PRACTICUM REPORT

WORK SYSTEM DESIGN AND ERGONOMICS

REACTION TIME

Group

: IP 11

Kukuh Faedlur Rahman

: (14522125)
Sofyan Ali (14522435)

Name

Class

: IP A

Assistant

: Aulia Izzatur (E-100)

Date of
Practicum

: June 30th, 2016

Day of
Practicum

: Monday

Day of
Submission

Monday, June
6th, 2016

Yogyakarta, June 6th 2016

Assessment Criteria
Format
Calculation
Analysis
Recommendation
TOTAL

:
:
:
:
:

(max. 10)
(max. 35)
(max. 30)
(max. 25)

Assistant
( Aulia Izzatur )

WORK SYSTEM DESIGN AND ERGONOMIC LABORATORY

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM INDONESIA
2016

CHAPTER 4
REACTION TIME
4.1.

Practicum Purposes

International Program
Even 2015/2016
1. Students are able to understand reaction time toward visual display.
2. Students are able to understand the concept of long-term and short-term
memory.
3. Students are able to analyze the long-term and short-term memory of person.
4. Have a capable to compare the reaction time toward stimulus of male and
female using hypothesis testing.
4.2.

Practicum Assignment
1. Take the data using visual tools to determine the reaction time of operator,
then compare the results with the average students in one small classroom.
2. To test the difference by using SPSS to know there are differences on the
results obtained.
3. Take the data using chunk method to determine the short-term memory
capacity of operators, and then compare the results with the average students
in one small class of the opposite sex by using a graph.

4.3.

Output
4.3.1. Description
In this practicum, observer would like to calculate the Recommended
Weight Limit to the operator which doing a Manual Material Handling,
which is lifting. The data below is the data of the main operator and the
activity which done by the operator that involved in this research.
Name
: Kukuh Faedlur Rahman
Age
: 18
Gender
: Male
Activities :
a. Number Chunk Test
b. Color Chunk Test
b. Letter Chunk Test
c. Word Chunk Test
d. Figure Chunk Test
e. Visual Reaction Time Test
f. Auditory Reaction Time Test
In this practicum, the operator did some test such as visual test and chunk
test. In visual test, the operator record the test results using the reaction
speed measuring device, the operator was seeing colors and then pressing
the corresponding key tool of the same color and note how many times the
speed obtained by the operator. While chunk test is consist of some test
such as number chunk, letter chunk, word chunk, figure chunk, and color
chunk.

International Program
Even 2015/2016
In number chunk test, the operator was given some number in a short
period. Letter chunk test was a test by give the operator some letter in a
short period. Word chunk test is a test by give the operator some word in a
short period then the operator have to write it down. Figure chunk test is a
test that was given to the operator in a short period, the operator should
remember all the picture and write it down. The last test is color chunk.
Color chunk test is test conducted that operator see a random color on short
period and write down the name of written color.
4.3.2. Data Collection
a. Visual and Auditory Data
Visual test is a test which is the operator was given state of seeing
colors and then pressing the corresponding key tool of the same color.
From the test that already did by the operator, the observer get the
result:
Table 4.1 Visual Reaction Time Test Result (in Second)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

IP-11 IP-12 IP-13 IP-14 IP-15 IP-16 IP-17 IP-18 IP-19 IP-20
0.59 0.38 0.58 0.28
0.44 0.44 1.08
0.67 0.33
0.8
0.46 0.37 0.73 0.37
0.41 0.39 0.73
0.73 0.54
0.44
0.29 0.44 0.38 0.43
0.47
0.2
0.33
0.77 0.65
0.46
1.47
0.2
0.43 0.78
0.45 0.43 0.33
0.52 0.55
0.43
0.96 0.38 0.48 0.68
0.91 0.34 1.18
0.43 0.28
0.38
0.42
0.4
0.41 0.65
0.58 0.44 0,48
0.31 0.35
1.15
0.84 0.35 0.46 0.54
0.21 0.43 0.24
0.38 0.59
0.39
0.46 0.38 1.14 0.58
0.36 0.32 0.33
0.87 0.36
0.35
0.38 0.88 0.48 0.87
0.75 0.34 0.54
0.63 0.28
0.75
0.87 0.88 0.38 0.78
0.34 0.36 0.88
0.55 0.33
0.38
0.34 0.58 0.67 0.68
0.48 0.53 0.88
0.17 0.33
0.51
0.4
0.87 0.35 0.54
0.36 0.31 0.33
0.62 0.22
0.57
0.46 0.28
0.3
0.45
0.35 0.48 0.34
0.43 0.28
0.73
0.35 0.37 0.35 0.46
0.26 0.88
0.4
0.56 0.97
1.54
0.36 0.88
0.4
0.89
0.85 0.48 0.88
0.74
0.4
0.58
0.31 0.01 0.33 0.44
0.28 0.38 0.31
0.63 0.25
0.33
0.29 0.53 0.38 0.85
0.4
0.44 0.33
0.75 0.58
0.39
0.43 0.38 0.34 0.64
0.36 0.38 0.58
0.66
0.5
0.31
0.36 0.48 0.38 0.75
0.84 0.49 0.86
0.83 0.32
0.47
0.32 0.38
0.3
0.88
0.46 0.58 0.88
0.3
0.23
0.37
0.34 0.33 0.39 0.54
0.5
0.28 0.38
0.38 0.46
0.7
0.31 0.89 0.48 0.68
0.41 1.09 0.48
0.46 0.49
1.11

International Program
Even 2015/2016
No.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

IP-11 IP-12 IP-13 IP-14 IP-15 IP-16 IP-17 IP-18 IP-19 IP-20
0.4
0.3
0.38 0.83
0.45 0.39 0.58
0.57 0.22
0.38
0.28
0.3
0.85 0.58
0.61 0.33 0.88
0.62 0.72
0.4
0.38
0.8
0.39 0.54
0.48 0.41 0.43
0.81 0.86
0.38
0.38 0.88 0.43 0.58
0.83 0.41 0.64
0.43 0.57
0.54
0.35
0.3
0.89 0.85
1.04 0.38 0.38
0.66 0.55
0.31
0.42 0.33
1.3
0.53
0.97 0.33 0.38
0.54 0.31
0.44
0.48 0.01 0.92 0.68
0.87 0.49 0.33
0.5
0.22
0.97
0.36 0.88 0.95 0.58
0.38 0.38 0.85
0.61
0.3
0.36
The data that obtained from the operators data is in Green color. After
the researcher shows the result of visual reaction time in table above,
then the researcher will show the auditory reaction time result as shown
as table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Auditory Reaction Time Test Result (milliseconds)

No
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

IP-11 IP-12 IP-13 IP-14 IP-15 IP-16 IP-17 IP-18 IP-19

122
262
137
122
215
106
75
137
91
138
59
90
106
106
75
138
91
75
75
106
75
153
90
107
138

170
170
169
136
169
159
156
195
147
160
194
177
189
149
340
141
151
177
164
154
160
178
160
164
177

728
360
195
250
201
228
247
224
192
169
226
195
162
210
200
177
198
138
213
165
149
155
144
167
185

153
122
137
122
91
107
107
216
91
106
184
154
154
107
106
138
138
169
122
153
169
237
91
107
75

237
228
184
218
212
207
206
221
218
176
222
262
180
207
157
189
182
235
192
190
209
187
195
205
176

226
256
270
231
277
230
245
245
299
251
287
238
228
210
283
272
394
270
286
239
248
234
238
272
377

115
214
126
168
143
92
109
126
277
107
92
97
82
100
137
86
87
111
136
96
103
101
134
97
106

278
308
1055
286
291
244
328
243
279
351
289
221
244
219
244
218
862
698
187
190
159
147
157
221
161

144
184
164
156
172
160
176
252
186
168
284
184
180
123
208
140
159
196
132
256
159
155
183
180
208

IP-20
339
242
206
224
175
272
176
219
195
336
188
184
281
265
186
370
219
300
333
182
172
178
222
254
240

International Program
Even 2015/2016
No
.
26
27
28
29
30

IP-11 IP-12 IP-13 IP-14 IP-15 IP-16 IP-17 IP-18 IP-19

107
138
122
91
142

186
164
145
119
152

147
144
136
140
169

107
153
202
138
177

180
194
204
216
301

317
321
286
268
114

119
119
105
152
208

171
147
149
156
180

212
176
172
152
169

IP-20
277
179
183
193
193

b. Chunk Test Result

Chunk test is a test that consist of some test such as number chunk,
letter chunk, word chunk, figure chunk, and color chunk. In chunk test,
the operator was given some number, letter, word, figure and color in a
short period, the operator have to remember the numbers, letters,
words, figures and colors then take a note of the results. The result of
chunk test:
1) Number Chunk Test Result
Table 4.3 Number Chunk Test Result Table
No
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

IP-11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP-12 IP-13 IP-14

1.00
0.29
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.43
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.57
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
2) Letter Chunk Test

IP-15
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00

IP-16
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP-17
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP-18
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP-19
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP-20
0.60
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.43
1.00
1.00

Table 4.4 Letter Chunk Test Result Table

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IP-11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.86
0.63

IP14
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP15
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP16
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.29
1.00

IP17
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP18
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00

IP19
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

IP20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.86
0.25

International Program
Even 2015/2016
8
9
10
11
Total
Scor
e

1.00
1.00
0.55
0.58
10.13

0.56
0.50
0.36
1.00
9.42

0.67
0.30
0.55
0.17
8.16

0.56
1.00
1.00
1.00
10.56

1.00
0.50
0.91
0.25
9.66

0.56
0.30
0.55
0.50
8.19

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
11.00

0.77
1.00
0.54
0.58
9.74

1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
10.75

0.66
0.60
0.09
0.16
7.62

0.92

0.86

0.74

0.96

0.88

0.74

1.00

0.89

0.98

0.69

3) Word Chunk Test

Table 4.5 World Chunk Test Result Table
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

IP-11
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IP-12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IP-13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IP-14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IP-15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IP-16
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IP-17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IP-18
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IP-19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

IP-20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

International Program
Even 2015/2016
No.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Total
Score

IP-11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0.2

IP-12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.225

IP-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0.275

IP-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0.25

IP-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0.2

IP-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0.15

IP-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.225

IP-18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0.15

IP-19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0.35

IP-20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0.275

4) Figure Chunk Test

Table 4.6 Figure Chunk Test Result Table
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total
Score

IP-11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
13
0.65

IP-12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0.6

IP-13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0.5

IP-14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0.5

IP-15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0.6

IP-16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0.55

IP-17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0.65

IP-18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0.4

IP-19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
16
0.8

IP-20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.45

5) Color Chunk Test

Table 4.7 Color Chunk Test Result Table
No.

IP-11

IP-12

IP-13

IP-14

IP-15

IP-16

IP-17

IP-18

IP-19

IP-20

International Program
Even 2015/2016
No.

IP-11

IP-12

IP-13

IP-14

IP-15

IP-16

IP-17

IP-18

IP-19

IP-20

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Total
Score

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
0.96

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
0.88

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
22
0.88

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1

4.3.3. Data Processing

a. Visual Reaction Time Processing
To measure the comparison between visual reaction time processing
between female and male operator using independence sample t-test,
observer did the test of normality with 95% of significance level.
Table 4. 8 Visual Normality Test
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic
Male_Visual

.111

df

Shapiro-Wilk
Sig.

30

.200*

Statistic
.972

Df

Sig.
30

.606

International Program
Even 2015/2016
Female_Visual

.184

30

.061

.892

30

.005

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Based on the table above, it can be seen that the significance value of
the data is reached >0.05, which means the data is normally distributed
and can be continued to T-test.
Table 4. 9 Visual Statistics
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean
Pair 1

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Male_Visual

.5337

30

.07898

.01442

Female_Visual

.4347

30

.19335

.03530

Kata katain disini jon maksudnya female lebih reaktif soalnya

lebih rendah rata ratanya.

Table 4.10 Visual T-Test Result

Paired Samples Test
Sig. (2Paired Differences

df

tailed)

95% Confidence

Mean
Pair Male_Visual 1

Female_Visual

.09900

Std.

Interval of the

Std.

Error

Difference

Deviation

Mean

.21303

.03889

Lower
.01945

Upper
.17855 2.545

29

.016

From the table 4.10, it can be seen that significance level is 0.016,
which is less than 0.05. Therefore, it is apparent that there is no
significance difference between female and male reaction.
b. Auditory Reaction Time Processing

International Program
Even 2015/2016
Independence sample t-test is used to measure the comparison between
auditory reaction time processing between female and male operator,
observer use 95% of significance level.
Table 4. 11 Auditory Normality Test
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic

df

Shapiro-Wilk
Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

Male_Auditory

.233

30

.075

.821

30

.000

Female_Auditory

.196

30

.035

.899

30

.008

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Based on the table above, it can be seen that the significance value of
the data is reached >0.05, which means the data is normally distributed
and can be continued to T-test.
Table 4. 12 Auditory Statistics
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean
Pair 1

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Male_Auditory

194.1513

30

30.74852

5.61389

Female_Auditory

179.6667

30

35.76488

6.52974

Table 4. 13 Auditory T-Test Result

Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence

Mean
Pair Male_Auditory 1

Female_Auditory

Std.

Interval of the

Std.

Error

Difference

Deviation

Mean

14.48467 49.26587

Lower

Upper

Sig. (2t

8.99468 -3.91151 32.88084 1.610

df
29

tailed)
.118

From the table 4.13, it can be seen that significance level is 0.118,
which is less than 0.05. Therefore, it is apparent that there is a
significance difference between female and male reaction.

International Program
Even 2015/2016
c. Chunk Processing
1) Number Chunk Test
The table below is the result of the operator and the average result of
10 operators who did the number chunk test for 11 pattern of numbers.
Table 4. 14 Number Chunk Test Average
No
.

IP-11

IP-12

IP-13

IP-14

IP-15

IP-16

IP-17

IP-18

IP-19

IP-20

1.00

1.00

0.29

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.60

Averag
e
0.89

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.43

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.94

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.43

0.94

10

1.00

1.00

0.57

1.00

0.67

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.92

11

1.00

1.00

0.50

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.95

After observer obtained the average of each number in number

chunk test, observer comparing the data between the main operator and
the average data. The comparison graph is shown below.

Number chunk score comparison

Average
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.82

Operator

Figure 4.1 Number Chunk Score Comparison

*Jelasin kalo operatornya selalu lebih tinggi dari rata rata
2) Letter Chunk Test

10

11

International Program
Even 2015/2016
The table below is the result of the operator and the average result of
10 operators who did the letter chunk test for 11 pattern of letters.
Table 4. 15 Letter Chunk Test Average
No.

IP-11

IP-12

IP-13

IP-14

IP-15

IP-16

IP-17

IP-18

IP-19

IP-20

Average

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.86

1.00

1.00

0.29

1.00

0.85

1.00

0.86

0.89

1.00

1.00

0.63

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.25

0.89

1.00

0.56

0.67

0.56

1.00

0.56

1.00

0.77

1.00

0.66

0.78

1.00

0.50

0.30

1.00

0.50

0.30

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.60

0.72

10

0.55

0.36

0.55

1.00

0.91

0.55

1.00

0.54

1.00

0.09

0.65

11

0.58

1.00

0.17

1.00

0.25

0.50

1.00

0.58

0.75

0.16

0.60

After observer obtained the average of each number in letter

chunk test, observer comparing the data between the main operator and
the average data. The comparison graph is shown below.

LETTER chunk score comparison

Average

Operator

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Figure 4. 2 Letter Chunk Score Comparison

*Jelasin DUL
d) Word Chunk Test

10

11

International Program
Even 2015/2016
The data below is the result of the operator and the average result of 10
operators who did the word chunk test.
Table 4. 16 Word Chunk Test Average
Total
Score
Average

IP-11
8
0.2
0.23

IP-12
9
0.225

IP-13
11
0.275

IP-14
10
0.25

IP-15
8
0.2

IP-16
6
0.15

IP-17
9
0.225

IP-18
6
0.15

IP-19
14
0.35

After observer obtained the average of all operators in word

chunk test, observer comparing the data between the main operator and
the average data. The comparison graph is shown below.
0.25

0.23
0.2

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Word Chunk Test Comparison

Operator

Average

Figure 4.3 Word Chunk Test Comparison

From the figure 4.3 above, it can be seen that the result of word
chunk test comparison of the main operator is lower than the average
of another 9 operators. The word chunk test of the operator only
reaches 0.2, while the average word chunk test reaches 0.23.
e) Figure Chunk Test
The data below is the result of the operator and the average result
of 10 operators who did the figure chunk test.
Table 4. 17 Figure Chunk Test Average
Total
Score
Average

IP-11
13
0.65
0.57

IP-12
12
0.6

IP-13
10
0.5

IP-14
10
0.5

IP-15
12
0.6

IP-16
11
0.55

IP-17
13
0.65

IP-18
8
0.4

IP-19
16
0.8

IP-20
9
0.45

IP-20
11
0.275

International Program
Even 2015/2016

After observer obtained the average of all operators in figure

chunk test, observer comparing the data between the main operator
and the average data. The comparison graph is shown below.
0.7

0.65
0.57

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Figure Chunk Test Comparison

Operator

Average

Figure 4. 4 Figure Chunk Score Comparison

From the figure 4.4, it can be seen that the result of figure
chunk test comparison of the main operator is higher than the
average of another 9 operators. The figure chunk test of the
operator reaches 0.65, while the average word chunk test reaches
0.57.
f) Color Chunk Test
The data below is the result of the operator and the average result
of 10 operators who did the color chunk test.
Table 4. 18 Color Chunk Test Average
Total
Score
Average

IP-11
24
0.96
0.972

IP-12
25
1

IP-13
22
0.88

IP-14
25
1

IP-15
25
1

IP-16
25
1

IP-17
25
1

IP-18
22
0.88

IP-19
25
1

IP-20
25
1

After observer obtained the average of all operators in color

chunk test, observer comparing the data between the main operator
and the average data. The comparison graph is shown below.

International Program
Even 2015/2016
0.97

0.96

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Color Chunk Test Comparison

Operator

Average

Figure 4. 5 Color Chunk Comparison

Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the result of color
chunk test comparison of the main operator is lower than the
average of another 9 operators. The color chunk test of the operator
reaches 1, while the average word chunk test reaches 0.96.
4.4. Data Analysis
a. Analysis of Visual and Auditory Result
Analisis jon slsein
b. Analysis of Chunk Result
Ini juga jon
4.5. Conclusion
Ini jon terakhir