INDICATORS Academic Performance RANK SUM of Rank [AR) Evaluation [PE) RANK KE W N Instructor I .348 nstructor 1.741 nA Instructor I .335 nB Instructor I 1.687 no Instructor I 1.210 Instructor I 1.630 nT Instructor .632 12 R Instructor I 4.483 Part Instructor I .230 H = - 3(nT + 1) 12 Instructor I ..592 Part 2 ny(ny + 1) ni 13 Instructor II 4.67. R-square (R-D) 14 Instructor II 4.710 R-square(R-10) 15 Instructor II 1.664 R-square (R-III) k = number of populations Instructor II 1.491 17 Instructor II 4.66: R-square(R-I)InA Instructor II 1.705 R-square(R-1)/B mi = the number of observations in sample i 14 Instructor II 1.622 R-square[R-Ill)inC 20 Instructor II .483 21 Instructor II 1.661 Mp = my = the total number of observations in all samples 22 Instructor II 1.737 Part 3 23 Instructor III 1.601 24 Instructor III 1.677 H 25 Instructor III 4.408 chi-square R; = the sum of the ranks for sample i 26 Instructor Ill 1.765 p-value Arer: 27 Instructor III 1.496 Decision and Conclusion: Accept or Instructor III 4.652 Reject Null? Reject the Null Hypothesis! 29 1.587 -IFCH value in greater than the Chi-Square Instructor III Value, "Reject the Hull", "Accept the Hull") 30 Instructor III 4.673 Instructor Ill 1.718 HOW TO PERFORM KRUSKAL-WALLIS HTEST? 32 Instructor III 4.516 STEP 1: Write all the data across the groups. [Done for 33 SUM 0 STEP 2: Rank the data. If any value ties, in that case it is 34 advised to use mid-point, 1 being the lowest variable. 35 Null Hypothesis: The performance evaluations of teachers, when STEP 3: Compute the test statistics 36 grouped on their Academic Ranks, are the same. STEP 4: Determine critical value from Chi-Square 37 STEP 5: Formulate decision and conclusion Alternative Hypothesis: The performance evaluations of teachers, 39 when grouped on their Academic Ranks, are not the same