H3 and H4 contingency table
| How do you perceive your productivity after moving to WFH due to COVID-19 health restrictions? (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | No change | Higher | Total | |
| Back at the office | 12.62 | 45.51 | 41.86 | 100 |
| WFH setup | 13.7 | 41.91 | 44.39 | 100 |
| Total | 13.34 | 43.11 | 43.55 | 100 |
| Lower | No change | Higher | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Back at the office | 12.62 | 45.51 | 41.86 | 100 |
| WFH setup | 13.7 | 41.91 | 44.39 | 100 |
| Total | 13.34 | 43.11 | 43.55 | 100 |
| Measures of association among variables | |||
| Pearson Chi2 (2) = | 1.073 | Prob = 0.5847 | There is no evidence of a significant association among the variables |
| Log likelihood ratio (2) = | 1.072 | Prob = 0.5852 | |
| Cramer’s V = | 0.0344 | V < 0.1 indicates a negligible association | |
| Goodman and Kruskal λ = | 0.02148 | Propensity to WFH explains about 2.15% of the variation on self-perceived productivity | |
| Pearson Chi2 (2) = | 1.073 | Prob = 0.5847 | There is no evidence of a significant |
| Log likelihood ratio (2) = | 1.072 | Prob = 0.5852 | |
| Cramer’s | 0.0344 | ||
| Goodman and Kruskal | 0.02148 | Propensity to WFH explains about 2.15% of the | |