13 Chapter 6

CHAPTER - V
Smumn^ - f^^^n/^.^^nal^ II
CHAPTER - V
TRAINING - AN ANALYSIS II (STATISTICAL ANALYSIS)
CHI SQUARE TEST

Table - 57
Hypotheses:
There is no association between age and Overall Training Programme in BHEL.
Overall Training Programme in BHEL

Cross Tabulation Highly Total
Satisfied Moderate Dissatisfied
Satisfied
>30 0 6 0 0 6
Age in 31 to 40 17 23 6 0 46
years 41 to 50 139 109 11 0 259
51< 124 194 5 6 329
Total 280 332 22 6 640
Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 44.620 9 .000
Likelihood Ratio 44.871 9 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .648 1 .421
N of Valid Cases 640
8 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.
Degrees of Freedom = 9 Chi Square Value = 44.620 Table Value = 23.6

The Distribution is significant.
Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .264 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Cramer's V .152 .000
Result:
Hence the y^ value is greater than the table value we reject the hypotheses.
There is association between age and overall training programme in BHEL. This test
shows that sig is below.05 there is association between age and training. In the case phi
= .264, which shows a positive relationship between two variables. The correlation is
flagged as significant, with same p-value that was given in the chi-square test.
173
Table - 58
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Sex and Overall Training Programme in BHEL.

Satisfied
Male 269 309 22 6 606
Sex
Female 11 23 0 0 34
Total 280 332 22 6 640


The Distribution is not significant.

Phi .083 .225
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
Hence the x2 value is less than the table value we accept the hypotheses. There
is no association between Sex and Overall Training Programme in BHEL. This test
shows that sig is above.05 there is no association between age and training. In the case
phi - .083, which shows a weak relationship between two variables. The correlation is
flagged as no significant, with same p-value that was given in the chi-square test.
174
Table - 59
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Marital Status and Overall Training Programme

in BHEL.

Satisfied
Marital Married 280 326 22 6 634
Status Un Married 0 6 0 0 6
Total 280 332 22 6 640

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.471 1 .116
Degreesof Freedom = 3 Chi Square Value = 5.619 Table Value =12.8


Phi .094 .132
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
is no association between Marital Status and Overall Training Programme in BHEL.
This test shows that sig is above.05 there is no association between marital status and
training. In the case phi = .094, which signifies a weak relationship between two
variables. The correlation is flagged as no significant, with same p-value that was given
in the chi-square test.
175
Table - 60
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Qualification and Overall Training Programme

in BHEL.

Satisfied
Diploma 73 83 0 0 156
UG 38 59 11 0 108
Qualification PG 68 75 5 0 148
Professional 43 62 0 6 111
Others 58 53 6 0 117
Total 280 332 22 6 640

8 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.01.
Degreesof Freedom = 12 Chi Square Value = 58.467 Table Value =28.3

Phi .302 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
Hence the x2 value is greater than the table value we reject the hypotheses.
There is association between Qualification and Overall Training Programme in BHEL.
This test shows that sig is below.05 there is association between qualification and
training. In the case phi = .302, which reveals a strong relationship between two
variables. The correlation is flagged as significant, with same p-value that was given in
the chi-square test.
176
Table - 61
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Designation and Overall Training Programme
in BHEL.
Overall Trainin I Programme in BHEL

Satisfied
Executives 168 136 10 6 320
Designation
Supervisor 112 196 12 0 320
Total 280 332 22 6 640

2 cells (25.0%) have expected cc)unt less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.00

Phi .210 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
There is association between Designation and Overall Training Programme in BHEL.
This test shows that sig is below.05 there is association between qualification and
training. In the case phi = .210, which shows a mild relationship between two variables.
The correlation is flagged as significant, with same p-value that was given in the chi-
square test.
177
Table - 62
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Work Experience and Overall Training
Programme in BHEL.
Satisfied
5 - 10 0 12 0 0 12
11 - 15 13 7 1 0 21
Work
16-20 7 9 0 0 16
Experience
21 - 30 179 204 15 0 398
31 and above 81 100 6 6 193
Total 280 332 22 6 640

8 cells (40.0%) have expected cc)unt less thar1 5. The minimum expected count is .11
Degrees of Freedom =12 Chi Square Value = 29.100 Table Value =28.3

Phi .213 .004
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
There is association between Work Experience and Overall Training Programme in
BHEL. This test shows that sig is below.05 there is association between qualification
and training. In the case phi = .213, which signifies a mild relationship between two
178
Table - 63
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Age and Growth & Result.
Growth & Result

Cross Tabulation Strongly Total
Agree Moderate Disagree
Agree
>30 6 0 0 0 6
31 to 40 11 29 6 0 46
Age
41 to 50 114 128 17 0 259
51< 110 190 20 9 329
Total 241 347 43 9 640

Degrees of Freedom = 9 Chi Square Value = 30.468 Table Value =23.6


Phi .218 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
There is association between Age and Growth & Result. This test shows that sig is
below.05 there is association between qualification and training. In the case phi = .218,
which reveals a mild relationship between two variables. The correlation is flagged as
significant, with same p-value that was given in the chi-square test.
179
Table - 64
Hypotheses :
There is no association between Sex and Growth & Resuh.
Growth & Result

Agree
Male 236 324 37 9 606
Sex
Female 5 23 6 0 34
Total 241 347 43 9 640



Phi .143 .004
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
Hence the ^2 value is greater than the table value we reject the hypotheses.
There is association between Sex and Growth & Result. This test shows that sig is
below.05 there is association between qualification and training. In the case phi = .143,
which shows a weak relationship between two variables. The correlation is flagged as
180
Table - 65
Hypotheses :
There is no association between Marital Status and Growth & Result.
Growth & Result

Cross labulation Strongly Total
Agree
Marital Married 235 347 43 9 634
Status Un Married 6 0 0 0 6
Total 241 347 43 9 640



Phi .125 .018
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
is no association between Marital Status and Growth & Result. This test shows that sig
is below.05 there is association between qualification and training. In the case phi=.125,
which signifies a weak relationship between two variables. The correlation is flagged as
181
Table - 66
Hypotheses :
There is no association between Qualification and Growth & Result.
Growth & Result

Agree
Diploma 61 83 12 0 156
UG 39 52 14 3 108
Qualification PG 88 55 5 0 148
Professional 37 62 6 6 111
Others 16 95 6 0 117
Total 241 347 43 9 640

Degrees of Freedom =12 Chi Square Value = 91.383 Table Value - 28.3

Phi .378 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
There is association between Qualification and Growth & Result. This test shows that
sig is below.05 there is association between qualification and training. In the case
phi = .378, which shows a strong relationship between two variables. The correlation is
182
Table - 67
Hypotheses :
There is no association between Designation and Growth & Resuh.
Growth & Result

Cross Tabulation Strongly Tota
Agree
Executives 160 137 14 9 320
Designation
Supervisor 81 210 29 0 320
Total 241 347 43 9 640



Phi .294 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
Hence the %1 value is greater than the table value we reject the hypotheses.
There is association between Designation and Growth & Result. This test shows that sig
is below.05 there is association between qualification and training. In the case
phi = .294, which shows a mild relationship between two variables. The correlation is
183
Table - 68
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Work Experience and Growth & Result.
Growth & Result

Agree
5-10 6 0 6 0 12
11 -15 12 8 1 0 21
Work
16-20 0 10 6 0 16
Experience
2 1 - 30 151 232 12 3 398
31 and above 72 97 18 6 193
Total 241 347 43 9 640

N ofValid Cases 640


Phi .375 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
There is association between Work Experience and Growth & Result. This test shows
that sig is below.05 there is association between qualification and training. In the case
phi = .375, which reveals a strong relationship between two variables. The correlation is
184
Table - 69
Hypotheses :
There is no association between Age and Effects & Benefits.
Effects & Benefits

Agree Moderate
Agree
>30 0 6 0 6
31 to 40 16 24 6 46
Age
41 to 50 135 117 7 259
51< 143 170 16 329
Total 294 317 29 640



Phi .180 .002
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
There is association between Age and Effects & Benefits. This test shows that sig is
below.05 there is association between Age and Effects & Benefits. In the case phi=.180,
which shows a weak relationship between two variables. The correlation is flagged as
185
Table - 70
Hypotheses :
There is no association between Sex and Effects & Benefits.
Effects & Benefits

Cross 1 abuiation Strongly Total
Agree Moderate
Agree
Male 288 289 29 606
Sex
Female 6 28 0 34
Total 294 317 29 640



Phi .157 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
There is association between Sex and Effects & Benefits. This test shows that sig is
below.05 there is association between Sex and Effects & Benefits. In the case phi =
.157, which shows a weak relationship between two variables. The correlation is
186
Table - 71
Hypotheses :
There is no association between Qualification and Effects & Benefits.
Effects & Benefits

Agree Moderate
Agree
Diploma 73 78 5 156
UG 48 46 14 108
Qualification PG 81 64 3 148
Professional 44 64 3 111
Others 48 65 4 117
Total 294 317 29 640


Phi .215 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
Hence the %L value is greater than the table value we reject the hypotheses.
There is association between Qualification and Effects & Benefits. This test shows that
sig is below. 05 there is association between Qualificafion and Effects & Benefits. In the
case phi = .215, which shows a mild relationship between two variables. The correlation
isflaggedas significant, with same p-vaiue that was given in the chi-square test.
187
Table - 72
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Designation and Effects & Benefits.
Effects & Benefits

Agree Moderate
Agree
Executives 178 131 11 320
Designation
Supervisor 116 186 18 320
Total 294 317 29 640

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.50.


Phi .195 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
There is association between Designation and Effects & Benefits. This test shows that
sig is below.05 there is association between Designation and Effects & Benefits. In the
case phi = .195, which shows a weak relationship between two variables. The
correlation is flagged as significant, with same p-value that was given in the chi-square
test.
188
Table - 73
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Work Experience and Effects & Benefits.
Effects & Benefits

Agree Moderate
Agree
5 - 10 2 10 0 12
11 - 15 15 6 0 21
Work
16-20 12 4 0 16
Experience
21 - 30 168 217 13 398
31 and above 97 80 16 193
Total 294 317 29 640

Degrees ofFreedom = 8 Chi Square Value - 30.903 Table Value =22.0


Phi .220 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
There is association between Work Experience and Effects & Benefits. This test shows
that sig is below.05 there is association between Work Experience and Effects &
Benefits. In the case phi = .220, which shows a mild relationship between two variables.
The correlation is flagged as significant, with same p-value that was given in the chi-
square test.
189
Table - 74
Hypotheses :
There is no association between Designation and Individual Goal attainment.
Individual Goal Attainment

Cross Tabulation Some Very Not at Total
Mostly More
What Little all
Executives 0 266 33 15 6 320
Designation
Supervisor 12 206 62 34 6 320
Total 12 472 95 49 12 640

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5.' ^he minimiim expected count is 6.00.


Phi .237 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
Hence the yl value is greater than the table value we reject the hypotheses.
There is association between Designation and individual goal attainment. This test
shows that sig is below .05 there is association between Designation and individual goal
attainment. In the case phi = .237, which shows a mild relationship between two
190
Table - 75
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Designation and Group Goal Attainment.
Group Goal Attainment

Cross Tabulation Some Very Not Total
Mostly More
What Little at all
Executives 33 74 152 50 11 320
Designation
Supervisor 20 69 172 42 17 320
Total 53 143 324 92 28 640

0 cells (.0%) have expected courIt less than 5 . The mininlum expected count is 14.00
Degrees of Freedom = 4 Chi Square Value = 6.579 Table Value =14.9

Phi .101 .160

Nominal by Nominal
Result:
is no association between Designation and group goal attainment. This test shows that
sig is below.05 there is association between Designation and group goal attainment. In
the case phi^.lOl, which shows a weak relationship between two variables. The
correlation is flagged as significant, with same p-value that was given in the chi-square
test.
191
Table - 76
Hypotheses:
There is no association between Designation and attainment of organisational
Goal.
Attainment of organizational Goal

l^ross 1 auuiitiiuii Total
Mostly More Some What Very Little
Executives 134 149 19 18 320
Designation
Supervisor 116 135 33 36 320
Total 250 284 52 54 640

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 26.00.

Phi .136 .008
Nominal by Nominal
Result:
Hence the ^2 value is less than the table value we accept the hypotheses. There
is association between Designation and attainment of organizational goal. This test
shows that sig is below.05 there is association between Designation and organziation
goal attainment. In the case phi=.136, which shows a weak relationship between two
192
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Table - 77
Dimension : Training Inputs
KMO and Bartlett's Test
The dimensionality reaction of Training was examined using factor analysis
based on 8 individual statements and the reliability of the subsequent factor structures
was then tested for internal consistency of the grouping of the items.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .840

Approx. Chi-Square 1981.398
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 28
Sig. .000
Kaiser - Meyer - Olkin measure of sampling adequacy index is 0.840, which
indicates that factor analysis is appropriate for the given data set. KMO measure of
sampling adequacy is an index to examine the appropriateness of factor analysis. High
values between 0.5 and 1.0 indicate factor analysis is appropriate. Values below 0.5
imply that factor analysis may not be appropriate.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is used to examine the hypothesis that the variables
are uncorrelated. It is based on Chi-Square transformation of the determinant of
correlation matrix. A large value of the test statistic will favour the rejection of the null
hypothesis. In turn this would indicate that factor analysis is appropriate.
Bartlett's test of Sphericity Chi-square statistics is 1981.398, which would mean
the 8 statements are correlated and hence as concluded in KMO, factor analysis is
appropriate for the given data set.
193
Communalities
Initial Extraction
The norms and values of the organisation are clearly
1.000 .435
explained to the new employees during induction
The new recruits finds induction training very useful in your
1.000 .732
organisation
The Induction training is periodically evaluated and
1.000 .642
improved
The duration provided for training at present is adequate 1.000 .594
The infrastructure for training is sufficient 1.000 .558
The training equipment, lab, model rooms, etc are 1.000 .700
How do you rate the tools / study materials provided for
1.000 .752
training
How do you feel about the contents covered in the training
1.000 .633
program
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
The communalities above, measure the percent of variance in a given variable
explained by all the factors. That is, the communality is the squared multiple correlation
for the variable using the factors as predictors. Communality for a variable is the sum of
squared factor loadings for that variable (row), and thus is the percent of variance in a
given variable explained by all the factors. For full orthogonal PCA, the communality
will be 1.0 and all of the variance in the variables will be explained by all of the factors,
which will be as many as there are variables. The "extracted" communalities is the
percent of variance in a given variable explained by the factors which are extracted,
which will usually be fewer than all the possible factors, resulting in coefficients less
than 1.0.
194
Total Variance Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings
Component
%of Cumulative %of Cumulative
Total Total
Variance % Variance %
1 3.934 49.174 49.174 3.934 49.174 49.174
2 1.113 13.907 63.080 1.113 13.907 63.080
3 .753 9.418 72.498
4 .637 7.965 80.463
5 .476 5.952 86.415
6 .461 5.758 92.173
7 .358 4.471 96.645
8 .268 3.355 100.000
Eigen Value represents the total variance explained by each factor. Percentage
of the total variance attributed to each factor. One of the popular methods used in
Exploratory Factor Analysis is Principal Component Analysis, Where the total variance
in the data is considered to determine the minimum number of factors that will account
for maximum variance of data.
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total Vo of Variance Cumulative %
3.002 37.524 37.524
2.044 25.556 63.080
Rotation of factors is transferred through rotation into a simpler one that is easier
to interpret. It does not affect the percentage of total variance explained. However, the
variance explained by the individual factors is redistributed by rotation. The most
commonly used method is Varimax rotation procedure. This procedure maximizes the
variance of the loadings on each factor, thus minimizing the complexity of the factors.
195
Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2
The norms and values of the organisation are clearly explained
.660 .001
to the new employees during induction
The new recruits finds induction training very useful in your
.855 .038
organisation
The Induction training is periodically evaluated and improved .705 .381
The duration provided for training at present is adequate .649 .417
The infrastructure for training is sufficient .536 .520
The training equipment, lab, model rooms, etc are .345 .763
How do you rate the tools / study materials provided for
-.042 .866
training
How do you feel about the contents covered in the training
.715 .349
program
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Interpretation of factors is facilitated by identifying the statements that have
large loadings in the same factor. The factors can be interpreted in terms of the
statement that loads high on it.
The dimension 'Training Inputs' of training comprises of 8 statements. Out of 8
statements in reaction, 2 statements contribute more towards training inputs. The
statements are (1) The new recruits find induction training very useful in organization,
(2) The tools / study materials provided for training.
The 2 statements accounted for 63.080 percent of the variance in the original 8
statements. The remaining 6 statements contribute minimum towards training inputs in
training, (i.e) 36.92 percent of the variance only.
196
Table - 78
Dimension : Problems Faced
The dimensionality problem faced of Training was examined using factor
analysis based on 4 individual statements and the reliability of the subsequent factor
structures was then tested for internal consistency of the grouping of the items.

Sig. .000
197
Communalities
Initial Extraction
I feel training is not very difficult 1.000 .640
Problem faced in training can be easily .569
1.000
expressed to higher authority
Is there any provision to convey the difficulties
1.000 .614
faced (if any) at the time of training
Response to suggestions 1.000 .626
than 1.0.

Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 1.231 30.764 30.764 1.231 30.764 30.764
2 1.219 30.479 61.244 1.219 30.479 61.244
3 .837 20.935 82.178
4 .713 17.822 100.000
198

Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1.229 30.723 30.723
1.221 30.521 61.244
Component
1 2
I feel training is not very difficult .790 .125
Problem faced in training can be easily expressed
-.062 .752
to higher authority
Is there any provision to convey the difficulties
-.773 .131
faced (if any) at the time of training
Response to your suggestions .057 .789
extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
The dimension 'problem faced' of training comprises of 4 statements. Out of 4
statements in problem faced, 2 statements contribute more towards problem faced. The
statements are (1) I feel training is not very difficult, (2) Response to suggestions.
statements. The remaining 2 statements contribute minimum towards problem faced in
training, (i.e) 38.756 percent of variance only.
199
Table - 79
Dimension : Selection, Evaluation & Feed back
KMO and Bartletfs Test
The dimensionality Selection, Evaluation and feed back of Training was
examined using factor analysis based on 10 individual statements and the reliability of
the subsequent factor structures was then tested for internal consistency of the grouping
of the items.

Bartletfs Test of Sphericity df 45
Sig. .000
are uncorrected. It is based on Chi-Square transformation of the determinant of
200
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Employees are sponsored for training programmes on the basis
1.000 .506
of genuine training needs
Those who are sponsored for the training programmes take the
1.000 .722
training sincerely
Employees are sponsored for training programmes on the basis
1.000 .584
of carefully identified developmental needs
Employees sponsored for training go with a clear understanding
of the skills and knowledge they are expected to acquire from 1.000 .750
the training
How do you feel about the planning / execution of the entire
1.000 .294
training programme
Employees returning from the training are given adequate free
1.000 .771
time to reflect and plan improvements in the organisation
Training and Development programmes are handled by
1.000 .806
experienced and competent faculty
The performance appraisal of your superior after training is 1.000 .563
The quality of the training programmes in your organisation is
1.000 .646
excellent
Training programmes are selected, after collecting enough
1.000 .549
information about their suitability.
than 1.0.
201

Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 5.145 51.446 51.446 5.145 51.446 51.446
2 1.047 10.474 61.920 1.047 10.474 61.920
3 .876 8.756 70.676
4 .787 7.870 78.546
5 .552 5.520 84.066
6 .486 4.864 88.930
7 .421 4.209 93.140
8 .269 2.692 95.832
9 .245 2.446 98.279
10 .172 1.721 100.000

Cumulative
Total % of Variance
%
3.586 35.857 35.857
2.606 26.063 61.920
202
Component
1 2
Employees are sponsored for training programmes on the basis of
.622 .344
genuine training needs
Those who are sponsored for the training programmes take the
.793 .305
training sincerely
Employees are sponsored for training programmes on the basis of
.244 .724
carefully identified developmental needs
Employees sponsored for training go with a clear understanding of
the skills and knowledge they are expected to acquire from the .326 .802
training
How do you feel about the planning / execution of the entire
.398 .369
training programme
Employees returning from the training are given adequate free
.819 .318
time to reflect and plan improvements in the organisation
Training and Development programmes are handled by
.889 .128
experienced and competent faculty
The performance appraisal of your superior after training is .712 .236
The quality of the training programmes in your organisation is
.513 .619
excellent
Training programmes are selected, after collecting enough
.121 .731
information about their suitability.
The dimension 'Selection, Evaluation and feed back' of training comprises of 10
statements. Out of 10 statements in problem faced, 2 statements contribute more
towards Selection, Evaluation and feed back. The statements are (1) Training
programmes are handled by experienced and competent faculty, (2) Employees
sponsored for training go with a clear understanding of the skills and knowledge they
are expected to acquire from the training.
statements. The remaining 8 statements contribute minimum towards Selection,
Evaluation and feed back in training, (i.e) 38.08 percent of variance only.
203
Table - 80
Dimensions: Growth/Result and Improvement in Relationships
The dimensionality Growth/Result and Improvement in relationships of training
was examined using factor analysis based on 8 individual statements and the reliability
of the subsequent factor structures was then tested for internal consistency of the
grouping of the items.

Sig. .000
204
Communalities
Initial Extraction
The training programs were relevant to my growth and
1.000 .614
development
The training programmes were helpful in upgrading my skills 1.000 .751
Training programmes helped me to remain updated with the
1.000 .609
latest technology / practices / policies
Training programs contribute in improving the overall
1.000 .595
performance of the Organization
After the training programme, I am likely to get more
1.000 .816
incentives than before
Training programs help in bridging the gap between
1.000 .645
supervisor and subordinate
After attending the training programme, I think that I can be
of great help in maintaining a cordial and orderly atmosphere 1.000 .648
in the organisation
Training contributes to a large extent in improving the
1.000 .646
confidence and commitment of an employee.
than 1.0.
205

Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 4.264 53.296 53.296 4.264 53.296 53.296
2 1.059 13.240 66.536 1.059 13.240 66.536
3 .676 8.447 74.983
4 .586 7.330 82.314
5 .507 6.342 88.656
6 .364 4.553 93.208
7 .300 3.748 96.957
8 .243 3.043 100.000

3.788 47.346 47.346
1.535 19.190 66.536
206
Component
1 2
The training programs were relevant to my growth and
.610 .492
development
The training programmes were helpful in upgrading my skills .866 -.012
Training programmes helped me to remain updated with the latest
.567 .536
technology / practices / policies
Training programs contribute in improving the overall
.731 .245
performance of the Organization
After the training programme, I am likely to get more incentives
-.017 .903
than before
Training programs help in bridging the gap between supervisor
.803 -.007
and subordinate
After attending the training programme, I think that I can be of
great help in maintaining a cordial and orderly atmosphere in the .756 .276
organisation
Training contributes to a large extent in improving the confidence
.770 .233
and commitment of an employee.
extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
The dimension 'Growth and Resuh, Improvement in relationships' of training
comprises of 8 statements. Out of 8 statements in Growth and Result, Improvement in
relationships, 2 statements contribute more towards Growth and Result, Improvement in
relationships. The statements are (1) The training programmes were helpful in
upgrading my skills, (2) After the training programme, I am likely to get more
incentives than before.
statements. The remaining 6 statements contribute minimum towards Growth and
Result, Improvement in relationships (i.e) 33.464 percent of variance only.
207
Table - 81
Dimension : Attitude
The dimensionality attitude of Training was examined using factor analysis
based on 4 individual statements and the reliability of the subsequent factor structures
was then tested for internal consistency of the grouping of the items.

Sig. .000
208
Communalities
Initial Extraction
The training programmes have reinforced my belief in
1.000 .716
the usefulness of training
I will not like to miss the training programs conducted
1.000 .807
by my organisation in the future
Training programmes should be taken more seriously 1.000 .767
Training is an ongoing process 1.000 .994
than 1.0.

Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 2.280 56.993 56.993 2.280 56.993 56.993
2 1.004 25.106 82.098 1.004 25.106 82.098
3 .425 10.616 92.714
4 .291 7.286 100.000
209
2.272 56.792 56.792
1.012 25.306 82.098
Component
1 2
The training programmes have reinforced my belief in the
.843 .065
usefulness of training
I will not like to miss the training programs conducted by my
.893 .093
organisation in the future
Training programmes should be taken more seriously .873 -.077
Training is an ongoing process .030 .997
The dimension 'attitude' of training comprises of 4 statements. Out of 4
statements, 2 statements contribute more towards attitude. The statements are (1) I will
not like to miss the training programs conducted by my organization in the future, (2)
Training is an ongoing process.
statements. The remaining 2 statements contribute minimum towards attitude, (i.e)
17.902 percent of variance only.
210
Table - 82
Dimension : Effectiveness and Benefit
The dimensionality Effectiveness and Benefit of Training was examined using
factor analysis based on 6 individual statements and the reliability of the subsequent
factor structures was then tested for internal consistency of the grouping of the items.

Sig. .000
are uncorrected. It is based on Chi-Square transformation of the determinant of
211
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Training programme helps to increase the production 1.000 .661
Grievance is minimized after training 1.000 .427
Do you agree absenteeism is minimized after training 1.000 .387
Does your morale and efficiency increased after training 1.000 .405
Training helped you to minimize mistakes and increase the
1.000 .387
job satisfaction
Can you make your job more interesting after training 1.000 .384
than 1.0.

Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 1.414 23.559 23.559 1.414 23.559 23.559
2 1.238 20.631 44.190 1.238 20.631 44.190
3 .936 15.606 59.796
4 .910 15.166 74.962
5 .837 13.945 88.907
6 .666 11.093 100.000
212
Total % of Variance Cumulative Vo
1.354 22.561 22.561
1.298 21.629 44.190
Component
1 2
Training programme helps to increase the production -.221 .782
Grievance is minimized after training .363 .543
Absenteeism is minimized after training .047 .620
Morale and efficiency increased after training .636 .004

Training helped you to minimize mistakes and increase the
.618 .072
job satisfaction
Job more interesting after training .619 -.029

213
The dimension 'effectiveness and benefit' of training comprises of 6 statements.
Out of 6 statements in effectiveness and benefit, 2 statements contribute more towards
effectiveness and benefit. The statements are (1) Morale and efficiency increased after
training, (2) Training programme helps to increase the production
statements. The remaining 4 statements contribute minimum towards effectiveness and
benefit, (i.e) 55.81 percent of variance only.
214
Table - 83
Dimension : Employee Perception
The dimensionality employee perception of Training was examined using factor
analysis based on 18 individual statements and the reliability of the subsequent factor
structures was then tested for internal consistency of the grouping of the items.

Sig. .000
215
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Your top managers see training as an important way of helping
1.000 .685
to achieve organisation's mission
Your top managers show commitment to Training by spending
1.000 .658
time promoting and delivering it.
The managers strongly support the development of new skills
1.000 .657
and knowledge among all levels of employees
The Training activities are encouraged clearly, what top
1.000 .700
managers are trying to accomplish
There are some Training activities (e.g., diversity, ethics, or
computer security training) that everyone in the organisation 1.000 .687
participates in, regardless of position
The managers help their employees meet personal Training
1.000 .685
goals and needs
Your top managers are closely involved in determining the
1.000 .534
direction and goals of the Training activities
Training activities meets the requirement of the employees 1.000 .449
Employees are held accountable for using what they've learned
1.000 .721
in their Training activities
Managers are held accountable for following up and
encouraging their employees to apply what they've learned 1.000 .617
through their Training activities
Training activities provide learning that is practical for use on
1.000 .621
the job
Managers personally provide Training for their employees 1.000 .732
Training gives employees an opportunity to learn the skills and
1.000 .585
behaviors that will help them to get rewarded and promoted
After employees receive Training, they are asked to provide
1.000 .513
feedback how much they learned
Subordinates are asked to provide feedback on the effectiveness
1.000 .612
of the Training received by their managers
Managers are asked to provide feedback on the effectiveness of
1.000 .604
the Training received by their subordinates
Individuals are publicly recognized for their Training
1.000 .734
accomplishments
In general, I am satisfied with the range of Training
opportunities available to me 1.000 .733
216
than 1.0.

Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 7.044 39.131 39.131 7.044 39.131 39.131
2 3.209 17.830 56.961 3.209 17.830 56.961
3 1.275 7.082 64.043 1.275 7.082 64.043
4 .951 5.284 69.327
5 .840 4.667 73.994
6 .720 3.998 77.992
7 .596 3.313 81.305
8 .549 3.050 84.355
9 .482 2.676 87.032
10 .449 2.494 89.526
11 .390 2.165 91.692
12 .328 1.822 93.513
13 .297 1.649 95.162
14 .238 1.324 96.486
15 .197 1.095 97.581
16 .161 .896 98.478
17 .147 .817 99.294
18 .127 .706 100.000
217
6.309 35.052 35.052
3.689 20.497 55.549
1.529 8.494 64.043

Component
1 2 3
Your top managers see training as an important way of
.702 .417 .137
helping to achieve organisation's mission
Your top managers show commitment to Training by
.794 .007 -.165
spending time promoting and delivering it.
The managers strongly support the development of new skills
.778 .192 .119
and knowledge among all levels of employees
The Training activities are encouraged clearly, what top
.175 .790 -.212
managers are trying to accomplish
There are some Training activities (e.g., diversity, ethics, or
computer security training) that everyone in the organisation .089 .753 .335
participates in, regardless of position
The managers help their employees meet personal Training
.029 .817 .130
goals and needs
Your top managers are closely involved in determining the
.675 .253 .120
direction and goals of the Training activities
Training activities meets the requirement of the employees .668 .003 .052
Employees are held accountable for using what they've
.741 -.396 .124
learned in their Training activities
Managers are held accountable for following up and
encouraging their employees to apply what they've learned .758 .174 -.109
through their Training activities
Training activities provide learning that is practical for use
.693 .326 -.187
on the job
Managers personally provide Training for their employees -.023 .271 .811
Training gives employees an opportunity to learn the skills
and behaviors that will help them to get rewarded and .125 .605 .452
promoted
218
After employees receive Training, they are asked to provide
.698 .161 -.023
feedback how much they learned
Subordinates are asked to provide feedback on the
.650 .179 .398
effectiveness of the Training received by their managers
Managers are asked to provide feedback on the effectiveness
.749 .173 .117
of the Training received by their subordinates
Individuals are publicly recognized for their Training
.253 .806 .139
accomplishments
In general, I am satisfied with the range of Training
.697 -.293 .402
opportunities available to me
The dimension 'employee perception' of training comprises of 18 statements.
Out of 18 statements in employee perception, 3 statements contribute more towards
employee perception. The statements are (1) Top managers show commitment to
Training by spending time promoting and delivering it (2) The managers help their
employees meet personal Training goals and needs (3) Managers personally provide
Training for their employees.
statements. The remaining 15 statements contribute minimum towards employee
perception, (i.e) 39.957 percent of variance only.
219
CORRELATION
Table - 84
Improve Effecti
Training ment in veness Growtl
Selection Attitude Perception Training
Inputs Relations and & Resu
hip Benefit
Training
1.000
Inputs
Selection .486 1.000
Improvement
in .499 .754 1.000
Relationship
Attitude .342 .647 .587 1.000
Employee
.621 .454 .479 .439 1.000
Perception
Effectiveness
.367 .456 .383 .345 .450 1.000
and Benefit
Training .668 .710 .673 .580 .605 .518 1.000
Growth &
.559 .506 .463 .385 .460 .402 .648 1.000
Result
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Training Inputs
The correlation between the two variables training inputs and selection was
.486; both the variables were positively correlated and significant. The correlation
between training inputs and improvement in relationship was .499, which has the
positive correlation between two variables and significant. The correlation between
training inputs and attitude of the respondents was .342, found to be weak correlation
among the correlation between other variables of training. The correlation between
training inputs and employee perception was found to be .621, which has the positive
correlation and significant. The correlation between training inputs and effectiveness
220
and benefits was .367, both the variables were mildly correlated and significant. The
correlation between training inputs and training was .668, which has the positive
correlation and significant. The correlation between training inputs and growth and
results was .559, both the variables are highly correlated and significant.
Selection
The correlation between selection and improvement in relations was .754, both
the variables are highly correlated and significant. The correlation between selections
and attitude, employee perception, effectiveness and benefits. Training, growth and
results were .647, .454, .456, .710, .506 respectively. The correlations between the
variables were highly correlated and significant.
Improvement in relationships
The correlation between improvement in relationships and attitude was .587,
highly correlated and significant. The correlation between improvement in relationships
and employee perception was .479, positively correlated and significant. The correlation
between improvement in relationships and effectiveness and benefits was .383,
positively moderately correlated and significant. The correlation between improvement
in relationships and training was found to be highly correlated .673 and significant. The
correlation between improvement in relationships and growth and results was found to
be (.463) moderately correlated and significant.
Attitude
The correlation between attitude and employee perception was .439, moderately
correlated and significant. The correlation between attitude and effectiveness and
benefits was .345, mildly correlated and significant. The correlation between variables
221
attitude and training was .580, highly correlated and significant. The correlation
between attitude and growth and result was .385, mildly correlated and significant.
Perception:
The correlation between perception of training and effectiveness, benefits of
training was .450, moderately correlated and significant. The correlation between
perception and training was .605, highly correlated and significant. The correlation
between perception and growth, results was .460, moderately correlated and significant.
Effectiveness and Benefit
The correlation between effectiveness, benefit and training was .518, highly
correlated and significant. The correlation between effectiveness and benefits and
growth, results was .402, moderately correlated and significant.
Training
The correlation between training and growth and result was found to be (.648)
highly correlated and significant.
222
MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS
Table - 85
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square
Square Estimate
1 .855 .730 .727 .315
Predictors: (Constant), Perception of Training, Problem Faced, Attitude towards
training, Effects & Benefits, Growth & Result, Improvement in
Relationships, Training inputs, Selection.
The multiple regressions are shown in the above table. The model summary
table shows R-Square for this model is .730. This means that 73 percent of the variation
in overall Training (dependent variable) can be explained from the 8 independent
variables. The table also shows the adjusted R-square for the model as .727.
Any time another independent variable is added to a multiple regression model,
the R-square will increase (even if only slightly). Consequently, it becomes difficult to
determine which models do the best job of explaining variation in the same dependent
variable. The adjusted R-Square does just what its name implies. It adjusts the R-square
by the number of predictor variables in the model. This adjustment allows the easy
comparison of the explanatory power of models with different numbers of predictor's
variable. It also helps us to decide how many variables to include in our regression
model.
223
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Model df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 169.007 8 21.126
1 Residual 62.437 631 .099 213.501 .000
Total 231.444 639
Predictor s: (Constan t), Perception of Training , Problem Facec , Attitude towards
training, Effects & Benefits, Growth & Result, Improvement in
Relationships, Training Inputs, Selection.
Dependent Variable: Training
The ANOVA table, as displayed in the above table shows the F ratio for the
regression model that indicates the statistical significance of the overall regression
model. The F ratio is calculated the same way for regression analysis as it was for the
ANOVA technique. The variance Independent variable that is associated with
dependent variable (Overall training) is referred to as explained variance. The remainder
of the total variance in Independent variable that is not associated with dependent
variable is referred as unexplained variance.
The larger the F ratio that more variance in the dependent variable that is
associated with the independent variable. The F ratio = 213.501. The statistical
significance is .000 - the "Sig". So we can reject the null hypothesis that no relationship
exists between the two variables. There is relationship between independent and
dependent variables.
224
Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized CoUinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model t Sig.
Std. Toler
B Beta VIF
Error ance
(Constant) .207 .082 2.521 .012
Training Inputs .230 .028 .242 8.192 .000 .491 2.03'
1 Problem Faced -.150 .038 -.085 -3.938 .000 .923 1.08^
Selection .145 .029 .185 5.069 .000 .321 3.11'
Growth & Result .196 .025 .212 7.888 .000 .593 1.68f
Improvement in
.138 .029 .158 4.731 .000 .381 2.62!
Relationships
Attitude towards
.116 .027 .121 4.284 .000 .533 1.87f
training
Effects & Benefits .119 .026 .114 4.637 .000 .702 1.42^
Perception of
.104 .028 .110 3.783 .000 .507 1.97:
Training
Dependent Variable: Training
To determine if one or more of the independent variables are significant
predictors of overall training, we examine the information provided in the coefficient
table. All the above five independent statements are statistically significant.
The standardized coefficient beta column reveals that training inputs has a beta
coefficient .242, which is significant (.000). Problem faced has a beta coefficient -.085,
which is significant (.000) but it creates a negative influence towards overall training.
Selection has a beta coefficient .185, which is significant (.000). Growth and result has
a beta coefficient .212, which is significant (.000). Improvement in relationships has a
beta coefficient .158, which is significant (.000). Atfitude towards training has a beta
coefficient .121, which is significant (.000). Effects and benefits have a beta coefficient
.114, which is significant (.000). Perception has a beta coefficient .110, which is
significant (.000).
225
To assess multicollinearity we look at the size of Tolerance and VIF. For the
tolerance small value indicate the absence of coUinearity. The VIF is the inverse of
tolerance, we look for large values. If the tolerance value is smaller then .10, we
conclude that multicollinearity is a problem. Similarly, if the VIF is 5 or larger, then
multicollinearity is a problem.
Since the tolerance value is substantially above .10 and the VIF is smaller than
5, we conclude that multicollinearity among the independent variable is not a problem.
Overall Training Programme = .207 + .230 (Training Inputs) - .150 (Problems)

+ .145 (Selection) + .196 (Growth & Result)
+ .138 (Improvement in Relationships)
+ .116 (Attitude towards training)
+ . 119 (Effects & Benefits)
+ .104 (Perception of Training)
+ .315 (Ave.Error)
226
MODELING OF SUPERVISOR'S TRAINING,
GROWTH AND RESULTS
.38
Training Inputs .10

e1
.23 .53 20
/21 Selection
/13 ; /!37 Overall Training

.06
1L
4i
.15 Improvement in Relations
I .07
.51
.22 : 1/15 ;23 .33
14
.15 I Attitude
.16
.15 Growth & Result

\18 .10
.32
.16 Effectiveness & Benefit

.24
62
.15
.39
Perception
227
Table - 86
Regression Weights:
Hypotheses Statements Estimate S.E. C.R. P
Overall Training < Training Inputs .204 .039 5.272 ***
Overall Training < Selection .263 .041 6.424 ***
Overall Training < Improvement in Relations .060 .042 1.440 .150
Overall Training < Attitude .065 .043 1.518 .129
Overall Training < Perception .147 .037 3.981 ***
Overall Training < Effectiveness Benefit .159 .036 4.477 ***
Growth Result < Overall Training .515 .051 10.094 ***
The above table explains the various factors of training. It is inferred that from
the above table when training inputs goes by one standard deviation, there will be .204
units of changes in overall training. Similarly when selection changes by one unit of
standard deviation, there will be .263 units of change in overall training.
Estimate of regression weight
1. When Training Inputs goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.204.
2. When Selection goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.263.
3. When Improvement in Relations goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by
0.06.
4. When Attitude goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.065.
5. When Perception goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.147.
6. When Effectiveness Benefit goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.159.
7. When Overall Training goes up by 1, Growth Result goes up by 0.515.
228
Level of significance for regression weight
1. The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 5.272 in absolute value is
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Training Inputs in the
prediction of Overall Training is significantly different from zero at the 0.001
level (two-tailed).
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Selection in the
level (two-tailed).
.150. In other words, the regression weight for Improvement in Relations in
the prediction of Overall Training is not significantly different from zero at the
0.05 level (two-tailed).
.129. In other words, the regression weight for Attitude in the prediction of
Overall Training is not significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level (two-
tailed).
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Perception in the
level (two-tailed).
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Effectiveness Benefit
in the prediction of Overall Training is significantly different from zero at the
229
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Overall Training in
the prediction of Growth Result is significantly different from zero at the 0.001
level (two-tailed).
Covariances:

Effectiveness Benefit <> Perception .147 .022 6.771 ***
Effectiveness Benefit <> Attitude .104 .019 5.429 ***
Improvement in ***
Attitude <> .232 .025 9.187
Relations
Improvement in ***
<-> Selection .365 .034 10.668
Relations
Selection <> Training Inputs .227 .028 8.062 ***
Perception <> Attitude .156 .022 7.095 ***
Improvement in
Perception <> .179 .026 6.946 ***
Relations
Perception <> Selection .143 .027 5.339 ***
Perception <> Training Inputs .216 .025 8.679 ***
Improvement in ***
Effectiveness Benefit <> .146 .023 6.332
Relations
Effectiveness Benefit <> Selection .147 .025 5.958 ***
Effectiveness Benefit <> Training Inputs .147 .021 6.894 ***
Attitude <> Selection .270 .028 9.697 ***
Attitude <> Training Inputs .131 .021 6.164 ***
Improvement in ***
<> Training Inputs .211 .026 8.056
Relations
Estimate of covariance
1. The covariance between Effectiveness Benefit and Perception is estimated to
be. 147.
2. The covariance between Effectiveness Benefit and Attitude is estimated to be
.104.
230
3. The covariance between Attitude and Improvement in Relations is estimated
to be .232.
4. The covariance between Improvement in Relations and Selection is estimated
to be .365.
5. The covariance between Selection and Training Inputs is estimated to be .227.
6. The covariance between Perception and Attitude is estimated to be . 156.
7. The covariance between Perception and Improvement in Relations is
estimated to be . 179.
8. The covariance between Perception and Selection is estimated to be .143.
9. The covariance between Perception and Training Inputs is estimated to be
.216.
10. The covariance between Effectiveness Benefit and Improvement in Relations
is estimated to be .146.
11. The covariance between Effectiveness Benefit and Selection is estimated to be
.147.
12. The covariance between Effectiveness Benefit and Training Inputs is
estimated to be .147.
13. The covariance between Attitude and Selection is estimated to be .270.
14. The covariance between Attitude and Training Inputs is estimated to be . 131.
15. The covariance between Improvement in Relations and Training Inputs is
231
Variances:
Estimate S.E. C.R. P
Effectiveness Benefit .325 .026 12.629 ***
Perception .395 .031 12.629 ***
Attitude .330 .026 12.629 ***
Improvement in Relations .455 .036 12.629 ***
Selection .529 .042 12.629 ***
Training Inputs .382 .030 12.629 ***
el .098 .008 12.629 ***
e2 .241 .019 12.629 ***
Estimate of variance
1. The variance of Effectiveness Benefit is estimated to be .325.
2. The variance of Perception is estimated to be .395.
3. The variance of Attitude is estimated to be .330.
4. The variance of Improvement in Relations is estimated to be .455.
5. The variance of Selection is estimated to be .529.
6. The variance of Training Inputs is estimated to be .382.
7. The variance of el is estimated to be .098.
8. The variance of e2 is estimated to be .241.
232
MODELING OF EXECUTIVES TRAINING,
GROWTH AND RESULTS
Training Inputs .11

el i
.24
.64 .38
^^ 1
.22
/
1 Selection
.15
_ _ _ Jt_
11
i
.13
^4
'43
1
Improvement in Relations
.49 .20
.16
I Overall Training
.80
28 ,24 21 .45
r
.30 :
.15 1 Attitude '
.16
^

>, 1 1 7 .05 Growth & Result
,24 .13
.32
:i9 1 Effectiveness & Benefit

.22
v.
e2
.18
.41
.
Perception i
233
Table - 87
Regression Weights:
Overall Training < Training Inputs .383 .041 9.314 ***
Overall Training < Selection .149 .043 3.485 ***
Overall Training < Improvement in Relations .196 .043 4.538 ***
Overall Training < Attitude .156 .037 4.183 ***
Overall Training < Perception .046 .046 1.010 .312
Overall Training < Effectiveness Benefit .157 .041 3.822 ***
Growth Result < Overall Training .802 .041 19.689 ***
Estimate of regression weight
1. When Training Inputs goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.383.
2. When Selection goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.149.
3. When Improvement in Relations goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by

0.196.
4. When Attitude goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.156.
5. When Perception goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.046.
6. When Effectiveness Benefit goes up by 1, Overall Training goes up by 0.157.
7. When Overall Training goes up by 1, Growth Result goes up by 0.802.
Level of significance for regression weight
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Training Inputs in the
level (two-tailed).
234
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Selection in the
level (two-tailed).
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Improvement in
Relations in the prediction of Overall Training is significantly different from
zero at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Attitude in the
level (two-tailed).
.312. In other words, the regression weight for Perception in the prediction of
Overall Training is not significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level (two-
tailed).
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Effectiveness Beneflt
in the prediction of Overall Training is significantly different from zero at the
less than 0.001. In other words, the regression weight for Overall Training in
the prediction of Grov'th Result is significantly different from zero at the 0.001
level (two-tailed).
235
Covariances:
Effectiveness Benefit <> Perception .177 .023 7.862 ***
Effectiveness Benefit <> Attitude .131 .022 5.859 ***
Attitude <> Improvement in Relations .270 .030 8.905 ***
Improvement in Relations <> Selection .429 .040 10.824 ***
Selection <> Training Inputs .238 .032 7.513 ***
Perception <> Attitude .189 .026 7.228 ***
Perception <> Improvement in Relations .238 .028 8.364 ***
Perception <-> Selection .296 .033 8.934 ***
Perception <> Training Inputs .279 .028 10.058 ***
Effectiveness Benefit <> Improvement in Relations .151 .024 6.363 ***
Effectiveness Benefit <> Selection .243 .029 8.460 ***
Effectiveness Benefit <> Training Inputs .110 .021 5.218 ***
Attitude <> Selection .345 .036 9.657 ***
Attitude <> Training Inputs .134 .025 5.324 ***
Improvement in Relations <> Training Inputs .220 .028 7.853 ***
Estimate of covariance
1. The covariance between Effectiveness Benefit and Perception is estimated to
be.177
2. The covariance between Effectiveness Benefit and Attitude is estimated to be
.131
236
3. The covariance between Attitude and Improvement in Relations is estimated
to be .270.
4. The covariance between Improvement in Relations and Selection is estimated
to be .429.
5. The covariance between Selection and Training Inputs is estimated to be .238.
6. The covariance between Perception and Attitude is estimated to be . 189.
7. The covariance between Perception and Improvement in Relations is
8. The covariance between Perception and Selection is estimated to be .296.
9. The covariance between Perception and Training Inputs is estimated to be
.279.
10. The covariance between Effectiveness Beneflt and Improvement in Relations
is estimated to be . 151.
11. The covariance between Effectiveness Benefit and Selection is estimated to be
.243.
12. The covariance between Effectiveness Benefit and Training Inputs is
estimated to be . 110.
13. The covariance between Attitude and Selection is estimated to be .345.
14. The covariance between Attitude and Training Inputs is estimated to be . 134.
15. The covariance between Improvement in Relations and Training Inputs is
237
Variances:
Estimate S.E. C.R. P
Effectiveness Benefit .318 .025 12.629 ***
Perception .409 .032 12.629 ***
Attitude .448 .035 12.629 ***
Improvement in Relations .492 .039 12.629 ***
Selection .644 .051 12.629 ***
Training Inputs .410 .032 12.629 ***
el .112 .009 12.629 ***
e2 .224 .018 12.629 ***
Estimate of variance
1. The variance of Effectiveness Benefit is estimated to be .318.
2. The variance of Perception is estimated to be .409.
3. The variance of Attitude is estimated to be .448.
4. The variance of Improvement in Relations is estimated to be .492.
5. The variance of Selection is estimated to be .644.
7. The variance of el is estimated to be . 112.
8. The variance of e2 is estimated to be .224.
238
MODELING OF OVERALL TRAINING, GROWTH AND RESULT
.11
Reaction
e2.
Selection
Training
Behaviour & Relationships

.70
1
Attitude towards training Growth & Result
Effects & Benefits

(g)
Perception of Training
239
Table -88
Hypotheses:
There is no conventional relationship among the attributes on training.
I. Regression Weights:

Training < Perception of training .102 .029 3.573 ***
Training < Effects & benefits .146 .027 5.456 ***
Training < Attitude towards training .123 .029 4.320 ***
Training < Training Inputs .295 .028 10.513 ***
Training < Improvement in relationships .129 .030 4.252 ***
Training < Selection to undergo training .197 .029 6.731 ***

Growth and ***
< Training .699 .033 21.510
Resuh
The above table explains the impact of various factors on training. From the
above table it is inferred that if the perception of training goes up by one standard
deviation, there will be .102 units of change in standard deviation in the training.
Similarly effects and benefits changes up in one standard deviation, there will be .146
units of change in the training. Like wise Attitude towards training goes up by one
standard deviation, there will be .123 units of change in training.
If Training inputs goes up in one standard deviation, there will be .295 changes
in training. Similarly improvement in relationships goes up in one standard deviation;
there will be .129 changes in the training. Correspondingly if selection to undergo
training changes in one standard deviation, there will be .197 units of change in training.
When the effectiveness of training goes up in one standard deviation, there will be .699
units of change in growth result.
In the above various factors of training, training inputs contribute maximum
towards training.
240
Total Effects of Training towards growth and result:
Improvement Attitude Perception

Training Effects
Selection in towards of Training
Inputs Benefits
Relationships training Training
Growth
.206 .137 .090 .086 .072 .102 .699
Result
The total (direct and indirect) effect of training inputs on Growth and Result is
.206. That is, due to both direct (unmediated) and indirect (mediated) effects of training
inputs on growth and result, when training inputs goes up by 1, growth and result goes
up by 0.206.
The total (direct and indirect) effect of Selection on Growth Result is .137. That
is, due to both direct (unmediated) and indirect (mediated) effects of Selection on
growth and result, when selection goes up by 1, growth and result goes up by 0.137.
The total (direct and indirect) effect of improvement in relationships on growth
and result is .090. That is, due to both direct (unmediated) and indirect (mediated)
effects of improvement in relationships on growth and result, when improvement in
relationships goes up by 1, growth and result goes up by 0.09.
The total (direct and indirect) effect of Attitude towards training on Growth
Result is .086. That is, due to both direct (unmediated) and indirect (mediated) effects of
Attitude towards training on growth and result, when attitude towards training goes up
by 1, growth and result goes up by 0.086.
The total (direct and indirect) effect of Perception of Training on Growth Result
is .072. That is, due to both direct (unmediated) and indirect (mediated) effects of
perception of Training on growth and result, when perception of Training goes up by 1,
growth and result goes up by 0.072.
241
The total (direct and indirect) effect of Effects Benefits on Growth and Result is
.102. That is, due to both direct (unmediated) and indirect (mediated) effects of effects
and benefits on growth result, when effects and benefits goes up by 1, growth and result
goes up by 0.102.
The total (direct and indirect) effect of TRAINrNG on growth and result is .699.
That is, due to both direct (unmediated) and indirect (mediated) effects of TRAINING
on growth and result, when TRAINING goes up by I, growth and result goes up by
0.699.
a. Estimate of regression weight
1. When Perception of Training goes up by 1, Training goes up by 0.102.
2. When Effects & Benefits goes up by 1, Training goes up by 0.146.
3. When Attitude towards training goes up by 1, Training goes up by 0.123.
4. When Training Inputs goes up by 1, Training goes up by 0.295.
5. When Improvement in Relationships goes up by 1, Training goes up by 0.129
6. When Selection to undergo training goes up by 1, Training goes up by 0.197.
7. When Training goes up by 1, Growth and Result goes up by 0.699.
b. Standard error of regression weight
1. The regression weight estimate,. 102, has a standard error of about .029.
2. The regression weight estimate, .146, has a standard error of about .027.
242
c. Critical ratio for regression weight
1. Dividing the regression weight estimate by the estimate of its standard error gives
z = .102/.029 = 3.573.
In other words, the regression weight estimate is 3.573 standard errors above zero
z = .1467.027 = 5.456.
z = . 1237.029 = 4.320.
In other words, the regression weight estimate is 4.32 standard errors above zero.
z = .2957.028 = 10.513.
z = . 1297.030 = 4.252.
z = . 1977.029 = 6.731.
z = .6997.033 = 21.510.
d. Level of significance for regression weight
less than .001. In other words, the regression weight for Perception of Training
243
in the prediction of Training is significantly different from zero at the .001 level
(two-tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the regression weight for Effects & Beneflts in
the prediction of Training is significantly different from zero at the .001 level
(two-tailed).
3. The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 4.32 in absolute value is less
than .001. In other words, the regression weight for Attitude towards Training
in the prediction of Training is significantly different from zero at the .001 level
(two-tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the regression weight for Training Inputs in the
prediction of Training is significantly different from zero at the .001 level (two-
tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the regression weight for Improvement in
Relationships in the prediction of Training is significantly different from zero
at the .001 level (two-tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the regression weight for Selection to undergo
Training in the prediction of Training is significantly different from zero at the
.001 level (two-tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the regression weight for Training in the
prediction of Growth and Result is significantly different from zero at the .001
level (two-tailed).
244
II. Standardized Regression Weights:
Estimate
Training < Perception of Training .108
Training < Effects & benefits .140
Training < Attitude towards Training .128
Training < Training Inputs .310
Training < Improvement in Relationships .148
Training < Selection to undergo training .251
Growth and result < Training .648
Estimate of standardized regression weight
1. When Perception of Training goes up by 1 standard deviation. Training goes
up by 0.108 standard deviations.
2. When Effects & Benefits goes up by 1 standard deviation, Training goes up by
0.14 standard deviations.
3. When Attitude towards Training goes up by 1 standard deviation, Training
goes up by 0.128 standard deviations.
4. When Training Inputs goes up by 1 standard deviation, Training goes up by
0.31 standard deviations.
5. When Improvement in Relationships goes up by 1 standard deviation,
Training goes up by 0.148 standard deviations.
6. When Selection to undergo Training goes up by 1 standard deviation.
Training goes up by 0.251 standard deviations.
7. When Training goes up by 1 standard deviation. Growth and Result goes up
by 0.648 standard deviations.
245
Covariances:
Effects & benefits <> Perception of training .165 .016 10.365 ***
Attitude towards ***

Effects & benefits <> .125 .015 8.251
training
Improvement in ***
Attitude towards training <> .254 .020 12.799
relationships
Improvement in Selection to undergo ***
<--> .400 .026 15.225
relationships training
Selection to undergo ***
<> Training Inputs .236 .021 11.054
training
Attitude towards ***
Perception of training <> .175 .017 10.156
training
Improvement in ***
Relationships
Training
Perception of Training <> Training Inputs .249 .019 13.340 ***
Improvement in ***
Effects & Benefits <> .153 .017 9.050
Relationships
Effects & Benefits <> .202 .019 10.493
Training
Effects & Benefits <> Training Inputs .134 .015 8.707 **

Attitude towards Training <> .312 .023 13.739
Training
Attitude towards Training <> Training Inputs .135 .017 8.169 ***
Improvement in ***
<--> Training Inputs .217 .019 11.289
Relationships
a. Estimate of covariance
1. The covariance between Effects & Benefits and Perception of Training is
2. The covariance between Effects & Benefits and Attitude towards Training is
3. The covariance between Attitude towards Training and Improvement in
Relationships is estimated to be .254.
246
4. The covariance between Improvement in Relationships and Selection to
undergo Training is estimated to be .400.
5. The covariance between Selection to undergo Training and Training Inputs
6. The covariance between Perception of Training and Attitude towards
Training is estimated to be .175.
7. The covariance between Perception of Training and Improvement in
8. The covariance between Perception of Training and Selection to undergo
9. The covariance between Perception of Training and Training Inputs is
10. The covariance between Effects & Benefits and Improvement in
11. The covariance between Effects & Benefits and Selection to undergo Training
12. The covariance between Effects & Benefits and Training Inputs is estimated
to be. 134.
13. The covariance between Attitude towards Training and Selection to undergo
14. The covariance between Attitude towards Training and Training Inputs is
15. The covariance between Improvement in Relationships and Training Inputs
247
b. Standard error of covariance
1. The covariance estimate, .165, has a standard error of about .016.
2. The covariance estimate .125, has a standard error of about .015.
8. The covariance estimate .222, has a standard error of about .021
10. The covariance estimate .153, has a standard error of about .017. '
Critical ratio for covariance
Dividing the covariance estimate by the estimate of its standard error gives
z = .125/.015 = 8.251.
In other words, the covariance estimate is 8.251 standard errors above zero.
z = .1657.016=10.365.
z = .2547.020= 12.799.
248
4. Dividing the covariance estimate by the estimate of its standard error gives
z = .400/.026= 15.225.
z=.236/.021 = 11.054.
z = .175/.017= 10.156.
z = .2097.019=10.916.
z = .2227.021 = 10.455.
z = .2497.019 =13.340.
z = .1537.017 = 9.050.
z = .2027.019 =10.493.
249
z=.134/.015 = 8.707.
z = .312/.023 = 13.739.
z=.1357.017 = 8.169.
z = .217/.019=11.289.
d. Level of significance for covariance
1. The probabiUty of getting a critical ratio as large as 10.365 in absolute value is
less than .001. In other words, the covariance between Effects & Benefits and
Perception of Training is significantly different from zero at the .001 level
(two-tailed).
Attitude towards Training is significantly different from zero at the .001 level
(two-tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the covariance between Attitude towards
Training and Improvement in Relationships is significantly different from
zero at the .001 level (two-tailed).
250
less than .001. In other words, the covariance between Improvement in
Relationships and Selection to undergo Training is significantly different
from zero at the .001 level (two-tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the covariance between Selection to Undergo
Training and Training Inputs is significantly different from zero at the .001
level (two-tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the covariance between Perception of Training
and Attitude towards Training is significantly different from zero at the .001
level (two-tailed).
and Improvement in Relationships is significantly different from zero at the
and Selection to undergo Training is significantly
and Training Inputs is significantly different from zero at the .001 level (two-
tailed).
10. The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 9.05 in absolute value is less
than .001. In other words, the covariance between Effects & Benefits and
251
Improvement in Relationships is significantly different from zero at the .001
level (two-tailed).
Selection to undergo Training is significantly different from zero at the .001
level (two-tailed).
Training Inputs is significantly different from zero at the .001 level (two-
tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the covariance between Attitude Towards
Training and Selection to undergo Training is significantly different from
zero at the .001 level (two-tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the covariance between Attitude towards
Training and Training Inputs is significantly different from zero at the .001
level (two-tailed).
less than .001. In other words, the covariance between Improvement in
Relationships and Training Inputs is significantly different from zero at the
252
Correlations:
Hypotheses Statements Estimate
Effects & Benefits <> Perception of Training .450
Effects & Benefits <> Attitude towards Training .345
Attitude towards Training <> Improvement in Relationships .587
Improvement in Relationships <> Selection to undergo Training .754
Selection to undergo Training <> Training Inputs .486
Perception of Training <> Attitude towards Training .439
Perception of Training <-> Improvement in Relationships .479
Perception of Training <> Selection to undergo Training .454
Perception of Training <> Training Inputs .621
Effects & Benefits <> Improvement in Relationships .383
Effects & Benefits <> Selection to undergo Training .456
Effects & Benefits <-> Training Inputs .367
Attitude towards Training <> Selection to undergo Training .647
Attitude towards Training <> Training Inputs .342
Improvement in Relationships <--> Training Inputs .499
Estimate of correlation
1. .450 is the estimated correlation between Effects & Benefits and Perception of
Training.
2. .345 is the estimated correlation between Effects & Benefits and Attitude
towards Training.
3. .587 is the estimated correlation between Attitude towards Training and
Improvement in Relationships.
4. .754 is the estimated correlation between Improvement in Relationships and
Selection to undergo Training.
5. .486 is the estimated correlation between Selection to undergo Training and
Training Inputs.
6. .439 is the estimated correlation between Perception of Training and Attitude
towards Training.
253
7. .479 is the estimated correlation between Perception of Training and
Improvement in Relationships.
8. .454 is the estimated correlation between Perception of Training and Selection
to undergo Training.
9. .621 is the estimated correlation between Perception of Training and Training
Inputs.
10. .383 is the estimated correlation between Effects & Benefits and Improvement
in Relationships.
11. .456 is the estimated correlation between Effects & Benefits and Selection to
undergo Training.
12. .367 is the estimated correlation between Effects & Benefits and Training
Inputs
Selection to undergo Training.
Training Inputs.
15. .499 is the estimated correlation between Improvement in Relationships and
Training Inputs.
Variances: Estimate S.E. C.R. P

Effects & Benefits .333 .019 17.875 ***
Perception of Training .403 .023 17.875 ***
Attitude towards Training .393 .022 17.875 ***
Improvement in Relationships .475 .027 17.875 ***
Selection to undergo Training .591 .033 17.875 ***
Training Inputs .398 .022 17.875 ***
e2 .109 .006 17.875 ***
el .244 .014 17.875 ***
254
a. Estimate of variance
1. The variance of Effects & Benefits is estimated to be .333.
2. The variance of Perception of Training is estimated to be .403.
3. The variance of Attitude towards Training is estimated to be .393.
4. The variance of Improvement in Relationships is estimated to be .475.
5. The variance of Selection to undergo Training is estimated to be .591
7. The variance of e2 is estimated to be . 109.
8. The variance of el is estimated to be .244.
b. Standard error of variance
1. The variance estimate, .333, has a standard error of about .019.
c. Critical ratio for variance
1. Dividing the variance estimate by the estimate of its standard error gives
z=.3337.019= 17.875.
In other words, the variance estimate is 17.875 standard errors above zero.
z = .403/.023 = 17.875.
z = .393/.022= 17.875.
255
z=.475/.027= 17.875.
z = .591/.033 = 17.875.
z = .398/.022= 17.875.
Squared Multiple Correlations:

Estimate
Training .698
Growth and Result .420
Model contains the following variables
Observed, endogenous variables
Training
Growth and Result
Observed, exogenous variables
Effects & Benefits
Attitude towards Training
Improvement in Relationships
Selection to undergo Training
Training Inputs
Unobserved, exogenous variables
e2
el
256
Variable counts
Number of variables in your model : 10
Number of observed variables : 8
Number of unobserved variables : 2
Number of exogenous variables : 8
Number of endogenous variables : 2
RMR, GFI
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model .011 .984 .907 .164
Saturated model .000 1.000
Independence model .200 .337 .148 .262
RMR, the root mean square residual, is an index of the amount by which the
estimated (model) variances and covariances differ from the observed variances and
covariances. Smaller is better.
GFI, the goodness of fit index, tells the proportion of the variance in the sample
variance-covariance matrix is accounted for by the model. This should exceed .9 for a
good model. For the full model it will be a perfect 1. Here in the model it is .984.
AGFI (adjusted GFI) is an alternate GFI index in which the value of the index is
adjusted for the number of parameters in the model. The fewer the number of
parameters in the model relative to the number of data points (variances and covariances
in the sample variance-covariance matrix), the closer the AGFI will be to the GFI. The
PGFI (P is for parsimony), the index is adjusted to reward simple models and penalize
models in which few paths have been deleted. Note that for our data the PGFI is larger
for the independence model than for our tested model.
257
Baseline Comparisons
NFI RFI IFI TLI

Model CFI
Delta 1 rhol Delta2 rho2
Default model .985 .932 .988 .941 .987
Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Goodness of fit indices compare model to the independence model rather than to
the saturated model. The Normed Fit Index (NFI) is simply the difference between the
two models' chi-squares divided by the chi-square for the independence model. For our
data, that is (.337 -. 98.411)/ 1441.725= .932. Values of .9 or higher (some say .95 or
higher) indicate good fit. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) uses a similar approach
(with a noncentral chi-square) and is said to be a good index for use even with small
samples. It ranges from 0 to 1, like the NFI, and .95 (or .9 or higher) indicates good fit.
RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .097 .070 .125 .002
Independence model .398 .386 .411 .000
The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) estimates lack of fit
compared to the saturated model. RMSEA of .05 or less indicates good fit, and .08 or
less adequate fit. LO 90 and HI 90 are the lower and upper ends of a 90% confidence
interval on this esfimate. PCLOSE is the p value testing the null that RMSEA is no
greater than .05.
258
MODELING THE PERCEPTION OF TRAINING AND
GOAL ATTAINMENTS
.40
e1
Training Inputs .22
.47 e2
.28 Evaluation & Feedback
e3 .79
Improvement in Relationstiips .26
.53 e4
.29 Attitude towards training
e6
.32
Effects & Benefits
.32
.49
e7
1
.44 .46 .78

.52 .74 -12
e10
e8 e9
' 1 1
t ^ ? ?
Individual Goal Attainment Group Goal Attainment Organizational Goal Attainmnet
259
Table -89
Regression Weights:
Hypotheses Statements Estimate S,E. C.R. P

Evaluation Feedback < Training inputs .466 .030 15.680 ***
Improvement in ***
< Evaluation Feedback .786 .038 20.833
relationships
Improvement in ***
Attitude towards training < .534 .029 18.335
relationships
Effects Benefits < Attitude towards training .318 .034 9.302 ***
Perception of Training < Effects Benefits .494 .039 12.722 ***

Group goal attainment < Perception of Training .522 .054 9.742 ***
Individual goal attainment < Perception of Training .461 .041 11.131 ***
Organizational goal < Perception of Training -.124 .055 -2.240 .025

attainment
The above table explains the perception of training and goal attainment. From
the above table it is inferred that if training inputs changes up by one standard deviation,
there will be .466 changes in evaluation and feedback.
Similarly Evaluation of feedback goes up by one standard deviation; there will
be .786 units changes in improvement in relationships. Correspondingly improvement
in relationships changes up by one standard deviation, there will be .534 changes in
attitude towards training.
Likewise if attitude towards training goes up by one standard deviation, there
will be .318 units of changes in effects and benefits of training. Similarly if the effects
and benefits go up by one standard deviation, there will be .494 units of changes in
perception of training.
Finally if perception of training goes by one standard deviation, there will be
.522 units of changes in group goal attainment, similarly there will be .461 units of
changes in individual goal attainment, like wise there will be -.124 units of changes in
organization goal attainment.
260
CLUSTER DISTRIBUTION
Cluster analysis, also called segmentation analysis or taxonomy analysis, seeks
to identify homogeneous subgroups of cases in a population. That is, cluster analysis
seeks to identify a set of groups which both minimize within-group variation and
maximize between-group variation.
Two-step cluster analysis is often preferred for large datasets, since hierarchical
and k-means clustering do not scale efficiently when n is very large. The two-step
method is a one-pass-through-the-data approach which addresses the scaling problem
by identifying pre-clusters in a first step, then treating these as single cases in a second
step which uses hierarchical clustering. The two-step method is also the one chosen
when categorical variables with three or more levels are involved. The researcher can let
the two-step algorithm determine the number of clusters, or the researcher may set the
number of clusters.
Table - 90
N % of Combined % of Total
1 344 53.8% 53.8%
2 28 4.4% 4.4%
Cluster
3 268 41.9% 41.9%
Combined 640 100.0% 100.0%
Total 640 100.0%
From the above table it is inferred that the total number of respondents (640)
were group in three clusters. In cluster I, 344 respondents were grouped, cluster II, 28
respondents were grouped, cluster III, 268 respondents were grouped.
261
Training
Highly Satisfied Satisfied Moderate Dissatisfied

Frequ Frequ Frequ Frequ Percent
Percent Percent Percent
ency ency ency ency
1 0 0 332 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
2 0 .0% 0 .0% 22 100.0% 6 100.0%
Cluster 3 280 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
Combi 332 100.0% 22 100.0% 6 100.0%
280 100.0%
ned
The clusters were group on the perception level of training. Cluster I implies the
perception of satisfied respondents, Cluster II implies the perception of moderate and
dis-satisfied respondents, cluster III implies the perception of highly satisfied
respondents.
PERCEPTION OF HIGHLY-SATISFIED RESPONDENTS TOWARDS TRAINING
Selection
kiprovement in Relations
Growth &Resut
F^rcepfion t a 4, a 4 , I, t I t t i t, i i t I I > <l
Bfects & Benefis sSSSWSSWWNSNWWWWN

Attiude ^wwwwRg
R'otilem Faced
Evaluation & Feed Back ^ u
10 15 20 25
The above table explains the perception of highly satisfied respondents towards
training. According to this group of respondents are highly satisfied towards the
selection for training programme. Due to training programme they attain improvement
in relations. These cluster groups of respondents attain growth and result. The
perceptions of training were found to be good. These groups of respondents were not
satisfied with the evaluation and feed back.
262
PERCEPTION OF SATISFIED RESPONDENTS TOWARDS TRAINING
Growth & Resut MBasaa3eaasi3fflgHSKii5si^^

Bfects & Benefits -;;/.;;.;.V.vo;.:.;.:.:.;.:.;.;.;.;.:..;....,:.,,.; :i
(nprovement in Relations . . . . -. -. 1
Selection ey>.v**MMM.: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H
Attitude ..-::lW;|;Wiy;;;;.>x:';;:;:x.:-:-:->:;>:J
FTobtem Faced I
Braluation & Feed Bacl< 1
Fterception gjSjggSj^
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
The above table shows the perception of satisfied respondents towards training.
These groups of respondents attain more growth and result due to the impact of training.
As this group attained more growth and result, it impacted in effects and benefits of
individuals and improvement in relation. The perception level towards training found to
be below the average level.
PERCEPTION OF MODERATE & DISSATISFIED RESPONDENTS

TOWARDS TRAINING
Perception .'/.'.''/'''.'.''/' ''^yy^'/'////y/yy/y''.- ,:>:-:-':}
Irrprovement in Retations /
AtHude
Growth & Result 1
Selectnn 1
B/aluation & Feed Back . ^ ^ ^ . . ' . . ^ : . . . . 4
Effects & Bertefts

llllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllll
R'obiefn Faced
( 5 10 15 20 25
The above table explains the resuhs of training rated moderate and dis-satisfied.
These groups of respondents have a negative perception towards training. The members
failed to interact and develop their relations among the respondents. Comparatively
attitude among this respondents were found to be unsatisfactory.
263
ANOVA FOR CLUSTERED GROUP
Hypotheses:
There is significant relationship among the cluster groups.
Training
Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 215.148 2 107.574
Within Groups 16.296 637 .026 4205.081 .000
Total 231.444 639
The ANOVA table, as displayed in the above table shows the F ratio 4205.081.
The statistical significance is .000 - the "Sig". Hence we can accept the hypotheses;
there is significant relationship among the cluster groups formed.
264

13 Chapter 6

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

13 Chapter 6

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CHAPTER - V

CHI SQUARE TEST

Overall Training Programme in BHEL

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degrees of Freedom = 9 Chi Square Value = 44.620 Table Value = 23.6

There is no association between Sex and Overall Training Programme in BHEL.

Overall Training Programme in BHEL

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square Value = 4.359 Table Value = 12.8

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

There is no association between Marital Status and Overall Training Programme

Overall Training Programme in BHEL

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degreesof Freedom = 3 Chi Square Value = 5.619 Table Value =12.8

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

is no association between Marital Status and Overall Training Programme in BHEL.

in the chi-square test.

There is no association between Qualification and Overall Training Programme

Overall Training Programme in BHEL

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degreesof Freedom = 12 Chi Square Value = 58.467 Table Value =28.3

There is association between Qualification and Overall Training Programme in BHEL.

the chi-square test.

There is no association between Designation and Overall Training Programme

Overall Trainin I Programme in BHEL

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square Value = 28.225 Table Value = 12.8

There is association between Designation and Overall Training Programme in BHEL.

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

There is association between Work Experience and Overall Training Programme in

the chi-square test.

There is no association between Age and Growth & Result.

Growth & Result

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degrees of Freedom = 9 Chi Square Value = 30.468 Table Value =23.6

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

There is no association between Sex and Growth & Resuh.

Growth & Result

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square Value = 13.104 Table Value = 12.8

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

There is no association between Marital Status and Growth & Result.

Growth & Result

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square Value = 10.028 Table Value = 12.8

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

There is no association between Qualification and Growth & Result.

Growth & Result

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

Growth & Result

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square Value = 55.486 Table Value = 12.8

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

is below.05 there is association between qualification and training. In the case

There is no association between Work Experience and Growth & Result.

Growth & Result

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Degrees of Freedom = 12 Chi Square Value = 90.226 Table Value = 28.3

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

There is no association between Age and Effects & Benefits.

Effects & Benefits

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)