Ali Boehnlein

MGMT 425
Project 2
Executive Summary
Part 1: Quality of Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment Scores
The coefficient alpha, which measures internal consistency, is 0.908 for job satisfaction,
which indicates a high scale reliability for measure this trait. The coefficient alpha for affective
commitment is .871, which similarly indicates a high scale reliability. Both show strong reliability
evidence since they are very close to 1, the strongest indicator. In general, coefficient alphas tell
how well the test measures the actual characteristic you are seeking to measure. In this case, it tells
how well these intangible traits are captured by the questions asked in the test.
To improve the survey for next year, it would be beneficial to add a test-retest reliability
check to better estimate reliability. To do this, the survey could include a second part administered
one year in the future. This would enhance the estimate of coefficient alpha because it would tell if
the results obtained in the first survey remain consistent over time rather than simply within the
same year’s survey. This way, the organization can detect if changes in satisfaction and affective
commitment scores occur with time.

Part 2: Significant Differences between Employee Job Satisfaction Scores & Affective Commitment
(t-test)
On the basis of sex, the t-obtained value of 0.6271 is not statistically significant against the
t-critical value of 1.9712. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is no
significant difference in employee satisfaction based on sex. For the independent paired t-test
questioning a significant difference in scores for affective commitment based on sex, the t-obtained
value of 0.9394 is not statistically significant against the t-critical value, therefore we again fail to
reject the null. This suggests there is no significant difference between these scores on the basis of
sex.
In studying part-time versus full-time employees and their job satisfaction scores, the t-
obtained value of 0.5023 is not statistically significant against the t-critical of 1.9712. Therefore, we
fail to reject the null and conclude there is no significant difference based on time worked. In terms
of affective commitment, similar results occurred. Again, the t-obtained of 0.6418 was not
statistically significant against the t-critical of 1.9712. We fail to reject the null hypothesis and
conclude that part-time versus full-time has no significant effect on the affective commitment scores
of employees.

Part 3: Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

The correlation between job satisfaction and OCB of 0.184 is positive, but weak. It implies
that as employees’ job satisfaction increases, the organizational commitment behavior also
increases, however only slightly. The correlation between affective commitment and OCB of 0.205
is also positive, and again shows a weak correlation. As affective commitment increases, so does
organizational commitment behavior.
When conducting a t-test of differences in Organizational Citizenship Behavior based on
sex, the t-obtained value of 0.1283 is not statistically significant against the t-critical of 1.9712.
Therefore, we fail to reject the null and conclude a significant difference based on sex does not
exist. In terms of part time (PT) versus full time (FT) employees and the Organizational Citizenship
Behavior, the t-obtained of 0.0036 is also not statistically significant compared to the t-critical of
1.9712. Again, we fail to reject the null that no difference exists between part time and full time
employees.
Ali Boehnlein
MGMT 425
Project 2
Appendix

Figure A
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Male Female
Mean 3.9548 3.8970
Variance 0.6009 0.8756
Observations 138 77
Pooled Variance 0.6989
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 213
t Stat 0.4866
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.3135
t Critical one-tail 1.6520
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.6271
t Critical two-tail 1.9712
Figure A shows the results of the paired independent t-test comparing job satisfaction scores of
employees on the basis of sex.

Figure B

Mean Job Satisfaction Score by Sex

3.9600 3.9548
Mean Job Satisfaction Score

3.9400

3.9200
3.8970
3.9000

3.8800

3.8600
Male Female
Sex

Figure B depicts the difference in sample means between male and female job satisfaction scores.

Table 1
Male Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)
3.84 4.07

Female Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)

3.78 4.01
Table 1 indicates: 95% of male job satisfaction scores fall between [3.84, 4.07]. 95% of female
scores fall between [3.78, 4.01].
Ali Boehnlein
MGMT 425
Project 2

Figure C
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Male Female
Mean 5.2286 5.2157
Variance 1.2615 1.7532
Observations 138 77
Pooled Variance 1.4369
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 213
t Stat 0.0761
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4697
t Critical one-tail 1.6520
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.9394
t Critical two-tail 1.9712
Figure C shows the results of the paired independent t-test comparing affective commitment scores
of employees on the basis of sex.

Figure D

Mean Affective Commitment Scores by Sex

5.2300 5.2286
Mean Affective Commitment Score

5.2250

5.2200
5.2157
5.2150

5.2100

5.2050
Male Female
Sex

Figure D depicts the difference in sample means between male and female affective commitment
scores.

Table 2
Male Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)
5.07 5.39

Female Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)

5.05 5.38
Table 2 indicates: 95% of male affective commitment scores fall between [5.07, 5.39]. 95% of
female scores fall between [5.05, 5.38].
Ali Boehnlein
MGMT 425
Project 2
Figure E
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

PT FT
Mean 4.1429 3.9271
Variance 0.6706 0.6990
Observations 7 208
Pooled Variance 0.6982
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 213
t Stat 0.6720
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.2512
t Critical one-tail 1.6520
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.5023
t Critical two-tail 1.9712
Figure E shows the results of the paired independent t-test comparing job satisfaction scores of
employees on the basis of part time (PT) versus full time (FT) employees.

Figure F

Mean Job Satisfaction Scores based on Part Time

(PT) versus Full Time (FT) Employees
4.2000
4.1429
Mean Job Satisfaction Score

4.1500
4.1000
4.0500
4.0000
3.9500 3.9271
3.9000
3.8500
3.8000
PT FT
Employee

Figure F depicts the difference in sample means between job satisfaction scores when comparing
part time (PT) and full time (FT) employees.

Table 3
PT Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)
4.03 4.26

FT Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)

3.81 4.04
Table 3 indicates: 95% of part time job satisfaction scores fall between [4.03, 4.26]. 95% of full
time scores fall between [3.81, 4.04].
Ali Boehnlein
MGMT 425
Project 2
Figure G
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

PT FT
Mean 5.0204 5.2309
Variance 2.1264 1.4155
Observations 7 208
Pooled Variance 1.4356
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 213
t Stat -
0.4571
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.3240
t Critical one-tail 1.6520
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.6481
t Critical two-tail 1.9712
Figure G shows the results of the paired independent t-test comparing affective commitment scores
of employees on the basis of part time (PT) versus full time (FT) employees.

Figure H

Mean Affective Commitment Scores of Employees

based on Part Time (PT) versus Full Time (FT) Status
5.2500 5.2309
Mean Affective Commitment Score

5.2000
5.1500
5.1000
5.0500 5.0204
5.0000
4.9500
4.9000
PT FT
Employee

Figure H depicts the difference in sample means between affective commitment scores when
comparing part time (PT) and full time (FT) employees.

Table 4
PT Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)
4.86 5.18

FT Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)

5.07 5.39
Table 4 indicates: 95% of part time affective commitment scores fall between [4.86, 5.18]. 95% of
full time scores fall between [5.07, 5.39].
Ali Boehnlein
MGMT 425
Project 2
Figure I
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Male Female
Mean 3.0722 3.2570
Variance 0.7121 0.7607
Observations 138 78
Pooled Variance 0.7296
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 214
t Stat -
1.5269
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0641
t Critical one-tail 1.6520
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1283
t Critical two-tail 1.9711
Figure I shows the results of the paired independent t-test comparing organizational citizenship
behavior of employees on the basis of sex.

Figure J

Mean Organizational Commitment Behavior of

Employees Based on Sex
3.3000 3.2570
Mean Organizational Commitment

3.2500
3.2000
3.1500
Behavior

3.1000 3.0722
3.0500
3.0000
2.9500
Male Female
Sex

Figure J depicts the difference in sample means between organizational citizenship behavior of
employees on the basis of sex.

Table 5
Male Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)
2.96 3.19

Female Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)

3.14 3.37
Table 5 indicates: 95% of male organizational commitment behavior scores fall between [2.96,
3.19]. 95% of female scores fall between [3.14, 3.37].
Ali Boehnlein
MGMT 425
Project 2
Figure K
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

PT FT
Mean 4.3667 3.1158
Variance 0.0556 0.7181
Observations 4 212
Pooled Variance 0.7088
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 214
t Stat 2.9439
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0018
t Critical one-tail 1.6520
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0036
t Critical two-tail 1.9711
Figure K shows the results of the paired independent t-test comparing organizational citizenship
behavior of employees on the basis of part time (PT) versus full time (FT) employees.

Figure L

Mean Organizational Commitment Behavior of Employees

Based on Part Time (PT) Versus Full Time (FT) Status
5.0000
4.3667
Mean Organizational Commitment

4.5000
4.0000
3.5000 3.1158
3.0000
Behavior

2.5000
2.0000
1.5000
1.0000
0.5000
0.0000
PT FT
Employee

Figure L depicts the difference in sample means between organizational citizenship behavior of
employees when comparing part time (PT) and full time (FT) employees.

Table 6
PT Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)
4.25 4.48

FT Confidence Interval (Alpha = .05)

3.00 3.23
Table 6 indicates: 95% of part time organizational commitment behavior scores fall between [4.25,
4.48]. 95% of full time scores fall between [3.00, 3.23].