CCJ29 statistics - open to bidding

Due By: Weighting: Instructions: “Dear student, 11:55pm Sunday Week 5 10% You need to complete the following task that was set by a fictitious absent-minded professor. You can find the dataset you need to analyse on the course website, in the course Assessments area. All you need to provide in your submission is the Data paragraph. DO NOT include the paragraphs already provided. Your assessment must be submitted through Turnitin and must follow the writing guidelines prescribed by the American Psychological Association (6th edn). Assessment 1 I’m just about to send the job satisfaction article off to the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. The article presents findings from our study that examines whether levels of job satisfaction vary by an officer’s rank. We interviewed sworn law enforcement officers from all seven state law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in Australia. Interviewees were classified as belonging to one of five ranks (i.e., Inspector, Superintendent, Commissioner, Constable, or Sergeant) and we established their level of job satisfaction using the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). We compared five ranks of officers from LEAs across Australia in terms of satisfaction levels and found significant differences. Anyway, in a last minute scan I noticed there’s a paragraph missing in the manuscript. Can you write it for me, please? You just need to send me the Data paragraph. Don’t send me any of the other paragraphs. Remember, this paragraph typically serves three main purposes. First, we need to describe the data in way that the reader is in a position to judge whether our sample is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon we’re talking about. If every study of job satisfaction shows geographic variation, but our sample is comprised of officers from only one state then our results may not be generalisable to the larger population of all Australia officers. Given that I’ve already written the Literature Review and described the samples of other studies there, you don’t need to make comments about them in your paragraph. We'll rely on interested readers to make the comparisons – but as I recall, there are no big differences. The second purpose of the Data is to flag whether there might be assumption violations for any inferential technique that we used in our analysis. However, we don’t have to make comments about particular violations (if found) in the Data paragraph. Again, we can save that discussion for the Methods section. Regardless, I don’t think there were any issues of this kind in our study. The final purpose of the Data paragraph is to comment on any data recording issues, like missing values, outliers, etc. No hurry, but I have to submit this for review by 8:00am Monday of Week 6. I’ve posted the other paragraphs to jog your memory. Toodle pip! Professor Rupert Hupplestick  JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY 1 Research Question Existing Paragraphs Given the research literature on job satisfaction and the vital role that law enforcement officers play in our society, it’s important to know what factors influence their feelings towards work. Therefore, the focus of this study is to examine the relationship between job satisfaction and officer rank. The research question we sought to answer was: Is there a difference in levels of job satisfaction among different ranks of Australian law enforcement officers? Data <your paragraph needs to go here> Methods Face-to-face interviews of law enforcement officers were conducted in 2015 to capture information that enabled us to test our research question. Spector’s (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), a well-accepted measure of job satisfaction, was used to gauge satisfaction levels. Officers were classified into one of five mutually exclusive groups, based on their rank: Inspector, Superintendent, Commissioner, Constable, or Sergeant. We also collected data on whether the officer was Australian born and their a