Modelling the Spatial Distribution Differences of Compulsory Education Resource

Table 5

Multiple comparisons with the Tukey HSD method.

Dependent variable	(I) grouping	(J) grouping	Mean difference (I − J)	95% confidence interval
				Sig.	Lower bound	Upper bound
H1CV	High	Middle	0.608	0.000	0.423	0.792
		Low	1.171	0.000	0.992	1.350
	Middle	Low	0.563	0.000	0.412	0.714
H2CV	High	Middle	0.197	0.000	0.078	0.316
		Low	0.412	0.000	0.296	0.527
	Middle	Low	0.215	0.000	0.117	0.313
D1CV	High	Middle	0.709	0.000	0.565	0.853
		Low	1.295	0.000	1.147	1.444
	Middle	Low	−0.709	0.000	−0.853	−0.565
D2CV	High	Middle	0.053	0.516	−0.061	0.167
		Low	0.171	0.002	0.053	0.288
	Middle	Low	−0.053	0.516	−0.167	0.061

The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. There were significant differences between the groups except for the middle and low groups of D2CV , while D2CV was only 3/8 of resource indicators for junior secondary schools. Therefore, it demonstrated spatial differences in the distribution equilibrium of compulsory education resources in the district/county.