JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ALLSTAT Archives


ALLSTAT Archives

ALLSTAT Archives


allstat@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ALLSTAT Home

ALLSTAT Home

ALLSTAT  December 2008

ALLSTAT December 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Relationship between pilot involvement and usage

From:

Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:33:36 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (154 lines)

Hi All

Thanks very much to the following (in alphabetical order) who replied to
my query (at the end of this mail):

Eryl Bassett
Siva M
Brian G Miller
Nick Shrine
Jay Warner
Allan White

The responses (in 'random' order) were:

---------------------
From the information you have provided I can deduce:

 

1.       Probability of being involved on the pilot and use the
technology for their normal work =0.4*0.27=0.108

2.       Probability of being involved on the pilot and not use the
technology for their normal work = 0.4*0.73=0.292

3.       Probability of not being involved on the pilot and use the
technology for their normal work=0.6*0.27=0.162

4.       Probability of not being involved on the pilot and not use the
technology for their normal work =0.6*0.73=0.438


So if the question "Are people who have been involved in pilots more
likely (than those who haven't been involved in pilots) to use the
technology in their daily work?" you need to compare options 1 and 3
above. That is 1. 10.8% with 3. 16.2%. So given the sample size
(randomly selected from the population) is 176, we can carry out a one
sided proportion test to determine if it is the case that in the
population people who were involved in the pilot were more likely to use
the technology at work. To do so I have attached an excel spreadsheet
with tests the two proportions under the 5% level of significance. From
the spreadsheet you can conclude that there is no evidence to suggest
that those who have been involved with a pilot are more likely to use
the technology at work than those who haven’t. 

---------------------

You have 2 classification factors, pilot/no pilot and your binary
outcome. You have a 2x2 table, and can test for association by a
chi-square test. You can/should also quantify the association, e.g. as
an odds ratio.


All this is calculated by simple arithmetic, and is easy to do in Excel.

---------------------

I gather that you have a group of people who have NOT been involved
in pilots, and a group who have used pilots.

For each person, you can tell if they are using the technology in
their present work, or not. No partials, here - you can tell yes, or
no. Before you review the list.

Looking at each group, you can determine a percentage of the group
that uses technology in present work.

At this point, it looks to me like a comparison of two proportions.
A t test would do that job.

Enough information?

Suppose that you measure the _degree_ of using the new technology in
normal work. On say scale of say 0 to 10. Now you would have a
reasonable measure, and it (probably) would be close enough to use a
regular t test.

---------------------

You need to cross-tabulate the two binary variables (i.e. involvement in
a
pilot and using technology as part of normal work) and conduct a two-way
chi-square test of assocation on the resulting frequencies. I believe
the
CHITEST command will do this.

---------------------

You need to organise your data so that it is in the
form of a 2 x 2 contingency table; something like

In pilot
Yes No

Yes a b
Use it
No c d


where a, b, c and d sum to 176. The test you need is
then one for association in a contingency table. I
have no idea whether this can be done in excel, but there
are lots of online programs which will do it. See

http://statpages.org/

and go to Contingency tables.

---------------------

You want a contingency table I believe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_table
(think it is called a "Pivot table" in Excel)
with columns "pilot", "normal" and rows "yes", "no" (would use
technology) and then in the 4 cells the count of people
1) who did the pilot and would use the tech
2) who did the pilot and wouldn't
3) who use it normally and would
4) who use it normally and wouldn't
then look at the Pearson statistic for the table as to whether there is
any relationship between pilot/normal and yes/no

---------------------

[My original mail]
Ken Masters wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Please can I be advised on the right tests to run (in Excel, if
> possible).
>
> I have a small sample (176) that has been involved in using a particular
> technology.
>
> 40% have been involved in pilots of that technology
> 27% use that technology as part of their normal work
>
> I want to determine if there is any relationship between being involved
> in a pilot, and using the technology as part of their normal work,
> because I have a fair number of people who have been involved in pilots
> who do not use the technology as part of their work, and a fair number
> who use the technology as part of their normal work, but have never been
> involved in any pilots. The type of question I’m looking to have
> answers for is "Are people who have been involved in pilots more likely
> (than those who haven't been involved in pilots) to use the technology
> in their daily work?" If these tests can be run in Excel, that would
> really be useful.
>
> Any assistance will be much appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ken Masters

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager