Holy Angel University

Angeles City

Assignment 2
Business Statistics
1. Using the hatco.sav data (see attachment), perform the following:
1.1. Test whether the usage level (x9) variable in the hatco.com data (see attachment)
is normally distributed or not. State the null hypothesis. Use = .05.
Table 1.1 Test of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic
Usage
Level

.079

df
100

Sig.

Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic

.131

.985

df
100

Sig.
.320

Graph 1.1 Normality Graph

H0 : (KS = .079, df = 100, p = .131) The distribution of Usage Level is normal with
mean 46.100 and standard deviation 8.99.
1

Assignment 2 | Jayson Pascual

1.2. Test if the variances of usage level(x9) are equal across firm size(x8). That
is, test if the variances of usage level for small and large firms are identical. State the
null hypothesis. Use = .05.
Table 1.2 ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

Between Groups

1066.667

1066.667

Within Groups

6932.333

98

70.738

Total

7999.000

99

F
15.079

Sig.
.000

Graph 1.2.1 Mean of usage level

H0: (df = 1, F = 15.079, p = .000) The distribution of usage level is not identical
across categories of firm size.
2. Using the variables in the hatco.sav data, address the following research questions. State the
null hypothesis for each research question. Use = .05.
2.1. Is there a significant difference in the satisfaction level (x10) of the customers
between the large and small firms (X8)? Use two-independent samples Ttest. Present
the data using the standard format (e.g. APA format). Interpret the results.
Table 2.1 Satisfaction Level.
Firm Size
Large
60
40
61.09
34.61

Small
n
Mean Rank
2

Assignment 2 | Jayson Pascual

Table 2.1 Shows there is a significant difference in the satisfaction level of the
customer between the small firm (Mdm = 61.09) has a larger satisfaction level
than Large firm (Mdm = 34.61).
2.2. Use the Mann-Whitney U Test to address the Research Question 2.1. Interpret the
results.
Table 2.2 Satisfaction Level
Satisfaction Level
Mann-Whitney U
Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

564.500
-4.476
.000

a. Grouping Variable: Firm Size

Table 2.2 Shows the Small firm size has significantly higher mean rank in
satisfaction level compare to Large firm (U = 564.50, Z = -4.476, p =.000).
2.3. Do the satisfaction level of the customers differ significantly when they are
grouped according to type of buying situation (X14)? Use one-way ANOVA. Present the
data using the standard format (e.g. APA format). Interpret the results.
Table 2.3 Satisfaction Level group into buying situation
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

2
97
99

Mean Square
2749.383
25.776

F
106.666

Sig.
.000

Graph 2.3 Satisfaction level groups into buying situation

Assignment 2 | Jayson Pascual

Table 2.3 Show there is significant difference when it grouped according to type
of buying situation.(df = 2, F = 106.666, p = .00).
2.4. Is there a significant relationship between satisfaction level of the customers and
their perception on the following:
2.4.1. Delivery speed?
2.4.2. Price flexibility?
2.4.3. Manufactures image?
State the null hypothesis. Use = .05.
Table 2.4 Satisfaction level correlations
Satisfaction
Delivery Speed
Satisfaction Level

Level

.651**

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

100

Manufacturer
Price Flexibility
1

100

Image

.525**

.476**

.000

.000

100

100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

2.4.1 Between satisfaction level and delivery speed:

H0: There is a significant correlations between the delivery speed (r=.651, p =.000) and
satisfaction level.
2.4.2 Between satisfaction and price flexibility.
H0: There is a significant correlations between the price flexibility (r=.525, p =.000)
and satisfaction level.
2.4.3 Between satisfaction and manufacturer image:
H0: There is a significant correlations between the manufacturer image (r=.651, p
=.000) and satisfaction level.
3. A public opinion poll surveyed a simple random sample of 2000 adults. Respondents were
classified by gender (male or female) and by performance rating of the Philippine Government
(poor, satisfactory, good, and excellent) in resolving the crisis in the country. Results are
shown in the contingency table below.
Performance Rating
Poor
Gender

Total

Satisfactory

Good

Total
Excellent

Male

40

200

250

100

590

Female

60

250

500

600

1410

100

450

750

700

2000

Perform a chi-square analysis. Use an appropriate coefficient to measure the strength of

the relationship between the variables (if any). Interpret the results.
4

Assignment 2 | Jayson Pascual

Table 3.1 Chi-square test

Asymp. Sig. (2Value

df

sided)

.000

Likelihood Ratio

144.471

.000

Linear-by-Linear Association

117.692

.000

Pearson Chi-Square

136.833

N of Valid Cases

2000

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 29.50.

Table 3.1 X2 = 136.833, p = .000. Since p < .05 there is significant association between
gender and performance rating. Therefore, gender is not independent on performance rating it
is dependent.
Table 3.2 Symmetric Measures
Value
Cramer's V

Approx. Sig.

.262

N of Valid Cases

.000

2000

Table 3.2 V = .262, p = .000. Since p < .05 therefore, ther is significant effect between
gender and performance rating.
4. With reference to the opinion poll in #3 above, the respondents were classified by education
(no education, Elementary, High School, College) and by performance rating of the Philippine
Government (poor, satisfactory, good, and excellent) in resolving the crisis in the country.
Results are shown in the contingency table below.
Performance Rating
Poor
Education Level

Satisfactory

Good

Excellent

Total

No Education

10

50

60

20

140

Elementary

30

150

190

80

450

High School

40

100

240

300

680

College

20

150

260

300

730

100

450

750

700

2000

Total

Perform a chi-square analysis. Use an appropriate coefficient to measure the strength of

the relationship between the variables (if any). Interpret the results.

Table 4.1 Chi-Square Test

5

Assignment 2 | Jayson Pascual

Asymp. Sig. (2Value

Pearson Chi-Square

df
9

.000

161.382

.000

85.751

.000

150.757

Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

sided)

2000

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 7.00.

Table 4.1 X2 = 150.757, p = .000. Since p < .05 there is significant association between
education level and performance rating. Therefore, education level is not independent on
performance rating it is dependent.
Table 4.2 Symmetric Measures
Value
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases

.159

Approx. Sig.
.000

2000

Table 4.2 V = .159, p = .000. Since p < .05 therefore, there is significant effect between
education level and performance rating.

Assignment 2 | Jayson Pascual