.685) to decide.

• Interpret the decision in the context of the original claim:

47
We would reject the null hypothesis and come to the conclusion that there
is a statistically significant difference in the average financial literacy scores
between the FST and FKP faculties if the test statistic’s absolute value is
higher that the critical value.

We would fail to reject the null hypothesis and come to the conclusion that
that there is insufficient evidence to suggest a difference in the average
financial literacy scores between FST and FKP faculties if the test statistic’s
absolute value is less than or equal to the critical value.
In this instance, we are unable to reject the null hypothesis since the test
statistic’s absolute value (|t| = 0.482) is smaller than the critical value
(0.685).

Insufficient data supports the hypothesis that the average financial literacy
scores of FST and FKP differ significantly faculties members at the 0.05
significance level.

48
iv. In which comparison in i-iii did you find differences in financial literacy
scores?

i. Comparison between FEM and FST

cv=0.660198, F=1.029595
(F > cv) in the rejection region, reject H0.

The absolute value of the statistic is more than critical value, which is
in rejection region, so the null hypothesis is rejected. There is enough
evidence to support that there is difference in the average financial
literacy scores for the faculties FEM and FST at a level 5% of
significance.

ii. Comparison between FEM and FKP

cv = 0.6790966, F=0.9484798
(F>cv) in the rejection region, reject H0.

The absolute value of the statistic is more than critical value, which is
in rejection region, so the null hypothesis is rejected. There is enough
evidence to support the prove that there is difference in the average
financial literacy scores for the faculties FEM and FKP at the level of
significance 5%.

iii. Comparison between FST and FKP

|t| = 0.482 < 0.685, not in rejection region, fail to reject H0.

The t value of the statistic is less than critical value, which is not in
rejection region, so the null hypothesis is failed to reject. There is not
enough evidence to support that there is a difference in average
financial literacy scores between FST and FKP at a 5% of significance
level.

v. Do you think the field of study can make the students’ financial literacy
different?

Yes, since courses in areas like finance, economics, accounting, and business
administration usually contain financial literacy instruction. These courses
typically provide students with a deeper comprehension of financial topics, such
as investing, risk management, budgeting, and financial planning. Additionally,
they can have access to information or classes on specialised financial literacy.
In contrast, students in other academic subjects are either not taught about
financial education at all or are just given a brief introduction to the subject. As
a result, a student's field of study may have an impact on their financial literacy.

49
 PART 3: REPORT

In this report, we will discuss whether the level of financial literacy among USIM students
varies by faculty and gender. We will compare and discuss the possible reasons for the results
we have, and consider other factors not considered when the study was conducted. We will also
offer our opinions and suggestions for boosting financial literacy among students.

Based on the data obtained, we found that the faculty that has the highest financial score mean,
or average is Faculty of Science and Technology (FST) which is 45.63582 compared to the
Faculty of Leadership and Management (FKP) which is 44.67746 and Faculty of Economy and
Business (FEM) which is 42.85645. These financial literacy score may be attribute on
analytical skills, quantitative reasoning and technology-related in applications in curriculum.
In the Faculty of Science and Technology (FST), most subjects require the use of computers
and experimentation for certain courses. Meanwhile, the Faculty of Leadership and
Management (FKP) may benefit from its interdisciplinary approach, incorporating science,
technology, and business elements, fostering a more holistic understanding of financial matters.
On the other hand, the Faculty of Economy and Business (FEM) may focus more on
macroeconomic and theoretical aspects, potentially providing less emphasis on practical
financial skills, contributing to a lower average financial literacy score.

According to the study's first part on descriptive analytics, FKP has the highest mode at 47.9,
followed by FST and FEM at 40.8 and 29.2, respectively. While the mean for FEM is 42.85645,
the means for FST and FKP are 45.63582 and 44.67746, respectively, with a little difference.
The near median values of FST and FEM are 43.8 and 43.25, respectively, whereas the slightly
higher value of 46.1 is found for FKP. The possible reason for this outcome variation in the
result that can be suggested is because of the difference in the type of faculty. The focus of the
faculty of FKP (Faculty of Leadership and Management) is frequently on business
administration, finance, marketing, and organisational behaviour. Rather than emphasising
technical skills and scientific knowledge, FST and FEM faculties may place more of their focus
on theoretical components of Islamic financial principles. These fields of study typically
involve understanding financial concepts like budgeting, forecasting, investing, and risk
management. So, there is a high possibility for FKP students to produce the highest data
outcome relating to financial literacy awareness among USIM students.

The male and female students financial score literacy is quite same which is 44.146 and 44.722
with female score a little bit higher. This is because, the statistics obtained from USIM students
from 3 faculties including FST, FKP and FEM and year 1 until 4, separated into 100 male and
100 female students. Moreover, both female and male students background education are
similar. The faculties (FST, FEM and FKP) provide uniform financial education program
without taken care about the genders in the content and the medium of education. The slight
variation in financial literacy scores between male and female students could be explained by

50
differences in individual learning styles, preferences, and levels of engagement with financial
topics, rather than being influenced by gender-specific factors.

In assessing the level of financial literacy among USIM students, it's critical to consider other
aspects that might have gone unnoticed. To assess real-world application, practical exercises
or simulations may be added to the study's single measure of financial literacy, a survey
questionnaire. Financial literacy levels can be greatly impacted by socioeconomic origins,
cultural influences, and educational experiences; these factors were not considered. These
elements may be found through interviews or qualitative research.
Moreover, the study's narrow focus at a particular university and its faculties might not
accurately represent the wider disparities in financial literacy among students across the
country. A more varied sample drawn from various academic departments and institutions will
enable the creation of focused interventions aimed at enhancing financial literacy in Malaysia.

Several suggestions might be put into practice to improve pupils' financial literacy. First and
foremost, it is imperative that financial education be included in the curriculum from an early
age. It is important to teach budgeting, saving, investing, and debt awareness in order to build
basic financial literacy. Secondly, financial information can be practically applied through
interactive exercises and simulations. Students can use stock market modelling, budgeting
exercises, and simulated company initiatives to apply what they have learned to real-world
financial scenarios. Long-term mentoring programmes that pair students with financial
professionals can also help students along their financial path by offering advice and support.
Particular documentation outlining the data-gathering processes, underpinning theories, and
any modifications performed should be included to improve the correctness of the data.
Understanding the context and data restrictions is made easier with the help of this
documentation. Ensuring that the data satisfies predefined requirements, such as data type,
range, or format, through the use of validation methods, such as validation rules and tests,
facilitates the identification and correction of problems. By providing data entry employees
with clear instructions and instructions, they may improve data quality and reduce errors by
providing them with accurate and consistent 46 data entry practices.

Finally, it can be said that the faculty and gender do affect the financial literacy of USIM
students. It is vital to consider additional aspects that might not have been considered when the
study was conducted because there are many causes for these results. We think it is crucial to
increase students' financial literacy since doing so will enable them to make better financial
choices and will enhance their overall financial well-being. There are a variety of activities that
may be done to achieve this.

51
 APPENDIX

PART 1:
Step 1:
library(readxl)
library (stats)

A231_dataset <- read_excel("C:\\Users\\SCSM11\\Downloads\\Data Analytic Project

gp23.xlsx")

# Split the data by categories

data.Gender <- split(A231_dataset, A231_dataset$Gender)
data.Year <- split(A231_dataset, A231_dataset$Year)
data.Faculty <- split(A231_dataset, A231_dataset$Faculty)
data.Score <- split(A231_dataset, A231_dataset$Score)

# Data by Gender
Female <- data.Gender$Female
Male <- data.Gender$Male

# Data by year
Year1 <- data.Year$`1`
Year2 <- data.Year$`2`
Year3 <- data.Year$`3`
Year4 <- data.Year$`4`

# Data by faculty
FST <- data.Faculty$FST
FEM <- data.Faculty$FEM
FKP <- data.Faculty$FKP

52
Step 2:
library(readxl)
A231_dataset <- read_excel("C:/Users/farah/Downloads/A231_dataset.xlsx",
sheet = "Group23")
View(A231_dataset)
# Split the data by YEAR
data.Year <- split(A231_dataset, A231_dataset$Year)
A231_dataset$Year <- factor(A231_dataset$Year)
year1_data <- subset(A231_dataset, Year == 1)
year2_data <- subset(A231_dataset, Year == 2)
year3_data <- subset(A231_dataset, Year == 3)
year4_data <- subset(A231_dataset, Year == 4)i
mean(data.Faculty$FEM$Score)
mean(data.Faculty$FKP$Score)
#MODE
get_mode <- function(x) {
ux <- unique(x)
ux[which.max(tabulate(match(x, ux)))]
}
cat(get_mode(year1_data$Score), "\n")
cat(get_mode(year2_data$Score), "\n")
cat(get_mode(year3_data$Score), "\n")
cat(get_mode(year4_data$Score), "\n")
cat(get_mode(MALE$Score), "\n")
cat(get_mode(FEMALE$Score), "\n")
cat(get_mode(data.Faculty$FST$Score), "\n")
cat(get_mode(data.Faculty$FEM$Score), "\n")
cat(get_mode(data.Faculty$FKP$Score), "\n")
# MEDIAN

53
median(year1_data$Score)
median(year2_data$Score)
median(year3_data$Score)
median(year4_data$Score)

median(MALE$Score)
median(FEMALE$Score)
median(data.Faculty$FST$Score)
median(data.Faculty$FEM$Score)
median(data.Faculty$FKP$Score)
#RANGE
range_year1 <- diff(range(year1_data$Score))
range_year2 <- diff(range(year2_data$Score))
range_year3 <- diff(range(year3_data$Score))
range_year4 <- diff(range(year4_data$Score))
range_male <- diff(range(MALE$Score))
range_female <- diff(range(FEMALE$Score))
range_fst <- diff(range(FST$Score))
range_fem <- diff(range(FEM$Score))
range_fkp <- diff(range(FKP$Score))
cat(range_year1, "\n")
cat(range_year2, "\n")
cat(range_year3, "\n")
cat(range_year4, "\n")
cat(range_male, "\n")
cat(range_female, "\n")
cat(range_fst, "\n")
cat(range_fem, "\n")
cat(range_fkp, "\n")
#VARIANCE

54
var(year1_data$Score)
var(year2_data$Score)
var(year3_data$Score)
var(year4_data$Score)
var(MALE$Score)
var(FEMALE$Score)
var(data.Faculty$FST$Score)
var(data.Faculty$FEM$Score)
var(data.Faculty$FKP$Score)
#STANDARD DEVIATION
sd(year1_data$Score)
sd(year2_data$Score)
sd(year3_data$Score)
sd(year4_data$Score)
sd(MALE$Score)
sd(FEMALE$Score)
sd(data.Faculty$FST$Score)
sd(data.Faculty$FEM$Score)
sd(data.Faculty$FKP$Score)
#Score summary of the data
summary(year1_data$Score)
summary(year2_data$Score)
summary(year3_data$Score)
summary(year4_data$Score)
summary(MALE$Score)
summary(FEMALE$Score)
summary(data.Faculty$FST$Score)
summary(data.Faculty$FEM$Score)
summary(data.Faculty$FKP$Score)
summary(A231_dataset)

55
Step 3:
library(BSDA)
library(stats)
library(readxl)

A231_dataset <- read_excel("C:/Users/Win11/Downloads/A231_dataset.xlsx",

sheet = "Group23")

#Step 3: Graphical analysis

#Function to create histogram plot

create_histogram_plot<- function(data,tittle){
breaks<-seq(floor(min(data)/10)*10,ceiling(max(data)/10)*10,by = 10)

hist(data,breaks = breaks,xlab = "Score",ylab = "Frequency (number of students)",

main = tittle)
}
#Function to create box-whisker plot
create_boxplot<-function(data,tittle){
boxplot(data,range = 0.0, horizontal = TRUE, varwidth = TRUE, notch = FALSE,
outline = TRUE,
boxwex = 0.3, border = "red",col = "lightgreen",
xlab = "Score",ylab ="Frequency (number of students)", main = tittle)
}

#Create histogram plots for each category

create_histogram_plot(Male$Score,"SCORE SORTED FOR MALE")
create_histogram_plot(Female$Score,"SCORE SORTED FOR FEMALE")
create_histogram_plot(Year1$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR YEAR 1")

56
create_histogram_plot(Year2$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR YEAR 2")
create_histogram_plot(Year3$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR YEAR 3")
create_histogram_plot(Year4$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR YEAR 4")
create_histogram_plot(FST$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR FST")
create_histogram_plot(FEM$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR FEM")
create_histogram_plot(FKP$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR FKP")

#Create box and whisker plots for each category

create_boxplot(Male$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR MALE")
create_boxplot(Female$Score,"SCORE SORTED FOR FEMALE")
create_boxplot(Year1$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR YEAR 1")
create_boxplot(Year2$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR YEAR 2")
create_boxplot(Year3$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR YEAR 3")
create_boxplot(Year4$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR YEAR 4")
create_boxplot(FST$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR FST")
create_boxplot(FEM$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR FEM")
create_boxplot(FKP$Score, "SCORE SORTED FOR FKP")

57
PART 2:

Question 1:
library(BSDA)
library(stats)
library(readxl)

#Split the data by faculty

data.faculty <- split(A321_dataset,A321_dataset$Faculty)

#Extract scores for FEM students

score.FEM<- data.faculty$FEM$Score

#Perform one-sample t-test for FEM students

t_test_result<- t.tes(score.FEM, mu = population_mean, alternative = “greater”)

#Get the test statistic(t-value)

test_stat<- t_test_result$statistic

#Calculate the critical value

df<- sample_size -1
critical_value <- qt(1-significance_level, df)

#Compare the test statistic with the critical value

if (test_stat > critical_value) {
decision <- “Reject Ho”
} else {
Decision <- “Fail to reject Ho”
}
#Print the results

58
cat(“Test statistic:”,test_stat, “\n”)
cat(“Critical value:”, critical_value, “\n”)
cat(“Decision:”, decision, “\n”)

59
Question 2:
#Set the significant level
alpha=0.05
#Set the population means and standard deviations
mu0 <- 45
sigma <- 10.5
#Set the sample means and standard deviations
xbarFST=45.64
xbarFKP=44.68
xbar_sample= ((xbarFST+xbarFKP)/2)
# Set the sample size
n <- 138
# Calculate the test statistic
z0 <- (xbar_sample - mu0) / (sigma / sqrt(n))
# Find the p-value
p_value <- pnorm(z0, lower.tail = TRUE)
# Print the p-value
cat("P-value:", p_value)
if (p_value <= alpha) {
print("Reject H0")
} else {
print("Fail to reject H0")
}
z0

60
Question 3:
library(readxl)
library (stats)
A231_dataset <- read_excel("C:\\Users\\SCSM11\\Downloads\\Data Analytic Project
gp23.xlsx")
#Set the significant levels
alpha=0.05

#Perform two-sample t test

t_test <- t.test(score.female,score.male,alternative="greater", var.equal=FALSE)
#Extract t-value and p-value
t_value<-t_test$statistic
p_value<-t_test$p.value

#Calculate the t_test

result<-t.test(score.male,score.female,var.equal=FALSE,alternative="less")

#Extract the t-statistic

test_statistic<-result$statistic

#Print the value

t_value
p_value
test_statistic

#Compare the test statistic with critical value

if(p_value<alpha){
print("Reject H0")
}else{
print("Fail to reject H0")

61
QUESTION 4
QUESTION 4i
# FEM scores
FEM_scores <- c(19.1, 27.2, 32.3, 34.8, 43.2, 54.6, 56.5, 57.7, 65.6,
22.8, 28, 29.7, 35, 36.4, 41.5, 42.2, 42.2, 43.5, 45.2, 48.1, 49.6,
51.9, 53.4, 56.4, 61.4, 63.7, 67.1, 24.3, 33.3, 35.1, 40.1, 44.3,
45.2, 46.9, 47.2, 49.7, 57, 29.5, 40.5, 43.4, 44.4, 45, 46.2, 48.4,
53.6, 31.1, 31.9, 49.3, 49.5, 53.2, 53.4, 53.6, 57.9, 57.9, 66.3,
25.1, 35.6, 45.5, 53.8, 39.3, 40.9, 43, 43.1, 45.4, 47.3, 48.3, 49.4,
49.6, 52.2, 33, 34.7, 34.9, 44, 44.6, 54.9)

# FST scores
FST_scores <- c(33, 35.4, 36, 38.1, 39.7, 45.2, 45.5, 47.2, 54.1,
59.9, 28.3, 29.3, 29.8, 32.5, 35, 42.5, 44.5, 49.7, 50.8, 20.5, 39.8,
40.9, 44.4, 44.5, 45.4, 48.1, 53, 50.2, 33.4, 33.5, 37.7, 39.8, 43.2,
45.9, 46.7, 48.3, 59.1, 65.6, 67, 25.6, 29.4, 32.4, 34, 39.6, 41.7,
52.4, 55, 39.1, 47, 31.3, 34.4, 39, 70.1)

# Define the sample sizes

n1 <- length(FEM_scores)
n2 <- length(FST_scores)

# Define the significance level and degrees of freedom

alpha <- 0.05
dfN <- n1 - 1
dfD <- n2 - 1

# Find the critical value using the `qf()` function

cv <- qf(1 - alpha, dfN, dfD, lower.tail = FALSE)
#Print critical value
cv

# Calculate the test statistic

F <- var(FEM_scores) / var(FST_scores)

62
#Print test statistic
F

# Print the rejection region

cat("Rejection region:", "(", cv, ",", Inf, ")\n")

# Compare the F-statistic to the critical value

if (F > cv) { cat("Reject H0\n")
} else {
cat("Fail to reject H0\n")
}

QUESTION 4.ii
# FEM scores
FEM_scores <- c(19.1, 27.2, 32.3, 34.8, 43.2, 54.6, 56.5, 57.7, 65.6,
22.8, 28, 29.7, 35, 36.4, 41.5, 42.2, 42.2, 43.5, 45.2, 48.1, 49.6,
51.9, 53.4, 56.4, 61.4, 63.7, 67.1, 24.3, 33.3, 35.1, 40.1, 44.3,
45.2, 46.9, 47.2, 49.7, 57, 29.5, 40.5, 43.4, 44.4, 45, 46.2, 48.4,
53.6, 31.1, 31.9, 49.3, 49.5, 53.2, 53.4, 53.6, 57.9, 57.9, 66.3,
25.1, 35.6, 45.5, 53.8, 39.3, 40.9, 43, 43.1, 45.4, 47.3, 48.3, 49.4,
49.6, 52.2, 33, 34.7, 34.9, 44, 44.6, 54.9)

# FKP scores
FKP_scores<- c(23.8, 33.1, 48, 49.5, 53, 57.7, 25.4, 32.9, 33.5, 35.1,
37.9, 41.8, 44.5, 50, 53.2, 57.1, 57.4, 57.5, 59.6, 60.1, 22, 35.6,
36.8, 41.3, 46.2, 50.8, 51.9, 19.8, 31.4, 33.8, 35.6, 38.3, 38.8,
40.4, 42.5, 42.6, 46, 51.3, 35.1, 36.2, 37, 39.1, 41.6, 43, 45.6,
49.3, 51.8, 57.1, 57.1, 31.6, 35.9, 42.9, 43.6, 46.8, 51.1, 61.5,
61.6, 23.5, 28.7, 32.7, 34.8, 35.5, 49.9, 51.1, 60.4, 64.6, 71.1,
36.7, 39.4, 41.5, 41.8, 50.9, 52.1)

# Define the sample sizes

n1 <- length(FEM_scores)
n2 <- length(FKP_scores)

# Define the significance level and degrees of freedom

alpha <- 0.05
dfN <- n1 - 1

63
dfD <- n2 - 1

# Find the critical value using the `qf()` function

cv <- qf(1 - alpha, dfN, dfD, lower.tail = FALSE)

#Print critical value

cv

# Calculate the test statistic

F <- var(FEM_scores) / var(FKP_scores)

#Print test statistic

F

# Print the rejection region

cat("Rejection region:", "(", cv, ",", Inf, ")\n")

# Compare the F-statistic to the critical value

if (F > cv) { cat("Reject H0\n")
} else {
cat("Fail to reject H0\n")
}

QUESTION 4iii
# Given data
sample_mean_fst <- 45.6358
sample_mean_fkp <- 44.6776
sample_sd_fst <- 13.4162
sample_sd_fkp <- 9.47072
sample_size_fst <- 67
sample_size_fkp <- 71

64
significance_level <- 0.05

# Calculate the test statistic (t-score)

numerator <- sample_mean_fst - sample_mean_fkp
denominator <- sqrt((sample_sd_fst^2 / sample_size_fst) + (sample_sd_fkp^2 /
sample_size_fkp))
test_stat <- numerator / denominator
# Calculate the critical values for a two-tailed test
df <- sample_size_fst + sample_size_fkp - 2
critical_value <- qt(1 - significance_level/2, df)
# Compare the absolute value of the test statistic with the critical values
if (abs(test_stat) > abs(critical_value)) {
decision <- "Reject H0"
} else {
decision <- "Fail to reject H0"
}
# Print the results
cat("Test statistic:", test_stat, "\n")
cat("Critical value:", critical_value, "\n")
cat("Decision:", decision, "\n")

65