H5 and H6 contingency table
| When WFH, how much time do you commit to work? (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less than in an office | No difference | More than usual | Total | |
| Back at the office | 23.66 | 39.07 | 37.28 | 100 |
| WFH setup | 18.08 | 35.16 | 46.77 | 100 |
| Total | 19.84 | 36.39 | 43.76 | 100 |
| Less than in an office | No difference | More than usual | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Back at the office | 23.66 | 39.07 | 37.28 | 100 |
| WFH setup | 18.08 | 35.16 | 46.77 | 100 |
| Total | 19.84 | 36.39 | 43.76 | 100 |
| Measures of association among variables | |||
| Pearson Chi2 (2) = | 7.7198 | Prob = 0.0211 | There is evidence of a significant association among the variables |
| Log likelihood ratio (2) = | 7.7353 | Prob = 0.0209 | |
| Cramer’s V= | 0.0935 | V < 0.1 indicates a negligible association | |
| Goodman and Kruskal λ = | 0.01008 | Propensity to WFH explains about 1% of the variation on WLB | |
| Pearson Chi2 (2) = | 7.7198 | Prob = 0.0211 | There is evidence of a significant |
| Log likelihood ratio (2) = | 7.7353 | Prob = 0.0209 | |
| Cramer’s | 0.0935 | ||
| Goodman and Kruskal | 0.01008 | Propensity to WFH explains about | |