Wt Drug and TOK Drug
Descriptives
|
||||||||
Mean
|
||||||||
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
Std. Error
|
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
||
Lower Bound
|
Upper Bound
|
|||||||
1
|
7
|
.2196
|
.09813
|
.03709
|
.1288
|
.3103
|
.11
|
.38
|
2
|
6
|
.2627
|
.14831
|
.06055
|
.1070
|
.4183
|
.11
|
.50
|
Total
|
13
|
.2395
|
.12033
|
.03337
|
.1667
|
.3122
|
.11
|
.50
|
ANOVA
|
|||||
Mean
|
|||||
Sum of Squares
|
df
|
Mean Square
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
Between Groups
|
.006
|
1
|
.006
|
.393
|
.543
|
Within Groups
|
.168
|
11
|
.015
|
||
Total
|
.174
|
12
|
|||
The significance level is 0.53 (p = .543), which
is above 0.05. And, thus, no statistically significant difference is present in
the mean length of time under different treatments for the different types of Candida
to grow.
Descriptives
|
||||||||
Time
|
||||||||
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
Std. Error
|
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
||
Lower Bound
|
Upper Bound
|
|||||||
wt ethanol
|
6
|
.4710
|
.34653
|
.14147
|
.1073
|
.8347
|
.11
|
.99
|
tok ethanol
|
6
|
.4880
|
.35107
|
.14333
|
.1196
|
.8564
|
.12
|
1.04
|
Total
|
12
|
.4795
|
.33270
|
.09604
|
.2681
|
.6909
|
.11
|
1.04
|
ANOVA
|
|||||
Time
|
|||||
Sum of Squares
|
df
|
Mean Square
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
Between Groups
|
.001
|
1
|
.001
|
.007
|
.934
|
Within Groups
|
1.217
|
10
|
.122
|
||
Total
|
1.218
|
11
|
|||
The p= 9.34 which is quite greater than 0.05, and thus,
there is no difference between Tok Ethanol and WT Ethanol.
Descriptives
|
||||||||
Time
|
||||||||
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
Std. Error
|
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
||
Lower Bound
|
Upper Bound
|
|||||||
wt control
|
6
|
.6587
|
.43355
|
.17699
|
.2037
|
1.1136
|
.12
|
1.20
|
tok control
|
6
|
.4968
|
.37679
|
.15382
|
.1014
|
.8923
|
.11
|
1.07
|
Total
|
12
|
.5778
|
.39637
|
.11442
|
.3259
|
.8296
|
.11
|
1.20
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment