H1 and H2 contingency table
| How do you perceive your colleague’s productivity after moving WFH due to COVID-19 health restrictions? (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | No change | Higher | Total | |
| Back at the office | 29.24 | 43.52 | 27.24 | 100 |
| WFH setup | 17.99 | 39.11 | 42.9 | 100 |
| Total | 21.72 | 40.57 | 37.71 | 100 |
| Lower | No change | Higher | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Back at the office | 29.24 | 43.52 | 27.24 | 100 |
| WFH setup | 17.99 | 39.11 | 42.9 | 100 |
| Total | 21.72 | 40.57 | 37.71 | 100 |
| Measures of association among variables | |||
| Pearson Chi2 (2) = | 25.76 | Prob = 0.0000 | There is evidence of a significant association among the variables |
| Log likelihood ratio (2) = | 25.91 | Prob = 0.0001 | |
| Cramer’s V = | 0.1685 | V < 0.2 indicates a weak association | |
| Goodman and Kruskal λ = | 0.04267 | Propensity to WFH explains about 4.27% of the variation on perceived colleagues’ productivity | |
| Pearson Chi2 (2) = | 25.76 | Prob = 0.0000 | There is evidence of a significant |
| Log likelihood ratio (2) = | 25.91 | Prob = 0.0001 | |
| Cramer’s | 0.1685 | ||
| Goodman and Kruskal | 0.04267 | Propensity to WFH explains about 4.27% of the | |