1
Quantitative Analysis Report: Mean Differences
Caitlyn Celeste Blakely
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
2
Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 3
Methods......................................................................................................................................................3
Data collection........................................................................................................................................ 3
Research Design..................................................................................................................................... 4
Data Analysis Results................................................................................................................................5
Discussion................................................................................................................................................... 6
References.................................................................................................................................................. 9
3
Do Permanent and Casual Staff Differ in Satisfaction?
Introduction
Employee satisfaction is a significant factor impacting the overall organization success,
employee productivity and turnover rates. High job satisfaction level is related to elevated
employee engagement, reduced absenteeism and turnover rates. At the same time, low
satisfaction levels can contribute to higher turnover rates and reduced morale of the subordinates.
Comprehending the difference in job satisfaction between casual workers and permanent staff is
crucial because they experience variable conditions and levels of job security. Permanent staff
benefit from increased and better compensation, which can improve job satisfaction at the same
time, casual staff experience instability, increased benefits and reduced career advancement
opportunities, contributing to reduced job satisfaction. The aim of this research is to compare the
mean staff satisfaction scores between the casual staff and the permanent employees to examine
if a significant difference exists based on this data. Certainly, by examining these differences,
companies can better address the needs of their diverse workforce. The findings of this study can
inform the management practices and policies, contributing to a more equitable work
environment that fosters organization efficiency and overall employee satisfaction for both
casual employees and permanent staff.
Methods
Data collection
4
The study included 536 permanent employees and 536 casual staff. The participants were
selected through stratified random sampling to ensure a balanced representation of the
employment statuses. Data on staff satisfaction was collected with a standardized satisfaction
survey. The survey recorded staff satisfaction scores (totsatis) for permanent and casual staff
(employstatus). The variables in this study include permanent staff satisfaction score and casual
staff satisfaction score. A permanent staff is an employee with no defined employment end data
and receives a benefits package, while a casual staff does not have a duration of employment
with a contract end date. Job satisfaction rate refers to the general percentage of employee who
report feeling satisfied with their current employment. Job satisfaction is based on factors like
work tasks, compensation, relationships with other employees, and opportunities for growth and
development.
Research Design
The study utilized a comparative cross-section design to determine whether permanent
and casual Staff Differ in Satisfaction. An independent sample t-test was performed to compare
the mean satisfaction score between the casual and permanent staff. The significant level was set
at 0.05.
Hypotheses
Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the mean staff satisfaction scores
between permanent and casual employees.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in the mean staff satisfaction
scores between permanent and casual employees.
5
Data Analysis Results
An independent samples t-test was used to compare the mean satisfaction scores between the two
groups. The t-test results are presented below.
6
Table 1-2-3
The t-test results show no significant difference in mean satisfaction scores between permanent
and casual staff (t (477) = -0.379, p = 0.705). The effect size estimates (Cohen's d, Hedges'
correction, and Glass's delta) all show very minute and non-significant differences. This
demonstrates that the mean satisfaction scores for casual staff and permanent employees are
identical, with no significant difference between the two groups. Thus, I reject I accept the null
hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis and conclude that there is no significant
relationship in the mean staff satisfaction scores between permanent and casual employees.
7
Discussion
The analysis shows that there is no significant difference in job satisfaction between
casual staff and permanent employees. The independent t-test findings (t (477) = -0.379, p =
0.705) demonstrate that the observed difference in mean satisfaction scores is not statistically
significant, demonstrating that any observed is not due to true variation in satisfaction levels but
rather to random variation. In addition, the effect size estimates (Cohen's d = -0.036, Hedges'
correction = -0.036, and Glass's delta = -0.036) all fall well below the threshold for a small
effect, further reinforcing that the variation in satisfaction scores is negligible. The findings of
this research contrasted the results of Lama & Joullié (2015). Lama & Joullié (2015) performed a
study in Australia examining the impact of casualization on casual academic staff. The study was
based on both staff and the general quality of education. The study explored that the casual
academic staff has significantly reduced levels of job satisfaction than their permanent
counterparts. Indeed, this disparity was factored mainly due to job insecurity from temporary
contracts. Also, the academic staff were working on various institutions while teaching multiple
units. In addition, the study demonstrated a lack of career development within the academic
institutions. This research demonstrates that this trend of casualization could have resulted in
negative consequences on staff morale and general well-being in addition to the quality of
education delivered.
In addition, the findings of this research contract the findings of Halcomb et al. (2021).
Halcomb et al. (2021) performed research exploring job satisfaction and turnover intentions
among general practice nurses. The study examines the aspects impacting job satisfaction and
turnover intentions. Through a survey performed among nurses, the study recognized a clear
correlation between negative perception of the work environment, increased workload, and
8
reduced job satisfaction. The research revealed that these factors were associated with increased
turnover rates. Halcomb et al. (2021) suggest that nurses who face a deteriorating work
environment may be more inclined to remain due to loyalty or commitment to their profession,
regardless of considering leaving their current job. Moreover, Rigotti et al. (2009) examine the
employment prospects of permanent and temporary workers, delving into their association with
well-being and work-associated attitudes. The findings of Rigotti et al. (2009) show similar
results compared to this study, such that there is no discernible discrepancy in job satisfaction
between permanent and casual employees. This absence of statistical variance demonstrates that
any apparent variations in average satisfaction scores may be associated with random
fluctuations instead of significant disparities between the two groups. According to Rigotti et al.
(2009), the parity in satisfaction levels is associated with diminished job security.
Sheehan & Nelson (2006) explore the relationship between job satisfaction, HRM
practices, and employment status amongst call center workers. Sheehan & Nelson (2006)
demonstrate a positive correlation between satisfaction with HR practices and general job
satisfaction among workers, demonstrating the pivotal role of HR management in shaping the
perception of the employees. Surprisingly, the study does not demonstrate a significant
difference between casual staff and permanent workers regarding the fairness of HR practices,
challenging conventional assumptions regarding the treatment of these distinct employment
groups. However, Sheehan & Nelson (2006) shows similarity in this study such that casual
workers have higher levels of job satisfaction than permanent staff. This unforeseen trend shows
an exploration of potential explanations. Sheehan & Nelson (2006) portrays that casual workers
might find satisfaction in the flexibility of their employment arrangements; this enables casual
staff to effectively handle working environment. Moreover, the contentment of casual workers
9
may come from a transactional psychological contract, where they prioritize immediate benefits
like flexibility and pay over long-term opportunities like career advancement, which are
practically related with permanent positions.
Conclusion
The result of this study does not indicate any significant variation in job satisfaction
between permanent staff and casual staff. The findings demonstrate a complexity of job
satisfaction and challenge the notion that job permanence and job security ought to contribute to
higher satisfaction levels. This research finding is quite beneficial to the company leaders; since
it highlights the requirement to consider a range of factors that impact employee satisfaction
irrespective of their employment status. Indeed, recognizing that job satisfaction is not only
depended on permanence of employment enables companies to establish targeted approaches to
enhance work environment for both casual and permanent staff. Certainly, the findings of the
research add to the literature by demonstrating that job satisfaction can be achieved through
various work environment, while pinpointing the significance of flexibility and psychological
contract amid employees and employers. This comprehension is significant for establishing a
more inclusive and adaptable working environment that meets the diverse expectations of the
modern workforce.
10
References
Callea, A., Urbini, F., Ingusci, E., & Chirumbolo, A. (2016). The relationship between contract
type and job satisfaction in a mediated moderation model: The role of job insecurity and
psychological contract violation.CEconomic and Industrial Democracy,C37(2), 399-420.
Halcomb, E., Bird, S., Mcinnes, S., Ashley, C., & Huckel, K. (2021). Exploring job satisfaction
and turnover intentions among general practice nurses in an Australian Primary Health
Network.CJournal of Nursing Management,C29(5), 943-952.
Lama, T., & Joullié, J. E. (2015). Casualization of Academics in the Australian Higher
Education: Is Teaching Quality at Risk?.CResearch in Higher Education Journal,C28.
Rigotti, T., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., Korek, S., & Mohr, G. (2009). Employment prospects
of temporary and permanent workers: Associations with well-being and work related
attitudes.CJournal of Everyday Activity,C2(1), 22-35.
Sheehan, C., & Nelson, L. (2006). Variations in job satisfaction for permanent and casual
workers.
ADDITIONAL EXERCISES
Business
11
Data file: staffsurvey.sav. See Appendix for details of the data file.
Conduct a two-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests (if appropriate) to compare staff satisfaction
scores (totsatis) across each of the length of service categories (servicegp3) for permanent and
casual staff (employstatus).
Dependent
Variable:
totsatis
Multiple
Comparisons
one
95%
Confidence
Interval
(senicegp3
_W)
senvicegp3
d
Sti.Emor
Sig,
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Tukey
HSD
1
2
238"
808 008
48
429
3
287"
798 004
69
4.45
2
1
2.38
809 009
“4.29
48
3
19
861
973
“1.81
249
3
1
287°
798 004
“4.45
~69
2
“19
861
973
2.49
1.81
Scheffe
1
2
2.38
809 014
40
437
3
287"
798 006
61
453
2
1
2.38
809 014
“4.37
40
3
19
861
976
“1.90
2.28
3
1
287°
798 006
“4.53
~61
2
“19
861
976
2.28
1.90
usb
1
2
2.38
809 003
13
397
3
287"
798
01
1.00
444
2
1
2.38
809 003
“3.97
-19
3
19
861
825
“1.49
1.86
3
1
287°
798
01
“444 1.00
2
“19
861
825
1.88
1.49
Bonferroni
1
2
2.38
809 010
44
433
3
287"
798 004
65
449
2
1
2.38
809 010
“4.33
“44
3
19
ast
1.000
1.80
2.23
3
1
287°
798 004
“4.49
65
2
“19
861
1.000
2.28
1.86
Sidak
1
2
2.38
809 010
46
432
3
287"
798 004
66
449
2
1
2.38"
809 010
4.32
45
3
19
861
995
1.85
228
3
1
287°
798 004
“4.49
66
2
“19
861
995
2.28
1.85
Gabriel
1
2
2.38
809 010
46
432
3
287"
798 004
66
448
2
1
2.38
809 010
“4.32
“45
3
19
861
995
1.85
228
3
1
287°
798 004
“4.48
66
2
“19
861
995
2.28
1.85
Hochberg
1
2
238"
803 010
46
432
3
287"
798 004
66
449
2
1
2.38
809 010
“4.32
“45
3
19
861
995
1.85
228
3
1
287°
798 004
“4.49
66
2
“19
861
995
2.28
1.85
Dunnettt(2-sided)>
1
3
287"
798 003
80
434
2 3
19
861
964
“1.70
2.08
Based
on
observed
means.
‘The
error
term
is
Mean
Square(Error)
=
47.074.
*
The
mean
difference
is
significant
at
the
0.08
level.
b.
Dunnett
tests
treat
one
group as
a
control,
and
compare
all
other
groups
againstit.
12
13
Interpretation- According to the post-hoc test results with Tukey's HSD, there is no evidence of
significant differences in staff satisfaction scores across service groups (length of service) for
either permanent or casual employees. Health
Data file: sleep.sav. See A ppendix for details of the data file.
Conduct a two-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests (if appropriate) to compare male and female
(gender) mean sleepiness ratings (Sleepiness and Associated Sensations Scale total score:
totSAS) for the three age groups defined by the variable agegp3 (37 or under, 38-50, 51+).
Multiple
Comparisons
Dependent
Variable:
totsas
Mean
95%
Confidence
Interval
Difference
(+
(ageap3_()
agegp3
d
Std.Ewor
Sig,
_LowerBound
Upper
Bound
Scheffe
1
2
170
1.661
594
2.40)
579
3
263
1.701
303
1.56
6.82
2
1
170
1.661
594
“5.19
2.40
3
41.701
859
3.25
5.13
3
1
“263° 1.701
303
6.82
1.56
2
“941.701
859
“5.13,
3.25
LsD
1
2
170
1.661
308
1.58
497
3
263
1.701
123
“72
5.98
2
1
170
1.661
308
“497
1.58
3
41.701
582
2.441
429
3
1
“263° 1.701
123
5.98
n
2
“941.701
582
“4.29
241
Bonferroni
1
2
170
1.661
925
2.31
5.70
3
263
1.701
369
ru
6.73
2
1
170
1.661
925
“5.70
231
3
941.701
1.000
“3.16
5.04
3
1
“263° 1.701
369
6.73
1.47
2
“941701
1.000
5.04
3.16
Sidak
1
2
170
1.661
669
2.30
5.69
3
263
1.701
325
1.46;
672
2
1
170
1.661
669
5.69
230
3
41.701
927
“3.15
5.03
3
1
“263° 1.701
325
6.12
1.46
2
“941.701
927
5.03
3.15
Gabriel
1
2
170
1.661
668
2.30
5.69
3
263
1.701
324
1.46;
672
2
1
170
1.661
668
5.69
230
3
41.701
927
“3.15
5.03
3
1
“263° 1.701
324
6.12
1.46
2
“941.701
927
5.03
3.15
Hochberg
1
2
170
1.664
668
2.30
5.69
3
263
1.701
324
1.46;
672
2
1
170
1.661
668
5.69
230
3
41.701
927
“3.15
5.03
3
1
“263° 1.701
324
6.12
1.46
2
“941.701
927
5.03
3.15
Tamhane
1
2
1704714
690
2.43,
5.83
3
263
1.629
291
“1.30
657
2
1
4704711
690
5.83
243
3
41.701
927
“317
5.04
3
1
263
1.629
291
“6.57
1.30
2
“941.701
927
5.04
317
Dunnett
T3
1
2
1704714
688
2.43,
5.82
3
263
1.629
290
“1.30
657
2
1
4704711
688
5.82
243
3
41.701
927
“317
5.04
3
1
263
1.629
290
“6.57
1.30
2
“941.701
927
5.04
317
Games-Howell
1
2
1704714
583
2.35
514
3
263
1.629
242
1.22
6.49
2
1
4704711
583
“5.14
235
3
41.701
848
3.09
4.96
3
1
263
1.629
242
6.49
1.22
2
“941.701
848
“4.96
3.09
Dunnett
¢
1
2
1704714
2.39
5.78
3
263
1.629
1.26
6.53
2
1
4704711
“5.78
239
3
41.701
“3.13,
5.00
3
1
263
1.629
6.53
1.26
2
“941.701
6.00
3.13
Dunnett
(2-sided)*
1
3
263
1.704
2
1.15
6.41
2 3
41.701
802
2.84
472
Based
on
observed
means.
‘The
error
term
is
Mean
Square(Error)
=
108.943.
a.
Dunnett
ttests
treat
one
group as
a
control,
and
compare
all
other
groups
against
it
14
15
Interpretation--- The p-values for all post-hoc tests are greater than 0.05. This demonstrates that
there is no statistically significant interaction effect between gender and age group on sleepiness
ratings. Thus, the effect of age group on sleepiness ratings is consistent across both males and
females.
ADDITIONAL EXERCISES
ADDITIONAL EXERCISES
Business
Data file: staffsurvey.sav. See Appendix for details of the data file.
Follow the procedures in the section on independent-samples t-tests to compare the mean staff
satisfaction scores (totsatis) for permanent and casual staff (employstatus). Is there a significant
difference in mean satisfaction scores?
Health
Data file: sleep.sav. See Appendix for details of the data file.
Follow the procedures in the section on independent-samples t-tests to compare the mean
sleepiness ratings (Sleepiness and Associated Sensations Scale total score: totSAS) for males and
females (gender). Is there a significant difference in mean sleepiness scores?
Interpretation- The t-test results show no significant difference in mean satisfaction scores
between permanent and casual staff (t (477) = -0.379, p = 0.705).
