Sei sulla pagina 1di 34

NE 2042 APPLIED

BIOSTATISTICS

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH/2
SUPERVISOR: PUAN NUR ZAKIAH BINTI MOHD SAAT
SUPERVISOR: PUAN NUR ZAKIAH BINTI MOHD SAAT

MEMBERS:

MOHAMAD SAIFUL BIN NORDIN A120264


SITI NORASIAH BINTI HJ AWANG TEH A118638
NURUL 'IZZAH BINTI ISMAIL A118856
NOR ALIA BINTI ROSLAN A118957
NOR ATIKAH BINTI KOSNON A119030
AMIRA BINTI ABD RAHAMAN A119249
NURHANISAH BINTI ZAKRI A119434
AIN SHAQIRAH BINTI ABDUL AZIZ A119626
ZUNNURAIN BINTI ZULKEFLI A119782
FADHILAH BINTI MOHD RADZI A119832
MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN ISHAK A119479
MUHAMMAD AZIZUL BIN ISMAIL A119525
MOHD FIDAIE BIN MOHAMAD A119933
 
THE STUDY OF UNDERSTANDING THE
ROAD SIGNS AMONG THE FIRST YEAR
STUDENTS OF FACULTY OF ALLIED
HEALTH SCIENCES (FSKB)
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF
MALAYSIA KUALA LUMPUR (UKMKL)
SESSION 2008/2009
INTRODUCTION

• According to Malaysian Road Safety


Department(JKJR),3.9% road death
increases in 2008 compared to the
previous year.
• Road signs represent one of the most
common devices for controlling traffic.
They help in regulate, warn, and as a
guidance to road users (Tamar & David
2006)
Research Justification

1.To increase awareness and driving

etiquette on road.
2. To decrease road accidents risk.
3. To improve the knowledge about
road
signs among the students.
4. To know the student comprehension
regarding the road signs
GENERAL OBJECTIVES

• To study the understanding about road


sign among the first year of FSKB’s
students in UKM,KL session
2008/2009.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
• To identify the students’ s knowledge about the road signs.

• To determine the differences in knowledge between gender about


the road signs.

• To determine the differences in knowledge about the road signs


between student having and not having license.

• To determine the differences in knowledge about the road signs


among the student who living in urban and rural area.

• To identify the students’ score of knowledge about the road sign.


HYPOTHESIS
1. There are differences between knowledge’s score and comprehension‘s
score regarding the road signs among the first year student of FSKB .
(question part B)

2. There are differences in the score of knowledge between gender, license


availability and area.

3. There are differences in their score of knowledge on road signs between


gender.
(question part A – no 1 , part B & C )

4. There are differences in score of knowledge on road signs between student


with and without driving license.
(question part A – no 4, part B & C )

5.There are differences in score of knowledge on road signs between students


living in urban and rural area.
(question part A – no 3, part B & C )

6.There are association between the gender/area/license with sources of


student’s knowledge on the road sign .
(question part A – no 7)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
• Background
-1st year students among 12 programs in FSKB UKM KL intake 2008/2009.

-license only registered and approved by JPJ

• Research Design
- Cross sectional study

• Sampling Method
- Population target ;UKM KL student

- Population sample ; 1st year FSKB student intake 2008/2009

- Sample size ;192 student(calculation from sample size of selected


population formula)
Calculating sample size

n = ____X2NP (1-P)____
∆2(N-1) + X2P(1-P)

= 192
 
 Where X2 = 3.84, ∆ = 0.05, P
= 0.5
But 10% would drop out so,
 
n* = __192__
(1-0.1)
 
= 213.3
 
= 214
Questionnaire

• Distribute : 214
• Responded : 195
• Not responded : 19
• Percentage of not responded :9.74%
questionnaire
DATA ANALYSIS
1st OBJECTIVE:
To identify the students’ s knowledge
about the road signs.

HYPOTHESIS 1
There are differences between knowledge’s
score and comprehension’s score regarding the
road sign.

Test : Descriptive Statistic


Ba1 vs Bb1

70 64.4
60
comperhension (%) 50
40
27.8
30 22.2 22.2
18.6 16.7
20 11.1
7.9
10 4.5 4.5
0
correct incorrect

really understand understand


a bit understand little understanding
don't know
Ba5 vs Bb5

90 80
80 73.2
comperhension (%) 70
60
50
40
30 20
16.3
20 7.4
10 1.1 2.1 0 0 0
0
correct incorrect

really understand understand


a bit understand little understanding
don't know
Ba9 vs Bb9

50
39.3
40 34.9
32.1
comperhension (%)

28.1
30
19.1 17
20
12.3
9
10 4.5 3.8
0
correct incorrect

really understand understand


a bit understand little understanding
don't know
Road signs Comprehension score (%) Knowledge score (%)
1 2 3 4 5 Correct Incorrect
60.0 19.0 5.1 6.7 9.2 90.8 9.2

39.0 31.3 16.9 9.7 3.1 45.6 54.4

65.6 19.5 4.6 2.1 8.2 95.9 4.1

72.8 13.8 2.6 2.1 8.7 92.3 7.7

73.3 16.4 1.0 2.1 7.2 97.4 2.6

56.9 22.1 8.7 6.2 6.2 96.4 3.6

50.8 23.6 11.8 7.2 6.7 90.3 9.7

51.3 30.3 7.7 5.1 5.6 87.7 12.3

31.8 35.4 17.9 10.8 4.1 45.6 54.4

53.3 27.7 8.7 5.1 5.1 89.2 10.8


1st OBJECTIVE:
To identify the students’ s knowledge
about the road signs.

HYPOTHESIS 2
There are different in the score of
knowledge between gender, license
availability and area of residential.

Test: Binary logistic regression


B P value Exp(B)
Gender 0.658 0.461 1.931
Area -0.088 0.908 0.916
License - 2.091 0.018 0.124

• female obtain higher score , 1.931 times


more than male.
• rural area obtain low score, 0.916 times
less than urban area.
• student without license obtain lowest
score, 0.124 times less than student with
license
2nd OBJECTIVE:
To determine the differences in
knowledge between gender
about the road signs.

HYPOTHESIS 3
There are differences in score of
knowledge on road signs between
gender.

Test : Independent T-test


Gende n Mean Standard P-
r Deviation value
0.207
Male 45 13.866 2.24216
7
Female 150 14.353 2.26481
3
• normal
• P value >0.05
• The score means of the knowledge on
road sign between gender are not
different.
• t(193)=-1.267,p>0.05.
3rd OBJECTIVE:
To determine the differences in
knowledge about the road signs
between student having and not
having license.

HYPOTHESIS 4
There are differences in score of knowledge
on road signs between student with and
without driving license.

Test : Independent T-test


License n Mean Standard P-
Deviation value
Yes 134 14.5746 13.5082 0.012

No 61 1.72717 3.02557

• normal
• P value <0.05.
•The score means of the knowledge on road sign
between student with and without driving license
are different.
• t(78.344)=2.569,p<0.05.
4th OBJECTIVE:
To determine the differences in
knowledge about the road signs
among the student who living in
urban and rural area.

HYPOTHESIS 5
There are differences in score of
knowledge on road signs between
the student who living in urban and
rural area.

Test : Independent T-test


Area n Mean Standar P-
d value
Urban 122 14.3115 Deviatio
2.24927 0.575
n
Rural 73 14.1233 2.29701

• Normal
• P value >0.05.
• The score means of the knowledge on
road sign among student who living in
urban and rural area are not different.
• t(193)=0.561, p>0.05
GENDER AREA LICENSE

SCORE male female urban rural yes no

N 45 150 122 73 134 61

Mean 13.8667 14.3533 14.3115 14.1233 14.5746 13.5082

Median 14 15 15 14 15 14

Mode 15 15 15 13 15 15

Standard Deviation 2.24216 2.26481 2.24927 2.29701 1.72717 3.02557

Variance 5.027 5.129 5.059 5.276 2.983 9.154

Significant value 0.207 0.575 0.012

Range Minimum 4 0 0 4 4 0

Maximum 17 17 17 17 17 17
5th OBJECTVE:
To identify the source of student’s
knowledge on road sign
HYPOTHESIS 6:
There are association between the
gender/area/license with sources of
student’s knowledge on the road sign.

Test: Chi Square


1) Gender

Sources Driving school Non-driving Total P value Pearson


Chi-Square
Gender school
value

P = 0.423 X 2 = 0.641
Male 25(64.1%) 14(35.9%) 39(100.00%)

Female 90(70.9%) 37(29.1%) 127(100.00%)

Total 115(69.3%) 51(30.7%) 166(100.00%)

The Pearson Chi-Square = 0.64


P value > 0.05
X 2 = 0.641, df = 1, p > 0.05
The Association Graph of Sources
Within Gender
80

60
Percentage (%)

40
Driving School
20 Non-Driving School
0
Male Female
Gender

There are not significant association between the


gender and sources of student’s knowledge on the
road sign.
2) Area

Sources Driving school Non-driving Total P value Pearson


Chi-Square
Area school
value

P = 0.085 X 2 = 2.966
Urban 77(74.0%) 27(32.0%) 104(100.00%)

Rural 38(61.3%) 24(38.7%) 62(100.00%)

Total 115(69.3%) 51(30.7%) 166(100.00%)

The Pearson Chi-Square = 2.966


P value > 0.05
X 2 = 2.966, df = 1, p > 0.05
The Association of Sources Within
80 Area
70
60
Percentage (%)

50
40
30 Driving School
20 Non-Driving School
10
0
Urban Rural
Area

There are not significant association between the


area and sources of student’s knowledge on the
road sign.
3) License

Sources Driving school Non-driving Total P value Pearson


Chi-Square
License school
value

P = 0.001 X 2 = 43.813
Yes 99(84.6%) 18(15.4%) 117(100.00%)

No 16(32.7%) 33(67.3%) 49(100.00%)

Total 115(69.3%) 51(30.7%) 166(100.00%)

The Pearson Chi-Square = 43.813


P value < 0.05
X 2 = 43.813, df = 1, p < 0.05
There are significant association between the license
and sources of student’s knowledge on the road sign.
Conclusion Chi-square test

License seems to be must


factor to contribute sources of
knowledge for student compare
to gender and residential area
THANK
YOU