Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SW 4810
Dr. Barragan
November 18th, 2015
Chi-Square
A. The variables used in this chi-square analysis are nominal and ordinal.
B. Descriptive statistics for the chi-square analysis can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive: Chi-Square
n(%)
If food is organized in kitchen
Yes
No
34 (69.4%)
15 (30.6%)
2 (4.1%)
6 (12.2%)
8 (16.3%)
15 (30.6%)
4 (8.2%)
3 (6.1%)
7 (14.3%)
4 (8.2%)
C. The total sample for the chi-square analysis is N=49. Of this sample, more than
two-thirds (69.4%) keep their food in an organized manner in their home. Meals
not eaten were the most common reason food was wasted in the home (30.6%),
followed by fruit (16.3%), and then Yogurt and other dairy items (14.3%).
D. This sample could be representative of English speaking adults 18 and over living
in South East Michigan.
This sample was generalized by households in South East Michigan, in the
counties of Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb.
E. This sample is not generalized to people living outside of Michigan or the United
States, because it was not held for people who do not live in Michigan.
This sample is not generalized by, homeless or those needing food assistance from
the government.
Correlation
A. Both variables in this correlation analysis are measured at the interval and ratio
level.
B. Descriptive statistics for the correlation analysis can be seen in Table 2
Table 2: Descriptive: Correlation
n
Mean
SD
Income
The amount that
food waste
bothers
participant
49
48.98
23.82
49
3.18
.81
C. The mean of the participants income was 48.98, which indicates the average
participants income fell between $41,000 and $50,000. The mean of the amount
that food waste bothered the participant was 3.18, which indicates that food waste
bothers the average participant a fair amount.
D. This sample could be representative of English speaking adults 18 and over living
in South East Michigan.
This sample was generalized by households in South East Michigan, in the
counties of Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb.
E. This sample is not generalized to people living outside of Michigan or the United
States, because it was not held for people who do not live in Michigan.
This sample is not generalized by, homeless or those needing food assistance from
the government.
This sample is no generalized by those who have disabilities in their household,
because the survey did not ask or pertain to this data.
Bivariate Analysis: Correlation
A. The research question for this analysis is: Is there a relationship between income
and being bothered by food waste?
The null hypothesis is: There is no relationship between income and being
bothered by food waste.
The alternative hypothesis: There is a relationship between income and being
bothered by food waste.
B. In order to answer the research question, a descriptive was run to determine the
income and how much respondents were bothered by food waste.
C. There was a negative between the two variables, r=-.228, n=49, p=.115.Therefore,
because there was no significant relationship, we will accept the null hypothesis.
12%
Once a week
Every two weeks or less
50%
36%
Table 4
Descriptive:
ANOVA:
N
Mean
SD
Amount Thrown
Away
49
18.37
12.39
C. This data shows that the average respondent throws away 18.4% (18.37) of food
each week. The data also describes that half of all respondents shop once a
week(50%) , and over a third shop less often: every two weeks or more (36%).
D. This sample could be representative of English speaking adults 18 and over living
in South East Michigan.