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.sk/wni/press/aceh/Rencana_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.edu/adass/proj/soscap.asp.
Cristoforou A. 2003. Social Capital and Economic Growth: The Case of Greece. London School of Economic: Paper for The 1st PhD Symposium on Social Science Research in Greece of The Hellenic Observatory. European Institute. asimina@aueb.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.edu/hier/2001/papers/2001list.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. dlmiller@ucklink.berkeley.edu.
Minguel E, Gertler P, Levine DI. 2002. Did Industrialization Destroy Social Capital in Indonesia. Harvard University dan World Bank. emiguel@ekon.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.it/feem/pub/publications/Wpapers/default.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.au/institute/pubs/stone2.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
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_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)
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_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
