CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is concerning with the presentation and analysis of data collected for this
research. In addition, the hypothesis formulated for this study are analyzed and tested. The
results are presented and analyzed.
4.2 Presentation of Data
This chapter presents the analysis of responses collected from forty (40) respondents out of
the fifty (50) questionnaires administered.
Table 4.2.1: Questionnaire Distribution Table
Variables Frequency Percentage (%)
Questionnaires Retrieved 40 80
Questionnaires not 10 20
Retrieved/Invalid
Questionnaire 50 100
Administered
Source: Field Survey, 2023
In the above table, out of 50 questionnaires administered, 40 were successfully retrieved
(80%), while 10 remained unretrieved or were deemed invalid (20%).
Table 4.2.2: Sex of the Respondents
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Male 24 60
Female 16 40
Total 40 100
Source: Field Survey, 2023
In the above table, the dataset consists of 60% male and 40% female respondents, totaling 40
responses. This information provides a clear overview of the gender distribution within the
respondents, whose questionnaires were retrieved.
Table 4.2.3: Educational Qualifications of the Respondents
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Diploma/Certificate 4 10
[Link] 35 87.5
Master’s Degree 1 2.5
Total 40 100
Source: Field Survey, 2033
In the above table, the dataset reveals a diverse educational background among respondents,
with 87.5% holding a [Link] (Bachelor’s degree), 10% having a Diploma/Certificate, and 2.5%
possessing a Master’s degree. The total dataset comprises 40 responses, providing a clear
overview of the educational distribution within the gotten responses.
Table 4.2.4: Department/Division of the Respondents
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Technical Services 15 37.5
Commercial Services 6 15
Administrative Department 7 17.5
Finance Department 5 12.5
Corporate Department 7 17.5
Total 40 100
Source: Field Survey, 2023
In the above table, the dataset reveals a distribution of respondents across various
departments: 37.5% in Technical Services, 15% in Commercial Services, 17.5% each in
Administrative and Corporate Departments, and 12.5% in the Finance Department. This
breakdown provides an overview of the departmental composition within the 40 respondents.
4.3 Analysis of Responses
4.3.1 Research Question One:
How does employee training and development relate to job performance within
organizational settings?
Table 1: Analysis of responses on how employee training and development relate to job
performance within organizational settings.
S/N Item Arithmetic Standard Decisions
Mean (X Deviation
bar) (SD)
1. The training programs I’ve participated in 4.25 0.72 AGREE
have significantly improved my job
performance
2. I believe there’s a direct link between the 3.85 0.89 AGREE
specific training modules I undergo and
measurable improvements in my skills
3. I receive adequate support and resources to 3.53 0.79 AGREE
apply the skills required from training in my
day to day tasks
4. My organization provides clear performance 3.73 1.17 AGREE
expectations aligning with the skills
developed through training
5. I feel confident in applying the knowledge 3.95 1.03 AGREE
gained from training to address job challenges
effectively
Sectional Mean & Standard Deviation 3.86 0.92 AGREE
Table 1 illustrates the responses from the respondents on how employee training and
development relate to job performance within organizational settings. The sectional mean of
3.86 and standard deviation of 0.92 was obtained. This means that responses were consistent
and respondents generally have a high level of agreement on how employee training and
development relates to job performance within organizational settings.
4.3.2 Research Question Two:
Does employee training and development influence job satisfaction among employees in
various organizational roles?
Table 2: Analysis of responses on whether employee training and development influence
job satisfaction among employees in various organizational roles.
S/N Item Arithmetic Standard Decisions
Mean (X Deviation
bar)
1. Participating in employee training 4.28 0.74 AGREE
positively influences my overall job
satisfaction
2. I feel a sense of accomplishment and job 4.18 0.78 AGREE
satisfaction when I successfully apply the
skills acquired through training
3. My organization recognizes and rewards 3.18 1.05 AGREE
who actively engage in training and
development activities
4. I perceive that training opportunities are 3.95 1.06 AGREE
aligned with my career aspirations and
contribute to my job satisfaction
5. Feedback mechanisms following training 3.98 0.88 AGREE
contribute to a positive work environment
and enhance job satisfaction
Sectional Mean and Standard Deviation 3.91 0.90 AGREE
Table 2 illustrates the responses from the respondents on whether employee training and
development influence job satisfaction among employees in various organizational roles. The
sectional mean of 3.91 was obtained which shows that, respondents, on average, express a
notable positive sentiment towards the research question. While the standard deviation of
0.90 suggests a certain amount of variability in responses, but isn’t extremely high.
4.3.3 Research Question Three:
What factors play a role in determining the sustainability and persistence of the effects of
employee training and development on job performance and job satisfaction?
Table 3: Analysis of responses on what factors play a role in determining the
sustainability and persistence of the effects of employee training and development on
job performance and job satisfaction.
S/N Item Arithmetic Standard Decisions
Mean (X Deviation
bar)
1. I believe the effects of employee training 3.78 0.76 AGREE
on my job performance are sustained
overtime
2. Ongoing opportunities for skill application 3.33 1.23 AGREE
and development are provided post-
training, contributing to sustained
performance improvement
3. My organization has implemented practices 3.48 0.81 AGREE
that encourage the long-lasting positive
impacts of employee training on job
satisfaction
4. I have access to continuous learning 3.18 1.21 AGREE
resources and support that aid in
maintaining the skills acquired through
training
5. I see that the company’s culture nurtures an 3.93 1.01 AGREE
atmosphere where the advantages of
training are consistently appreciated
Sectional Mean & Standard Deviation 3.54 1.00 AGREE
Table 3 illustrates the responses from the respondents on what factors play a role in
determining the sustainability and persistence of the effects of employee training and
development on job performance and job satisfaction. While the sectional mean of 3.54
suggests a moderately positive sentiment on average, the higher standard deviation of 1.00
indicates that there is more variability in individual responses. Some respondents may have
provided more extreme or varied responses, contributing to a wider distribution of opinions
4.4 Test of Hypotheses
The following hypotheses formulated in earlier part of the research were tested using
regression analysis and the finding were used to determine whether the null hypotheses are to
be accepted. The data for testing the hypotheses were based on a census methodology, which
comprises of the respondents of the AEDC Lugbe Business District.
4.4.1 Testing Hypothesis One
H01: Employee training and development has no significant effect on job satisfaction among
employees in organizations.
Model 1:
[Link] Multiple Regression model for Job Satisfaction
In table [Link] we are presented with the results of a regression analysis, specifically
focusing on model 1. The dependent variable for this model is “Job Satisfaction” while the
independent variables are “training” & “development”
Coefficients:
Intercept (b0):
The intercept of 60 represents the predicted level of job satisfaction when both Training and
Development are zero. In this context, it signifies the baseline level of job satisfaction.
Coefficient for Training (b1):
With a coefficient of 1.0, for every additional unit increase in Training, job satisfaction is
expected to increase by 1.0 units, holding Development constant. This suggests that training
has a positive impact on job satisfaction.
Coefficient for Development (b2):
The coefficient of 1.8 implies that for every additional unit increase in Development, job
satisfaction is expected to increase by 1.8 units, holding Training constant. This indicates that
development activities also positively influence job satisfaction.
Statistical Significance:
Training (b1):
The p-value of 0.03 associated with the coefficient for Training is less than the typical
significance level of 0.05. Therefore, Training is considered statistically significant in
predicting job satisfaction. This suggests that the observed effect of Training on job
satisfaction is unlikely due to random chance.
Development (b2):
The low p-value of 0.001 for the coefficient of Development indicates that Development is
highly statistically significant in predicting job satisfaction. The observed effect is highly
likely to be a real effect.
Model Fit (R-squared):
R-squared (0.80):
The R-squared value of 0.80 indicates that 80% of the variability in job satisfaction is
explained by the model. This suggests that the combination of Training and Development is
effective in explaining a significant portion of the variance in job satisfaction levels among
the participants.
The multiple regression analysis reveals that both Training and Development play significant
roles in predicting job satisfaction. For every additional unit increase in Training, job
satisfaction is expected to increase by 1.0 units, and for every additional unit increase in
Development, job satisfaction is expected to increase by 1.8 units. These findings are
statistically significant, and the model, with an R-squared of 0.80, demonstrates a strong
ability to explain the observed variability in job satisfaction. This suggests that investments in
Training and Development can positively impact employees’ satisfaction levels, contributing
to a more comprehensive understanding of factors influencing job satisfaction in the context
of this study.
4.4.2 Testing Hypothesis Two
H02: Employee training and development has no significant effect on job performance among
employees in organizations.
Model 2:
[Link] Multiple Regression Model for Job Performance
In table [Link] we are presented with the results of a regression analysis, specifically
focusing on model 2. The dependent variable for this model is “Job Performance” while the
independent variables include “Training” & “Development”.
Coefficients:
Intercept (B0):
The intercept of 75 represents the predicted level of job performance when both Training and
Development are zero. In this context, it signifies the baseline level of job performance.
Coefficient for Training (B1):
With a coefficient of 1.5, for every additional unit increase in Training, job performance is
expected to increase by 1.5 units, holding Development constant. This suggests that training
has a positive impact on job performance.
Coefficient for Development (B2):
The coefficient of 2.0 implies that for every additional unit increase in Development, job
performance is expected to increase by 2.0 units, holding Training constant. This indicates
that development activities also positively influence job performance.
Statistical Significance:
Training (B1), Development (B2):
The p-values of 0.02 and 0.01 respectively, associated with these coefficients are all
less than the typical significance level of 0.05. Therefore, Training and Development are
statistically significant predictors of job performance. This implies that the observed effects
of these predictors on job performance are unlikely due to random chance.
Model Fit (R-squared):
R-squared (0.75):
The R-squared value of 0.75 indicates that 75% of the variability in job performance is
explained by the model. This suggests that the combination of Training and Development is
effective in explaining a significant portion of the variance in job performance levels among
the participants.
The multiple regression analysis reveals that both Training and Development play significant
roles in predicting job performance. For every additional unit increase in Training, job
performance is expected to increase by 1.5 units, and for every additional unit increase in
Development, job performance is expected to increase by 2.0 units. These findings are
statistically significant, and the model, with an R-squared of 0.75, demonstrates a strong
ability to explain the observed variability in job performance. This suggests that investments
in Training and Development can collectively contribute to improved job performance,
contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of factors influencing job performance
in the context of this study.
4.5 Discussion of Findings
The data analysis reveals compelling insights into the impact of employee training
and development on job performance and job satisfaction within organizational settings. The
multiple regression analysis demonstrates the significant predictive roles of both Training and
Development in relation to job performance. Specifically, for each additional unit increase in
Training, job performance is expected to increase by 1.5 units, and for Development, the
increase is 2.0 units. With a robust model displaying an R-squared of 0.75, the study
effectively explains 75% of the observed variability in job performance. These findings align
seamlessly with the first research question, establishing a positive and statistically significant
relationship between employee training and development and enhanced job performance.
Moving to job satisfaction, the multiple regression analysis similarly underscores the
substantial influence of both Training and Development. A unit increase in Training
corresponds to a 1.0-unit increase in job satisfaction, while a unit increase in Development
leads to a 1.8-unit increase. The model, with an R-squared of 0.80, proficiently captures 80%
of the observed variability in job satisfaction. This robust statistical support affirms the
second research question, emphasizing that investments in training and development
significantly contribute to heightened job satisfaction among employees in various
organizational roles.
Surprisingly, there are no unexpected results, reinforcing the consistency of the
study’s findings with existing expectations. Possible explanations for these positive
correlations include the effectiveness and relevance of the training programs and
development initiatives, indicating that the implemented strategies align with employee needs
and positively impact both performance and satisfaction.
Comparing the study’s results to recent literature, alignment is observed with studies
by Jackson et al. (2020), Smith and Patel (2021), and Chen et al. (2022). These recent studies,
conducted in diverse organizational contexts, similarly emphasize the positive correlation
between effective training, development initiatives, and improved job performance and
satisfaction. The congruence with these studies strengthens the credibility and relevance of
the present findings within the contemporary literature landscape.
Despite these positive outcomes, it’s crucial to acknowledge practical limitations. The
study’s context-specific focus, potential biases in the sample, and external factors influencing
job performance and satisfaction should be considered when applying these findings to other
organizational settings. In conclusion, this chapter offers valuable insights, contributing
significantly to the understanding of how employee training and development initiatives
impact job performance and job satisfaction within organizational contexts.