5.2. Saran
Untuk mendorong percepatan pembangunan desa pasca tsunami, maka disarankan agar penguatan modal sosial masyarakat harus ditingkatkan. Upaya
tersebut dapat dilakukan melalui kebijakan yang dapat memperluas jaringan kerja, penguatan norma, meningkatkan rasa percaya dan mendorong masyarakat desa
untuk melakukan aksi kolektif.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Agusyanto R. 1996. Dampak Jaringan-Jaringan Sosial dalam Organisasi: Kasus PAM Jaya DKI Jakarta [tesis]. Depok. Program Pascasarjana Universitas
Indonesia. [Anonim]. 2005. Rencana Induk Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi Wilayah
Aceh dan Nias, Sumatera Utara. Buku Utama. http:www.indonesia.skwnipressacehRencana_induk_R2WANS.pdf.
Bourdieu P. 1985. The Form of Capital. In John Richardson ed., Hand Book of Theory and Research for The Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press.
Brata AG. 2004. Social Capital and Credit in A Javanese Village. Research Institute University of Atmajaya. Yogyakarta.
BRR, BPS dan ADB. 2006. Kerangka Peta NAD dan Nias [Compact Disc]. Banda Aceh.
Casson M, Godley A. 2000. Cultural Factors in Economic Growth. Germany. Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg.
Collier P. 1998. Social Capital and Poverty. World Bank SCI Working Paper:4 http:
www.iris.umd.eduadassprojsoscap.asp .
Cristoforou A. 2003. Social Capital and Economic Growth: The Case of Greece. London School of Economic: Paper for The 1
st
PhD Symposium on Social Science Research in Greece of The Hellenic Observatory. European
Institute. asiminaaueb.gr
. Dasgupta P, Serageldin I. 2002. Social Capital: A Multi Faceted Perspective.
World Bank. Washington DC. Eko S. 2004. Modal Sosial, Desentralisasi dan Demokrasi Lokal. Analisis CSIS 33
3:299-326. Fukuyama F. 1995. Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. The
Free Press. New York. Glaeser EL, Laibson D, Sacerdote B. 2001. The Economic Approach to Social
Capital. Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper Number
1916. Harvard University Cambridge. Massachusetts.
http:post.economics.harvard.eduhier2001papers2001list.html. Granovetter MS. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Social
78:1360-80. Grootaert C. 1999. Social Capital Household Welfare and Poverty in Indonesia.
Policy Research Working Paper No. 2148. The World Bank Social Development Department.
Grootaert C. 2001. Does Social Capital Help the Poor?. A Synthesis of Findings from the Local Level Institutions Studies in Bolivia, Burkina Faso and
Indonesia. Local Level Institutions Working Paper No. 10, Social Development Department. World Bank. Washington DC.
Grootaert C, van Bastelaer T. 2001. Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisiplinary Tool for Practitioners. The World Bank.
Washington DC Grootaert C, van Bastelaer T. 2002. The Role of Social Capital in Development :
An Empirical Assessment. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UK. Gylfason T. 1999. Principles of Economic Growth. Oxford University Press.
Hasbullah J. 2006. Social Capital: Menuju Keunggulan Budaya Manusia Indonesia. MR-United Press Jakarta. Jakarta.
Kirwen EL, Pierce LI. 2002. Rebuilding Trust and Social Capital in Maluku, Indonesia. Prepared for the USAID DG Partners Conference December
2002. Knack S, Keefer P. 1997. Does Social Capital Have An Economic Payoff.
A cross-country Investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economic 112:1251-88.
Knowles S. 2005. The Future of Social Capital in Economics Development Research. A paper for WIDER Jubilee Conference. Helsinki.
Kusnadi. 2000. Nelayan Strategi Adaptasi dan Jaringan Sosial. Humaniora Utama Press. Bandung.
Laba K. 2006. Dampak Pemekaran Kabupaten terhadap Akumulasi Stok Modal Sosial dan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi di Wilayah Pesisir: Kasus Wilayah
Pesisir Teluk Lewoleba Kabupaten Lembata NTT [draf tesis]. Bogor. Sekolah Pascasarjana Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Lawang RMZ. 2004. Kapital Sosial dalam Perspektif Sosiologik suatu Pengantar. FISIP UI PRESS. Jakarta.
Lenggono PS. 2004. Modal Sosial dalam Pengelolaan Tambak: Studi Kasus pada Komunitas Petambak di Desa Muara Pantuan Kecamatan Anggana
Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara [tesis]. Bogor. Sekolah Pascasarjana Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Lesser LE. 2000. Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundation and Aplication. Butterworth Heinemann. United States of America.
Mantra IB. 2004. Filsafat Penelitian dan Metode Penelitian Sosial. Pustaka Pelajar. Yogyakarta.
Miller LD, Scheffler R, Lam S, Rosenberg R, Rupp A. 2003. Social Capital and Health in Indonesia. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation dan WHO for
Financial Support. dlmillerucklink.berkeley.edu. Minguel E, Gertler P, Levine DI. 2002. Did Industrialization Destroy Social
Capital in Indonesia. Harvard University dan World Bank. emiguelekon.berkeley.edu.
Narayan D. 1999. Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. Property Group, Prem World Bank July 1999.
Narayan D, Pritchett L.1999. Cent and Sociability. Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania. Economic Development and Cultural Change 47
8: 871-986. North DC. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Portes A. 1998. Social Capital. Its Origins and Aplication in Modern Sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology 24. Pretty J, Ward H. 2001. Social Capital and the Environment. World Development
29 2: 209-227 Putnam RD. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Tradition in Modern Italy.
Princeton University Press. Princeton. New Jersey. Putnam RD.1995. Bowling Alone. America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of
Democracy 6 1: 65-78. Sabatini F. 2005. The Empirics of Social Capital and Economic Development: A
Critical Perspective. Department of Public Economics and SPES Development Studies Research Centre. University of Rome La Sapienza,
and Department of Economics. University of Casino. http:www.feem.itfeempubpublicationsWpapersdefault.htm.
Stone W. 2001. Measuring Social Capital. Towards a Theoretically Informed Measurement Framework for Researching Social Capital in Family and
Community Life. Research Paper No. 24 Australian Institute of Family Studies. Melbourne. http:www.aifs.gov.auinstitutepubsstone2.html.
Suparlan P. 1995. Kemiskinan di Perkotaan. Yayasan Obor Indonesia. Jakarta. Svendsen GLH, Svendsen GT. 2004. The Creation and Destruction of Social
Capital: Entrepreneurship Co-operative Movements and Institutional. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham UK.
Thomas R.L. 1997. Modern Econometrics. Department of Economics. Manchester Metropolitan University. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
England. Uphoff N. 1999. Understanding Social Capital: Learning from the Analysis and
Experience of Participation, in Dagasputa and I. Seregaldin eds. Social Capital: A Multifaced Perspective, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Vipriyanti NU. 2007. Analisis Keterkaitan Modal Sosial dan Pembangunan Ekonomi Wilayah: Studi Kasus di Empat Kabupaten di Bali [draf disertasi].
Bogor. Sekolah Pascasarjana Institut Pertanian Bogor. World Bank. 1998. The Initiative on Defining Monitoring and Measuring Social
Capital. Overview and Program Description. Social Development Family. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network.
Lampiran 1. Karakteristik Responden dan Pendapatannya
Responden Umur Pendidikan Pekerjaan Pendapatan Komposisi
keluarga Kajhu 1
25 S1
Wiraswasta 6.000.000
1 Kajhu 2
31 SMP
Jualan 900.000
6 Kajhu 3
55 SD
Tukang Becak 750.000
4 Kajhu 4
25 SMA
Wiraswasta 1.500.000
1 Kajhu 5
20 SMA
Menjahit 500.000
2 Kajhu 6
34 SMP
Wiraswasta 1.100.000
2 Kajhu 7
32 SMA
Wiraswasta 1.200.000
4 Kajhu 8
34 Tidak
Sekolah Nelayan 950.000
2 Kajhu 9
32 SMP
Wiraswasta 1.000.000
1 Kajhu
10 50 SD
Mekanik 1.500.000 6 Kajhu 11
28 D2
PNS 1.100.000
6 Kajhu 12
40 D3
Jualan 1.950.000
5 Kajhu 13
37 D3
Wiraswasta 1.900.000
3 Kajhu 14
46 SMA
PNS 1.600.000
3 Kajhu 15
26 S1
Wiraswasta 4.500.000
3 Kajhu 16
34 S1
Wiraswasta 14.000.000
4 Kajhu 17
56 SMA
PNS 1.320.000
2 Kajhu 18
35 S2
PNS 7.400.000
4 Kajhu 19
26 S1
PNS 4.750.000
3 Kajhu 20
22 SMA
Petani 1.250.000
3 Kajhu 21
38 SD
Petani 1.300.000
4 Lamkrut 1
43 SMA
Peg. Swasta 700.000
3 Lamkrut 2
70 SR
Petani 1.450.000
3 Lamkrut 3
57 Tidak Tamat
Petani 1.350.000
5 Lamkrut 4
28 SMA
PNS 1.450.000
5 Lamkrut 5
42 SMA
Jualan 2.000.000
4 Lamkrut 6
33 SMP
nelayan 1.700.000
3 Lamkrut 7
47 SMA
Karyawan Swasta
1.325.000 6 Lamkrut 8
31 SMA
Karyawan Swasta
1.200.000 3 Lamkrut 9
50 SMA
Petani 1.300.000
6 Lamkrut 10
55 SMP
Ibu Rmh Tangga
800.000 2 Lamkrut 11
60 SD
Petani 1.100.000
7 Lamkrut 12
43 Tidak Tamat
Operator Alat Berat
2.280.000 7 Lamkrut 13
42 MTsN
Jualan 3.000.000
4 Lamkrut 14
33 MIN
Karyawan Swasta
3.000.000 2 Lamkrut 15
40 AKPER
PNS 1.300.000
3 Lamkrut 16
55 SD
Petani 2.000.000
5 Lamkrut 17
28 SMA
Sopir 1.500.000
3 Lamkrut 18
22 SMP
Sopir 1.350.000
2 Lamkrut 19
35 SMP
Jualan 1.750.000
4 Lamkrut 20
23 SD
Petani 1.200.000
1
Lampiran 1. Lanjutan Responden Umur Pendidikan Pekerjaan Pendapatan
Komposisi keluarga
Beurandeh 1 35
Tidak Sekolah
Nelayan 1.350.000 10
Beurandeh 2 56
SD Jualan
2.900.000 9
Beurandeh 3 40
SMP Nelayan
1.800.000 6
Beurandeh 4 38
SMA Wiraswasta
1.200.000 5
Beurandeh 5 29
SD Jualan
1.600.000 5
Beurandeh 6 46
SD Petani
1.200.000 4
Beurandeh 7 52
SD Tukang
Rumah 1.900.000 6
Beurandeh 8 30
SMP Nelayan
1.200.000 5
Beurandeh 9 28
SD Nelayan
1.450.000 3
Beurandeh 10 32
SMP Jualan
1.500.000 4
Beurandeh 11 42
SPK PNS
4.300.000 4
Beurandeh 12 29
SD Petani
1.000.000 3
Beurandeh 13 37
SMP Tukang
Rumah 1.800.000 7
Beurandeh 14 43
SD Nelayan
1.600.000 5
Beurandeh 15 36
Tidak Sekolah
Nelayan 1.000.000 5 Beurandeh 16
40 SD
Nelayan 1.100.000
6 Beurandeh 17
26 SMP
Nelayan 1.500.000
2 Beurandeh 18
29 SMP
Petani 900.000
4 Beurandeh 19
35 SMP
Petani 1.000.000
5 Beurandeh 20
29 SMP
Wiraswasta 3.200.000
3
Lampiran 2. Indeks Modal Sosial Masyarakat pada Level Rumah Tangga Modal Sosial pada Level Rumah Tangga
Dimensi Struktural Dimensi Kognitif
Aksi Kolektif Input Output
Input Output Output
Indeks Kapital
Sosial Struktural
Indeks Kapital
Sosial Kognitif
Indeks Kapital
Sosial Aksi
Kolektif Indeks
Kapital Sosial
Masyarak No
Urut Responden
DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DK1 DK2 DK3 DK4 AK1 AK2 AK3 MSDS MSDK MSAK IMSM 1
Kajhu 1 0.43 0.87 1.00 0.49 0.60 0.14 1.00 0.83 0.34 0.83 0.47 0.33
0.77 0.68
0.66 0.84
2 Kajhu
2 0.57 0.62 1.00 0.44 0.13 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.45 0.33 0.24 0.56 0.61
0.11 0.43
0.50 3
Kajhu 3 0.43 0.62 0.89 0.44 0.13 0.29 0.76 0.07 0.45 0.33 0.12 0.56
0.55 0.29
0.38 0.46
4 Kajhu
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.29 0.24 0.49 0.58 0.50 0.18 0.33 0.00
0.31 0.38
0.00 5
Kajhu 5 0.43 0.63 0.89 0.71 0.00 0.29 0.10 0.95 1.00 0.33 0.35 0.85
0.58 0.69
0.62 0.71
6 Kajhu
6 0.43 0.50 0.78 0.71 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.76 0.79 0.17 0.59 0.85 0.52
0.41 0.65
0.54 7
Kajhu 7 0.71 0.62 1.00 0.69 0.00 0.29 0.88 0.66 0.51 0.50 0.59 0.52
0.68 0.69
0.65 0.76
8 Kajhu
8 0.43 0.50 0.78 0.71 0.13 0.00 0.61 1.00 0.58 0.50 0.41 0.67 0.56
0.62 0.63
0.65 9
Kajhu 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.13 0.14 0.10 0.86 0.72 0.00 0.29 0.67
0.11 0.43
0.36 0.05
10 Kajhu
10 0.71 0.75 0.89 0.89 0.13 0.29 0.15 0.66 0.65 0.50 0.29 0.85 0.76
0.39 0.66
0.75 11
Kajhu 11 0.57 0.62 0.89 0.71 0.22 0.14 0.46 0.86 0.24 0.67 0.71 0.33
0.67 0.37
0.69 0.78
12 Kajhu
12 0.71 0.75 0.89 0.27 0.09 0.14 0.85 0.76 0.31 0.50 0.24 0.37 0.60
0.55 0.42
0.56 13
Kajhu 13 0.29 0.25 0.56 0.74 0.59 0.43 0.51 0.66 0.27 0.50 0.29 0.52
0.52 0.45
0.51 0.50
14 Kajhu
14 0.43 0.62 0.56 0.27 0.68 0.14 0.51 0.83 0.14 0.50 0.35 0.22 0.56
0.32 0.41
0.46 15
Kajhu 15 0.71 1.00 0.89 0.24 0.64 0.14 0.95 0.19 0.11 1.00 0.59 0.37
0.79 0.20
0.81 0.85
16 Kajhu
16 0.86 0.75 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.14 0.00 0.59 0.72 0.33 0.65 0.63 1.00
0.24 0.65
0.89 17
Kajhu 17 0.43 0.87 0.67 0.44 0.33 0.14 0.39 0.92 0.89 0.50 0.76 0.81
0.61 0.69
0.86 0.77
18 Kajhu
18 0.71 0.87 0.89 0.62 0.00 0.29 0.39 0.92 0.79 0.83 0.65 0.52 0.69
0.71 0.82
0.85 19
Kajhu 19 0.86 0.75 0.89 0.74 0.00 0.29 0.39 0.15 0.51 0.83 0.59 0.70
0.73 0.18
0.88 0.81
20 Kajhu
20 0.43 1.00 0.89 0.62 0.00 0.14 1.00 0.92 0.58 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.65
0.85 0.40
0.70 21
Kajhu 21 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.92 0.72 0.17 0.47 0.22
0.73 0.53
0.31 0.62
22 Lamkrut 1 0.29 0.25 0.56 0.53 0.27 0.00 0.51 0.92 0.51 0.67 0.24 0.52
0.39 0.49
0.56 0.44
23 Lamkrut 2 0.29 0.25 0.56 0.51 0.00 0.14 0.39 1.00 0.58 0.33 0.29 0.52
0.32 0.58
0.44 0.34
24 Lamkrut 3 0.57 0.75 1.00 0.44 0.13 0.00 0.39 0.58 0.38 0.33 0.47 0.52
0.64 0.18
0.52 0.58
25 Lamkrut 4 0.29 0.25 0.56 0.36 0.13 0.29 0.39 1.00 0.62 0.50 0.29 0.48
0.31 0.67
0.50 0.40
26 Lamkrut 5 0.29 0.37 0.56 0.71 0.13 0.29 0.51 0.44 0.45 0.33 0.12 0.37
0.43 0.36
0.29 0.33
27 Lamkrut 6 0.43 0.50 0.78 0.44 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.66 0.65 0.33 0.29 0.67
0.49 0.31
0.51 0.42
28 Lamkrut 7 0.71 0.75 0.89 0.71 0.13 0.00 0.39 1.00 0.58 0.33 0.29 0.52
0.72 0.50
0.44 0.68
29 Lamkrut 8 0.43 0.62 0.78 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.63 0.59 0.45 0.50 0.24 0.67
0.41 0.35
0.55 0.37
30 Lamkrut 9 0.43 0.75 0.89 0.60 0.91 0.00 0.22 0.32 0.45 0.83 0.53 0.52
0.81 0.00
0.77 0.84
31 Lamkrut 10 0.29 0.37 0.56 0.62 0.00 0.14 0.15 0.49 0.38 0.33 0.59 0.52
0.38 0.09
0.57 0.36
32 Lamkrut 11 0.57 0.50 0.67 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.39 1.00 0.38 0.83 0.18 0.67
0.38 0.47
0.68 0.43
33 Lamkrut 12 0.43 0.87 0.78 0.68 0.46 0.29 0.49 0.93 0.38 0.33 0.18 0.52
0.72 0.56
0.39 0.69
34 Lamkrut 13 0.29 0.25 0.56 0.71 0.26 0.14 0.46 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.70
0.43 0.03
0.32 0.26
35 Lamkrut 14 0.29 0.75 0.56 0.71 0.00 0.14 0.46 0.86 0.35 0.67 0.35 0.70
0.49 0.43
0.70 0.65
36 Lamkrut 15 0.29 0.25 0.56 0.27 0.47 0.00 0.51 0.41 0.07 0.17 0.00 0.00
0.38 0.00
0.00 0.11
37 Lamkrut 16 0.43 0.62 0.78 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.32 0.58 0.33 0.06 0.52
0.49 0.16
0.33 0.37
38 Lamkrut 17 0.43 0.75 0.89 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.49 0.45 0.33 0.35 0.52
0.56 0.05
0.47 0.46
39 Lamkrut 18 0.43 0.50 0.89 0.71 0.00 0.14 0.51 0.78 0.65 0.33 0.35 0.85
0.55 0.56
0.62 0.60
40 Lamkrut 19 0.29 0.25 0.56 0.18 0.00 0.14 0.51 0.41 0.58 0.50 0.41 0.52
0.24 0.34
0.57 0.26
41 Lamkrut 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.14 0.39 0.58 0.45 0.50 0.18 0.19
0.07 0.29
0.31 0.03
42 Beurandeh
1 0.43 0.75 1.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.85 1.00 0.58 0.50 0.35 0.52
0.62 0.74
0.54 0.71
43 Beurandeh
2 0.71 0.62 0.89 0.91 0.00 0.43 0.76 0.15 0.45 0.67 0.24 0.70
0.70 0.41
0.65 0.75
44 Beurandeh
3 0.43 0.62 1.00 0.80 0.82 0.43 0.39 0.83 1.00 0.33 0.41 0.70
0.84 0.85
0.58 0.94
45 Beurandeh
4 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.73 0.05 0.29 0.88 1.00 0.38 0.83 0.47 0.52
0.77 0.80
0.74 0.91
46 Beurandeh
5 0.43 0.62 1.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 1.00 0.65 0.50 0.71 0.33
0.59 0.73
0.62 0.72
47 Beurandeh
6 0.43 0.50 1.00 0.51 0.00 0.29 0.63 0.66 0.38 0.83 0.71 0.85
0.53 0.50
1.00 0.75
48 Beurandeh
7 0.86 0.75 0.78 0.91 0.00 0.43 0.76 0.51 0.58 0.83 1.00 0.52
0.74 0.66
0.98 1.00
49 Beurandeh
8 0.43 0.62 1.00 0.73 0.00 0.57 1.00 0.66 0.62 0.67 0.41 1.00
0.62 0.96
0.86 0.87
50 Beurandeh
9 0.43 0.75 1.00 0.80 0.73 0.00 0.39 0.92 0.58 0.33 0.18 0.70
0.85 0.46
0.47 0.80
51 Beurandeh
10 0.43 0.62 1.00 0.51 0.05 0.57 0.76 0.58 0.45 0.83 0.35 0.89
0.57 0.70
0.86 0.74
52 Beurandeh
11 0.86 0.62 0.89 0.36 0.00 0.14 0.76 0.86 0.65 0.67 0.71 0.85
0.60 0.73
0.93 0.75
53 Beurandeh
12 0.43 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.57 0.39 0.58 0.51 1.00 0.59 0.67
0.71 0.54
0.94 0.93
54 Beurandeh
13 0.71 0.87 0.78 0.60 0.00 0.29 1.00 0.93 0.65 0.50 0.41 0.52
0.66 0.96
0.57 0.75
55 Beurandeh
14 0.57 0.75 0.89 0.80 0.05 0.14 0.76 0.41 0.38 0.83 0.47 0.52
0.68 0.36
0.74 0.82
56 Beurandeh
15 0.57 0.87 0.89 0.80 0.26 1.00 0.63 0.93 0.38 0.33 0.71 0.70
0.77 1.00
0.71 0.95
57 Beurandeh
16 0.43 0.75 1.00 0.82 0.19 0.29 0.49 0.41 0.38 0.50 0.53 0.37
0.72 0.29
0.55 0.72
58 Beurandeh
17 0.43 0.62 1.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.92 0.58 0.83 0.47 0.85
0.65 0.65
0.89 0.87
59 Beurandeh
18 0.43 0.50 1.00 0.71 0.00 0.14 0.63 1.00 0.45 0.83 0.53 0.70
0.58 0.63
0.85 0.80
60 Beurandeh
19 0.71 0.87 0.89 0.78 0.00 0.29 0.61 0.07 0.69 0.50 0.29 0.37
0.73 0.34
0.45 0.71
61 Beurandeh
20 0.29 0.37 0.67 0.85 0.00 0.43 0.39 1.00 0.73 0.83 0.41 0.70
0.46 0.80
0.80 0.75
Lampiran 3. Deskriptif Statistik Indeks Modal Sosial per Desa
Descriptive Statistics
Variable N Mean Median Tr Mean StDev SE Mean DS1_Kajh 21 0.5238 0.4300 0.5337 0.2440 0.0532
DS2_Kajh 21 0.6410 0.6300 0.6558 0.2767 0.0604 DS3_Kajh 21 0.7738 0.8900 0.8026 0.2863 0.0625
DS4_Kajh 21 0.5719 0.6200 0.5726 0.1852 0.0404 DS5_Kajh 21 0.2286 0.1300 0.2000 0.2944 0.0642
DK1_Kajh 21 0.1838 0.1400 0.1805 0.1140 0.0249 DK2_Kajh 21 0.5019 0.4600 0.5021 0.3230 0.0705
DK3_Kajh 21 0.6667 0.7600 0.6842 0.3103 0.0677 DK4_Kajh 21 0.5405 0.5800 0.5389 0.2441 0.0533
AK1_Kajh 21 0.4833 0.5000 0.4816 0.2462 0.0537 AK2_Kajh 21 0.4371 0.4100 0.4368 0.1868 0.0408
AK3_Kajh 21 0.5357 0.5200 0.5358 0.2067 0.0451 MSDS_Kaj 21 0.6043 0.6100 0.6153 0.2151 0.0469
MSDK_Kaj 21 0.4624 0.4300 0.4605 0.2079 0.0454 MSAK_Kaj 21 0.5800 0.6300 0.5784 0.1786 0.0390
IMSM_Kaj 21 0.6214 0.7000 0.6400 0.2411 0.0526 DS1_Lamk 20 0.3735 0.3600 0.3756 0.1478 0.0330
DS2_Lamk 20 0.4800 0.5000 0.4850 0.2438 0.0545 DS3_Lamk 20 0.6695 0.6150 0.6883 0.2187 0.0489
DS4_Lamk 20 0.4920 0.5200 0.5072 0.2171 0.0485 DS5_Lamk 20 0.1575 0.1300 0.1244 0.2301 0.0515
DK1_Lamk 20 0.1065 0.1400 0.1022 0.1031 0.0230 DK2_Lamk 20 0.3995 0.3900 0.4006 0.1356 0.0303
DK3_Lamk 20 0.6610 0.5850 0.6611 0.2498 0.0559 DK4Lamkr 20 0.4470 0.4500 0.4606 0.1711 0.0383
AK1_Lamk 20 0.4235 0.3300 0.4244 0.2060 0.0461 AK2_Lamk 20 0.2795 0.2900 0.2778 0.1491 0.0333
AK3_Lamk 20 0.5250 0.5200 0.5361 0.1841 0.0412 MSDSLamk 20 0.4605 0.4300 0.4628 0.1750 0.0391
MSDK_Lam 20 0.3210 0.3450 0.3194 0.2134 0.0477 MSAK_Lam 20 0.4770 0.5050 0.4872 0.1743 0.0390
IMSM_Lam 20 0.4310 0.4100 0.4306 0.1987 0.0444 DS1_Bran 20 0.5505 0.4300 0.5400 0.1917 0.0429
DS2_Bran 20 0.6720 0.6200 0.6778 0.1310 0.0293 DS3_Bran 20 0.9340 1.0000 0.9450 0.0971 0.0217
DS4_Bran 20 0.7375 0.7900 0.7439 0.1593 0.0356 DS5_Bran 20 0.1075 0.0000 0.0739 0.2390 0.0534
DK1_Bran 20 0.3150 0.2900 0.2944 0.2523 0.0564 DK2_Bran 20 0.6800 0.7600 0.6783 0.1924 0.0430
DK3_Bran 20 0.7210 0.8450 0.7417 0.2922 0.0653 DK4_Bran 20 0.5535 0.5800 0.5383 0.1571 0.0351
AK1_Bran 20 0.6570 0.6700 0.6561 0.2054 0.0459 AK2_Bran 20 0.4975 0.4700 0.4872 0.1961 0.0438
AK3_Bran 20 0.6490 0.7000 0.6472 0.1863 0.0416 MSDS_Bra 20 0.6695 0.6700 0.6711 0.1009 0.0226
MSDK_Bra 20 0.6555 0.6800 0.6567 0.2129 0.0476 MSAK_Bra 20 0.7365 0.7400 0.7378 0.1746 0.0390
IMSM_Bra 20 0.8120 0.7750 0.8072 0.0928 0.0207 Variable Min Max Q1 Q3
DS1_Kajh 0.0000 0.8600 0.4300 0.7100 DS2_Kajh 0.0000 1.0000 0.5600 0.8700
DS3_Kajh 0.0000 1.0000 0.7250 0.8900 DS4_Kajh 0.2400 0.8900 0.4400 0.7100
DS5_Kajh 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.4600 DK1_Kajh 0.0000 0.4300 0.1400 0.2900
DK2_Kajh 0.0000 1.0000 0.1950 0.8050
DK3_Kajh 0.0000 1.0000 0.5400 0.9200 DK4_Kajh 0.1100 1.0000 0.3250 0.7200
AK1_Kajh 0.0000 1.0000 0.3300 0.5850 AK2_Kajh 0.1200 0.7600 0.2900 0.5900
AK3_Kajh 0.2200 0.8500 0.3500 0.6850 MSDS_Kaj 0.0000 1.0000 0.5550 0.7300
MSDK_Kaj 0.1100 0.8500 0.3000 0.6850 MSAK_Kaj 0.3100 0.8800 0.4050 0.6750
IMSM_Kaj 0.0000 0.8900 0.5000 0.7950 DS1_Lamk 0.0000 0.7100 0.2900 0.4300
DS2_Lamk 0.0000 0.8700 0.2500 0.7500 DS3_Lamk 0.0000 1.0000 0.5600 0.8625
DS4_Lamk 0.0000 0.7100 0.3800 0.7025 DS5_Lamk 0.0000 0.9100 0.0000 0.2275
DK1_Lamk 0.0000 0.2900 0.0000 0.1400 DK2_Lamk 0.1500 0.6300 0.3900 0.5100
DK3_Lamk 0.3200 1.0000 0.4400 0.9275 DK4Lamkr 0.0000 0.6500 0.3800 0.5800
AK1_Lamk 0.0000 0.8300 0.3300 0.5000 AK2_Lamk 0.0000 0.5900 0.1800 0.3500
AK3_Lamk 0.0000 0.8500 0.5200 0.6700 MSDSLamk 0.0700 0.8100 0.3800 0.5575
MSDK_Lam 0.0000 0.6700 0.1075 0.4975 MSAK_Lam 0.0000 0.7700 0.3450 0.5700
IMSM_Lam 0.0300 0.8400 0.3325 0.5950 DS1_Bran 0.2900 1.0000 0.4300 0.7100
DS2_Bran 0.3700 0.8700 0.6200 0.7500 DS3_Bran 0.6700 1.0000 0.8900 1.0000
DS4_Bran 0.3600 1.0000 0.6200 0.8425 DS5_Bran 0.0000 0.8200 0.0000 0.0500
DK1_Bran 0.0000 1.0000 0.1400 0.4300 DK2_Bran 0.3900 1.0000 0.5200 0.7600
DK3_Bran 0.0700 1.0000 0.5275 0.9825 DK4_Bran 0.3800 1.0000 0.3975 0.6500
AK1_Bran 0.3300 1.0000 0.5000 0.8300 AK2_Bran 0.1800 1.0000 0.3650 0.6800
AK3_Bran 0.3300 1.0000 0.5200 0.8125 MSDS_Bra 0.4600 0.8500 0.5925 0.7375
MSDK_Bra 0.2900 1.0000 0.4700 0.8000 MSAK_Bra 0.4500 1.0000 0.5725 0.8825
IMSM_Bra 0.7100 1.0000 0.7425 0.9000
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
IMSM_Kaj N = 21 Median = 0.7000 IMSM_Lam N = 20 Median = 0.4100
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2100 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0901,0.3600
W = 560.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0020
The test is significant at 0.0020 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSDS_Kaj N = 21 Median = 0.6100 MSDSLamk N = 20 Median = 0.4300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1800 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0700,0.2700
W = 552.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0038
The test is significant at 0.0038 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSDK_Kaj N = 21 Median = 0.4300 MSDK_Lam N = 20 Median = 0.3450
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1300 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0100,0.2800
W = 514.0
Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0586 The test is significant at 0.0585 adjusted for ties
Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSAK_Kaj N = 21 Median = 0.6300 MSAK_Lam N = 20 Median = 0.5050
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0900 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0300,0.2100
W = 499.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.1303
The test is significant at 0.1302 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS1_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.4300 DS1_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.3600
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1400 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.2800
W = 539.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0110
The test is significant at 0.0084 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS2_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.6300 DS2_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.5000
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2500 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0001,0.3699
W = 520.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0406
The test is significant at 0.0382 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS3_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.8900 DS3_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.6150
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1100 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000,0.3299
W = 527.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0249
The test is significant at 0.0204 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS4_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.6200 DS4_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.5200
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0600 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0300,0.1800
W = 487.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2353
The test is significant at 0.2304 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS5_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.1300 DS5_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.1300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0401,0.1301
W = 464.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.5573
The test is significant at 0.5384 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK1_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.1400
DK1_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.1400 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1400
95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.1500 W = 517.5
Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0475 The test is significant at 0.0333 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK2_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.4600 DK2_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.3900
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0700 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0700,0.3000
W = 470.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4494
The test is significant at 0.4435 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK3_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.7600 DK3_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.5850
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0250 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.1599,0.2499
W = 452.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.7842
The test is significant at 0.7836 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK4_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.5800 DK4Lamkr N = 20 Median = 0.4500
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1000 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0700,0.2100
W = 491.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.1967
The test is significant at 0.1940 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK1_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.5000 AK1_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.3300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000,0.1700
W = 475.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.3752
The test is significant at 0.3562 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK2_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.4100 AK2_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.2900
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1700 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0500,0.2900
W = 540.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0098
The test is significant at 0.0094 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK3_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.5200 AK3_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.5200
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.1500,0.1500
W = 444.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.9480
The test is significant at 0.9470 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
IMSM_Bra N = 20 Median = 0.7750 IMSM_Kaj N = 21 Median = 0.7000
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1500 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0400,0.2499
W = 525.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0062
The test is significant at 0.0061 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSDS_Bra N = 20 Median = 0.6700 MSDS_Kaj N = 21 Median = 0.6100
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0400 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0300,0.1100
W = 461.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2908
The test is significant at 0.2905 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSDK_Bra N = 20 Median = 0.6800 MSDK_Kaj N = 21 Median = 0.4300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1950 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0500,0.3400
W = 522.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0078
The test is significant at 0.0078 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSAK_Bra N = 20 Median = 0.7400 MSAK_Kaj N = 21 Median = 0.6300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1600 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0501,0.2800
W = 515.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0137
The test is significant at 0.0136 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS1_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.4300 DS1_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.4300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.1399,0.1400
W = 420.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 1.0000
The test is significant at 1.0000 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS2_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.6200 DS2_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.6300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.1300,0.1201
W = 410.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.8043
The test is significant at 0.7991 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS3_Bran N = 20 Median = 1.0000 DS3_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.8900
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1100 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.1101
W = 514.5
Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0142 The test is significant at 0.0094 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS4_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.7900 DS4_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.6200
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1600 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0700,0.2900
W = 533.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0033
The test is significant at 0.0032 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS5_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.0000 DS5_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.1300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0800 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.1299,-0.0001
W = 355.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0925
The test is significant at 0.0703 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK1_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.2900 DK1_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.1400
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1400 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.2800
W = 488.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0761
The test is significant at 0.0668 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK2_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.7600 DK2_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.4600
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2400 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0001,0.3699
W = 487.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0806
The test is significant at 0.0776 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK3_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.8450 DK3_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.7600
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0650 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0899,0.1700
W = 452.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4039
The test is significant at 0.4018 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK4_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.5800 DK4_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.5800
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.1400,0.1400
W = 421.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.9896
The test is significant at 0.9895 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK1_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.6700
AK1_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.5000 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1700
95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0001,0.3299 W = 504.5
Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0285 The test is significant at 0.0239 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK2_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.4700 AK2_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.4100
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0600 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0600,0.1800
W = 455.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.3682
The test is significant at 0.3658 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK3_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.7000 AK3_Kajh N = 21 Median = 0.5200
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1450 95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.2900
W = 488.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0761
The test is significant at 0.0734 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
IMSM_Bra N = 20 Median = 0.7750 IMSM_Lam N = 20 Median = 0.4100
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.3800 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.3000,0.4800
W = 597.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0000
The test is significant at 0.0000 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSDS_Bra N = 20 Median = 0.6700 MSDSLamk N = 20 Median = 0.4300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2200 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1300,0.3000
W = 550.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0002
The test is significant at 0.0002 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSDK_Bra N = 20 Median = 0.6800 MSDK_Lam N = 20 Median = 0.3450
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.3300 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1800,0.4700
W = 552.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0001
The test is significant at 0.0001 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSAK_Bra N = 20 Median = 0.7400 MSAK_Lam N = 20 Median = 0.5050
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2500 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1401,0.3700
W = 552.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0001
The test is significant at 0.0001 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS1_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.4300 DS1_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.3600
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1400 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0001,0.2800
W = 518.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0035
The test is significant at 0.0020 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS2_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.6200 DS2_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.5000
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2500 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.3700
W = 500.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0149
The test is significant at 0.0128 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS3_Bran N = 20 Median = 1.0000 DS3_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.6150
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2200 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1100,0.4400
W = 565.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0000
The test is significant at 0.0000 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS4_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.7900 DS4_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.5200
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2000 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1101,0.3601
W = 547.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0002
The test is significant at 0.0002 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS5_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.0000 DS5_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.1300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.1299,-0.0000
W = 364.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2184
The test is significant at 0.1767 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK1_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.2900 DK1_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.1400
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1500 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0001,0.2900
W = 516.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0043
The test is significant at 0.0032 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK2_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.7600 DK2_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.3900
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2500 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2201,0.3700
W = 551.0
Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0001 The test is significant at 0.0001 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK3_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.8450 DK3_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.5850
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0700 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0800,0.2701
W = 441.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4017
The test is significant at 0.3982 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK4_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.5800 DK4Lamkr N = 20 Median = 0.4500
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0700 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000,0.1999
W = 470.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.1046
The test is significant at 0.0995 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK1_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.6700 AK1_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.3300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1700 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1600,0.3401
W = 524.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0021
The test is significant at 0.0015 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK2_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.4700 AK2_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.2900
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1800 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1199,0.3000
W = 538.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0006
The test is significant at 0.0005 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK3_Bran N = 20 Median = 0.7000 AK3_Lamk N = 20 Median = 0.5200
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1500 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.1800
W = 484.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0468
The test is significant at 0.0400 adjusted for ties
Lampiran 4. Descriptive Statistics Indeks Modal Sosial Berdasarkan Kepemilikan Rumah
Descriptive Statistics
Variable N Mean Median Tr Mean StDev SE Mean IMSM_sdh 22 0.7991 0.7500 0.7965 0.0978 0.0209
MSDS_Sdh 22 0.6636 0.6700 0.6645 0.1041 0.0222 MSDK_sdh 22 0.6409 0.6550 0.6405 0.2089 0.0445
MSAK_sdh 22 0.7191 0.7250 0.7215 0.1818 0.0388 DS1_sdh 22 0.5332 0.4300 0.5220 0.1920 0.0409
DS2_sdh 22 0.6845 0.6850 0.6910 0.1324 0.0282 DS3_sdh 22 0.9100 1.0000 0.9230 0.1254 0.0267
DS_sdh 22 0.7336 0.7550 0.7390 0.1521 0.0324 DS5_sdh 22 0.1186 0.0000 0.0895 0.2409 0.0514
DK1_sdh 22 0.3059 0.2900 0.2865 0.2429 0.0518 DK2_sdh 22 0.6614 0.6950 0.6580 0.1928 0.0411
DK3_sdh 22 0.7368 0.8600 0.7570 0.2828 0.0603 DK4_sdh 22 0.5364 0.5450 0.5225 0.1594 0.0340
AK1_sdh 22 0.6427 0.6700 0.6405 0.2075 0.0442 AK2_sdh 22 0.4764 0.4400 0.4650 0.2004 0.0427
AK3_sdh 22 0.6455 0.7000 0.6435 0.1797 0.0383 IMSM_blm 39 0.5213 0.5000 0.5303 0.2429 0.0389
MSDS_blm 39 0.5305 0.5600 0.5374 0.2104 0.0337 MSDK_blm 39 0.3882 0.3700 0.3880 0.2239 0.0358
MSAK_blm 39 0.5290 0.5200 0.5314 0.1832 0.0293 DS1_blm 39 0.4551 0.4300 0.4580 0.2182 0.0349
DS2_blm 39 0.5497 0.6200 0.5554 0.2710 0.0434 DS3_blm 39 0.7256 0.7800 0.7514 0.2631 0.0421
DS4_blm 39 0.5246 0.6000 0.5354 0.2046 0.0328 DS5_blm 39 0.1921 0.1300 0.1594 0.2657 0.0425
DK1_blm 39 0.1426 0.1400 0.1383 0.1149 0.0184 DK2_blm 39 0.4508 0.3900 0.4423 0.2586 0.0414
DK3_blm 39 0.6521 0.6600 0.6674 0.2808 0.0450 DK4_blm 39 0.5015 0.5100 0.5029 0.2178 0.0349
AK1_blm 39 0.4518 0.5000 0.4511 0.2290 0.0367 AK2_blm 39 0.3651 0.3500 0.3631 0.1879 0.0301
AK3_blm 39 0.5264 0.5200 0.5326 0.1967 0.0315 Variable Min Max Q1 Q3
IMSM_sdh 0.6500 1.0000 0.7200 0.8800 MSDS_Sdh 0.4600 0.8500 0.5875 0.7325
MSDK_sdh 0.2900 1.0000 0.4525 0.8000 MSAK_sdh 0.3900 1.0000 0.5650 0.8675
DS1_sdh 0.2900 1.0000 0.4300 0.7100 DS2_sdh 0.3700 0.8700 0.6200 0.7500
DS3_sdh 0.5600 1.0000 0.8625 1.0000 DS_sdh 0.3600 1.0000 0.6200 0.8275
DS5_sdh 0.0000 0.8200 0.0000 0.0850 DK1_sdh 0.0000 1.0000 0.1400 0.4300
DK2_sdh 0.3900 1.0000 0.4825 0.7600 DK3_sdh 0.0700 1.0000 0.5625 0.9475
DK4_sdh 0.3500 1.0000 0.3800 0.6500 AK1_sdh 0.3300 1.0000 0.5000 0.8300
AK2_sdh 0.1800 1.0000 0.3500 0.6200 AK3_sdh 0.3300 1.0000 0.5200 0.7375
IMSM_blm 0.0000 0.8900 0.3700 0.7500 MSDS_blm 0.0000 1.0000 0.3900 0.6800
MSDK_blm 0.0000 0.8500 0.2000 0.5600 MSAK_blm 0.0000 0.8800 0.4000 0.6500
DS1_blm 0.0000 0.8600 0.2900 0.5700 DS2_blm 0.0000 1.0000 0.2500 0.7500
DS3_blm 0.0000 1.0000 0.5600 0.8900 DS4_blm 0.0000 0.8900 0.4400 0.7100
DS5_blm 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2600 DK1_blm 0.0000 0.4300 0.0000 0.2900
DK2_blm 0.0000 1.0000 0.2400 0.5100 DK3_blm 0.0000 1.0000 0.4400 0.9200
DK4_blm 0.0000 1.0000 0.3800 0.6500 AK1_blm 0.0000 1.0000 0.3300 0.5000
AK2_blm 0.0000 0.7600 0.2400 0.5300 AK3_blm 0.0000 0.8500 0.3700 0.6700
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
IMSM_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.7500 IMSM_blm N = 39 Median = 0.5000
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2700 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1600,0.3700
W = 968.0
Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0000 The test is significant at 0.0000 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSDS_Sdh N = 22 Median = 0.6700 MSDS_blm N = 39 Median = 0.5600
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1150 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0400,0.1999
W = 864.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0032
The test is significant at 0.0032 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSDK_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.6550 MSDK_blm N = 39 Median = 0.3700
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2550 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1201,0.3800
W = 930.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0001
The test is significant at 0.0001 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
MSAK_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.7250 MSAK_blm N = 39 Median = 0.5200
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1900 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0800,0.2901
W = 911.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0003
The test is significant at 0.0003 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS1_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.4300 DS1_blm N = 39 Median = 0.4300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.1400
W = 765.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.1077
The test is significant at 0.0972 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS2_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.6850 DS2_blm N = 39 Median = 0.6200
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1200 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000,0.2501
W = 800.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0388
The test is significant at 0.0362 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS3_sdh N = 22 Median = 1.0000 DS3_blm N = 39 Median = 0.7800
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1100 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1100,0.2199
W = 900.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0005
The test is significant at 0.0004 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS4_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.7550 DS4_blm N = 39 Median = 0.6000
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1800 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0901,0.2900
W = 943.5
Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0000 The test is significant at 0.0000 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DS5_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.0000 DS5_blm N = 39 Median = 0.1300
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.1300,0.0000
W = 576.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2
Cannot reject since W is 682.0
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK1_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.2900 DK1_blm N = 39 Median = 0.1400
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1500 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0001,0.2901
W = 866.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0029
The test is significant at 0.0021 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK2_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.6950 DK2_blm N = 39 Median = 0.3900
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.2400 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0999,0.3700
W = 885.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0012
The test is significant at 0.0011 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK3_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.8600 DK3_blm N = 39 Median = 0.6600
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0800 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0301,0.2401
W = 771.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0907
The test is significant at 0.0898 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
DK4_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.5450 DK4_blm N = 39 Median = 0.5100
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0000 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.0700,0.1300
W = 704.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.3705
The test is significant at 0.3696 adjusted for ties Cannot reject at alpha = 0.05
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK1_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.6700 AK1_blm N = 39 Median = 0.5000
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1700 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.3300
W = 876.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0018
The test is significant at 0.0013 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK2_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.4400 AK2_blm N = 39 Median = 0.3500
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1200 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.2300
W = 818.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0209
The test is significant at 0.0204 adjusted for ties
Mann-Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
AK3_sdh N = 22 Median = 0.7000 AK3_blm N = 39 Median = 0.5200
Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.1500 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.0000,0.1801
W = 834.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 ETA2 is significant at 0.0114
The test is significant at 0.0104 adjusted for ties
Lampiran 5 Korelasi antara Variabel Modal Sosial dengan Kepemilikan Rumah
Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations
1.000 .555 .353 .482 .445 .169 .233 .437 .510-.219 .371 .398 .174 .044 .389 .265 .300 . .000 .005 .000 .000 .194 .071 .000 .000 .090 .003 .002 .179 .737 .002 .039 .019
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .5551.000 .837 .471 .761 .604 .611 .694 .544 .065 .342 .294 .139 .127 .541 .678 .295
.000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .619 .007 .021 .286 .329 .000 .000 .021
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .353 .8371.000 .211 .377 .737 .796 .693 .472 .270 .155 .208 -.021 .057 .226 .452 .036
.005 .000 . .103 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .035 .233 .108 .873 .661 .080 .000 .783
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .482 .471 .211 1.000 .390 .160 .193 .282 .244 -.248 .365 .401 .728 .398 .247 .318 .260
.000 .000 .103 . .002 .217 .136 .028 .058 .054 .004 .001 .000 .002 .055 .012 .043
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .445 .761 .377 .3901.000 .375 .245 .427 .320-.197 .326 .189 .125 .092 .758 .739 .531
.000 .000 .003 .002 . .003 .057 .001 .012 .129 .010 .145 .335 .479 .000 .000 .000
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .169 .604 .737 .160 .3751.000 .652 .552 .171 -.055 .079 .268-.023 .084 .241 .413 .059
.194 .000 .000 .217 .003 . .000 .000 .188 .671 .545 .037 .863 .518 .062 .001 .652
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .233 .611 .796 .193 .245 .6521.000 .491 .168 .098 .025 .214 .007 .042 .154 .364-.071
.071 .000 .000 .136 .057 .000 . .000 .197 .453 .849 .098 .955 .749 .236 .004 .587
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .437 .694 .693 .282 .427 .552 .4911.000 .299-.010 .038 .347 .018 .055 .251 .419 .230
.000 .000 .000 .028 .001 .000 .000 . .019 .941 .770 .006 .892 .673 .051 .001 .074
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .510 .544 .472 .244 .320 .171 .168 .2991.000 -.093 .415-.037 .062 .179 .123 .241 .323
.000 .000 .000 .058 .012 .188 .197 .019 . .478 .001 .775 .635 .168 .343 .061 .011
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 -.219 .065 .270-.248 -.197 -.055 .098 -.010 -.093 1.000 -.123 -.081 -.088 -.321-.188 -.131 -.153
.090 .619 .035 .054 .129 .671 .453 .941 .478 . .344 .536 .499 .012 .146 .314 .241
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .371 .342 .155 .365 .326 .079 .025 .038 .415-.123 1.000 .111 -.083 .067 .279 .151 .240
.003 .007 .233 .004 .010 .545 .849 .770 .001 .344 . .396 .527 .609 .029 .244 .063
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .398 .294 .208 .401 .189 .268 .214 .347-.037 -.081 .111 1.000 .001 -.326 .375 .090 -.114
.002 .021 .108 .001 .145 .037 .098 .006 .775 .536 .396 . .994 .010 .003 .488 .383
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .174 .139 -.021 .728 .125 -.023 .007 .018 .062 -.088 -.083 .001 1.000 .294 .027 .143 .115
.179 .286 .873 .000 .335 .863 .955 .892 .635 .499 .527 .994 . .022 .839 .272 .378
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .044 .127 .057 .398 .092 .084 .042 .055 .179 -.321 .067 -.326 .2941.000 -.188 .158 .320
.737 .329 .661 .002 .479 .518 .749 .673 .168 .012 .609 .010 .022 . .147 .225 .012
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .389 .541 .226 .247 .758 .241 .154 .251 .123 -.188 .279 .375 .027 -.188 1.000 .402 .086
.002 .000 .080 .055 .000 .062 .236 .051 .343 .146 .029 .003 .839 .147 . .001 .512
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .265 .678 .452 .318 .739 .413 .364 .419 .241 -.131 .151 .090 .143 .158 .4021.000 .148
.039 .000 .000 .012 .000 .001 .004 .001 .061 .314 .244 .488 .272 .225 .001 . .256
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 .300 .295 .036 .260 .531 .059 -.071 .230 .323-.153 .240 -.114 .115 .320 .086 .148 1.000
.019 .021 .783 .043 .000 .652 .587 .074 .011 .241 .063 .383 .378 .012 .512 .256 .
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 Correlatio
Sig. 2-ta N
Correlatio Sig. 2-ta
N Correlatio
Sig. 2-ta N
Correlatio Sig. 2-ta
N Correlatio
Sig. 2-ta N
Correlatio Sig. 2-ta
N Correlatio
Sig. 2-ta N
Correlatio Sig. 2-ta
N Correlatio
Sig. 2-ta N
Correlatio Sig. 2-ta
N Correlatio
Sig. 2-ta N
Correlatio Sig. 2-ta
N Correlatio
Sig. 2-ta N
Correlatio Sig. 2-ta
N Correlatio
Sig. 2-ta N
Correlatio Sig. 2-ta
N Correlatio
Sig. 2-ta N
RUM IMS
MSD MSD
MSA DS1
DS2 DS3
DS4 DS5
DK1 DK2
DK3 DK4
AK1 AK2
AK3 Spearm
RUMAHIMSMMSDSMSDKMSAK DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DK1 DK2 DK3 DK4 AK1 AK2 AK3
Correlation is significant at the .01 level 2-tailed. .
Correlation is significant at the .05 level 2-tailed. .
Lampiran 6. Hasil Analisis Regresi Logit SPSS 10 Pengaruh Modal Sosial Masyarakat terhadap Kepemilikan Rumah Tanpa Memasukkan
Faktor NGO
Logistic Regression
Case Processing Summary
61 100.0
.0 61
100.0 .0
61 100.0
Unweighted Cases
a
Included in Analysis Missing Cases
Total Selected Cases
Unselected Cases Total
N Percent
If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of cases.
Kategori