Somaiya Institute of Management and Research Studies

Business research Methods

PGDM-A&B , II Trimester
Time: 3 hours MM: 50
Note:
Attempt any 3 questions. All are compulsory
Use of calculators is allowed
Take assumptions where ever necessary and make a note of it.

Q1 Explain briefly Research Process using your own BRM project as an example. (10 marks)

Q2In the following situations, decide whether you would use:

Primary data (personal interview/Telephonesurvey / self-administered questionnaire) or
Secondary data.
Suggest the appropriate sampling technique.
Give your reasons. (15 marks)

1. A poll of students at Mumbai University on their preferences among three candidates

who are running for presidency of the student union.

2. A survey of 58 wholesale grocery companies scattered over all India, on their

personnel management policies for wholesale personnel. This assigned task is to be
completed within short duration of time.

3. A survey of financial officers of the BSE 500 companies to learn their predictions for
the economic outlook in their industries in the next year.

4. Data is to be collected on a complicated issue of drug addicts.

5. Data about opening up a new company in a remote rural area.

Q3Mahesh Enterprise has a chain of high class restaurants in Punjab and Haryana serving High
quality multicusine food at premium prices. This company wants to open up a fast food joint
owing to the requirement of the youngsters. However before starting the joint, they want to
understand the preference of the people on various parameters namely: Age, income, gender. (10
marks)

On the basis of the given output comment about the relationship among the variable
showing the significant results
Frame hypothesis.
What is the type of scale required?

1
 Income

Observed N Expected N Residual

Low Income 26 33.3 -7.3

Middle Income 29 33.3 -4.3

High Income 45 33.3 11.7

Total 100

2
 Test Statistics

Preference
Redefined Income

Chi-Square .640a 6.260b

df 1 2

Asymp. Sig. .424 .044

Test Statistics

Preference
Redefined Age

Chi-Square .640a 61.320b

df 1 36

Asymp. Sig. .424 .005

Note:

(asymp sig (p) is less than alpha. So It is significant and we will accept alternate
hypothesis)

Chi-square value: the more the value, the more the chances to reject the null
hypothesis

Df(degree of freedom) = no. of observation -1

Preference
Redefined Gender

Chi-Square .640a .360a

df 1 1

Asymp. Sig. .424 .549

3
Q4.A Company wants to know the customers preference about the basic features of toothpaste.
Six parameters are taken at random and a sample of size 30 is taken were asked to rate the below
given parameters on a scale of 1-5, one being the least preferred and 5 being the most preferred..
Given below is the result of factor analysis to reduce and summarize the factors which a
customer look for before buying a tooth paste. Answer the following question on the basis of the
given output: (10 marks)

1. Explain if the sample size is sufficient to run a factor analysis

2. Is the scale appropriate to run a factor analysis?
3. Is the variance explained is sufficient to run factor analysis.
4. Interpret the factors obtained and summarize the results.
5. Comment on the significance of the correlation matrix to verify results.
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of The KMO: Greater the better (more than

.660
Sampling Adequacy. 0.5 prefereable)

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi- More than 0.5 shows that we have good
111.314
Sphericity Square sample
df 15 Sig(P) should be less than 0.05. This
Sig. .000 means factor analysis meets the criteria
Communalities

Extractio
Initial n

PREVENTS
1.000 .926
CAVITIES
SHINY TEETH 1.000 .723
STRENGTHEN
1.000 .894
GUMS
FRESHENS
1.000 .739
BREATH
PREVENTS
1.000 .878
TOOTH DECAY
ATTRACTIVE
1.000 .790
TEETH

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

4
 Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Componen % of Cumulative % of Cumulative

t Total Variance % Total Variance %

1 2.731 45.520 45.520 2.731 45.520 45.520

2 2.218 36.969 82.488 2.218 36.969 82.488
3 .442 7.360 89.848
4 .341 5.688 95.536
5 .183 3.044 98.580
6 .085 1.420 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

ComponentMatrix(a)

Component http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/output/factor1.htm
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
1 2
SPENDING AND EDUCATIONAL
PREVENTS ACHIEVEMENT (10 marks)
.928 .253
CAVITIES
Q5.Is the educational achievement level of students
SHINY TEETH -.301 .795
related to how much the state in which they reside
STRENGTHEN spends on education? In many communities tax
.936 .131
GUMS payers are asking this important question as school
districts request the tax revenue increase for
FRESHENS
-.342 .789 education. Analyze the data on spending and
BREATH
achievement scores in order to determine whether
PREVENTS there is any relationship between both in case of
-.869 -.351
TOOTH DECAY public schools.

ATTRACTIVE The federal governments national assessment of

-.177 .871
TEETH national progress (NAEP) program is frequently
used to measure the educational achievement of
students. Table 1.1 shows the total current spending per pupil per year, and the total NAEP score
for 35 states that participated in NAEP program. The composite test score is the sum of Math,
Science, and reading scores achieved last year. Pupils tested are in grade 8 and the maximum
possible score is 1300. 13 states that did not participate in relevant NAEP surveys. These data
were reported in the article on spending and achievement level appearing in Forbes (Nov 3,
2013)

5
Table 1.1

State Spending Composite Spending Composite

per Pupil ($) Score per Pupil ($) Score

Louisiana 4,049 581 North 4,521 629

Carolina
Mississippi 3,423 582 Rhode Island 6,554 638
California 4,917 580 Washington 5,338 639
Hawaii 5,532 580 Missouri 4,483 641
South 4,304 603 Colorado 4,772 644
Carolina
Alabama 3,777 604 Indiana 5,128 649
Georgia 4,663 611 Utah 3,280 650
Florida 4,934 611 Wyoming 5,515 657
New Mexico 4,097 614 Connecticut 7,629 657
Arkansas 4,060 615 Massachusett 6,413 658
s
Delaware 6,208 615 Nebraska 5,410 660
Tennessee 3,800 618 Minnesota 5,477 661
Arizona 4,041 618 Iowa 5,060 665
West Virginia 5,247 625 Montana 4,985 667
Maryland 6,100 625 Wisconsin 6,055 667
Kentucky 5,020 626 North Dakota 4,374 671
Texas 4,520 627 Maine 5,561 675
New York 8,162 628

Composite
Score
700
Composite
650 Score
f(x) = 0.02x + 541.3
600 Linear (Composite
ccompisite score R = 0.11
Score)
550

500
2,000 4,000 6,000

spending per pupil

6
Table 1.2(spending between 4000-6000)

State Spending Composite State Spendin Composit

per Pupil ($) Score g e
per Score
Pupil
($)
Louisiana 4,049 581 North 4,521 629
Carolina
California 4,917 580 Washingto 5,338 639
n
Hawaii 5,532 580 Missouri 4,483 641
South 4,304 603 Colorado 4,772 644
Carolina
Georgia 4,663 611 Indiana 5,128 649
Florida 4,934 611 Wyoming 5,515 657
New 4,097 614 Nebraska 5,410 660
Mexico
Arkansas 4,060 615 Minnesota 5,477 661
Arizona 4,041 618 Iowa 5,060 665
West 5,247 625 Montana 4,985 667
Virginia
Kentucky 5,020 626 North 4,374 671
Dakota
Texas 4,520 627 Maine 5,561 675

Scatter plot

7
 Composite
Score
700
Composite
650 Score
f(x) = 0.01x + 587.32
600 R = 0.12 Linear (Composite
composite score Score)
550

500
0 5,000 10,000

spending per pupil

Managerial Report: (10 marks)

1. Develop numerical and graphical summaries of data.

2. Use regression analysis to investigate the relationship between amounts spent per pupil
and the composite score on NAEP test. Discuss your findings.

8
 3. Do you think that this estimated regression model developed for these data could be used
to estimate the test score for the states that did not participate in the NAEP program?
4. Suppose you consider the states that spend at least $4000 per pupil but not more than
$6000 per pupil (table 1.2). For these states does the relationship between the two
variables appear to be different than for the complete data set? Discuss the results of your
findings and whether you think deleting the aforesaid states is appropriate?
5. Developing the estimates of composite test scores for the states that did not participate in
NAEP program is a worthwhile proposition? Comment on the basis of data available.
6. Based on your analysis, do you think that the educational achievement level of student is
related to how much the state spends on education?

Q6.Perception of people about ban on plastic bags in Delhi (10 marks)

Plastic bags play an integral role in our day today life. Be it carrying grosser from the local
market (Kirana Store) or storing of the household article in a poly bag. The omnipresence of this
utility object brought to the force an impending problem that needed to be resolved. The problem
associated with plastic bag is that they are non-biodegradable and in fact take a close to 60 years
to decompose. Apart fromthat there are different problems like drain clogging and death of
castles etc. this prompted the Delhi government to finally take a notice and introduce a blanket
ban on plastic bags in 2008. The storage and sale of plastic bags is banned and a penalty of Rs. 1,
00,000 or five years of imprisonment or both.

The officials empowered to enforce ban are the staff of the health and environment department.
Food and supply officers and sub divisional magistrates are also empowered to enforce the ban.

The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) has been assigned the task of implementation. It
has formed a special inspection team for the purpose. The team would visit the retailers and the
manufacturing unit and would initiate the punishment to the violators. The scope of this ban has
been widened by including four star hotels under its preview. The imposition of this wide span
ban at that time prompted the researcher to analyze the impact of this ban and its effectiveness
from the perspective of both the consumer and vendor. They first checked whether the consumer
and the vendor are aware of this ban or not. Along with that they analyzed the preference,
choices and willingness of the consumers and vendors from the diverse backgrounds to switch to
the eco-friendly alternatives so as to ascertain the effectiveness of the ban on the plastic bags. In
a survey conducted in Delhi to understand the perception of the consumers about the plastic bags
ban. The statements related to the respondents perception are listed below:

What are your views about plastic bags since ban? (Rate it on a scale of 1-5)

9
parameters 1Strongly 2Moderately 3Neutral 4Moderately 5Strongly
agree agree disagree Disagree
Plastic bag is a must
when buying a
groceries/veg.
(X12a)
Plastic bag is
harmful for the
environment(X12b)
I do not wish to quit
using plastic
bags(X12c)
I try to avoid plastic
bags (X12d)
Plastic bag ban is
not enforced
properly (X12e)
Paper bag is not a
useful substitute for
plastic bag(X12f)

Managerial Implications:

1. Write 3 objectives of the study conducted above.

2. What are the possible hypotheses?
3. By using the one sample t test, identify, the parameters of the plastic bags ban on which
consumer has a favorable opinion (hint: test the null hypothesis H0: Average rating=3
against an appropriate alternative hypothesis)
4. All the respondents are divided into two groups and by taking respondents aged 30 and
below as the younger respondent and those who are age 31 and above as the older
respondents. Now statically examine on the basis of the output given about the views of
the younger and the older generation differs significantly.
5. What is the application of ANOVA in this case? Can it be used in this situation? Explain.
6. Would ANOVA give better results than a t test (as conducted in this case). Or either of
them can be used to explain the average difference.
7. Is it an action or basic research?
8. Suggest an appropriate sampling technique. What could be the type of errors that may
come up?
9. What is the relationship between sample size and standard error?
10. what is p value (significance value) in case of software generated outputs and how

10
 Table 1 - One-Sample Statistics

Std. Error
N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
[Plastic Bag is must
when buying 44 2.7955 1.37383 .20711
groceries/vegetables ]
[Plastic Bag is harmful
44 1.4091 .87120 .13134
for environment]
[I do not wish to quit
44 3.5000 1.15134 .17357
using Plastic Bags]
[I try to avoid Plastic
44 2.7727 1.13841 .17162
Bags as much as I can]
[Plastic Bag Ban is not
44 1.7955 .92960 .14014
enforced properly]
[Paper Bag is not a
useful substitute for 44 3.1591 1.32846 .20027
plastic bag ]

Table 2 - One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
[Plastic Bag is must
when buying -.988 43 .329 -.20455 -.6222 .2131
groceries/vegetables ]
[Plastic Bag is harmful
-12.113 43 .000 -1.59091 -1.8558 -1.3260
for environment]
[I do not wish to quit
2.881 43 .006 .50000 .1500 .8500
using Plastic Bags]
[I try to avoid Plastic
-1.324 43 .192 -.22727 -.5734 .1188
Bags as much as I can]
[Plastic Bag Ban is not
-8.595 43 .000 -1.20455 -1.4872 -.9219
enforced properly]
[Paper Bag is not a
useful substitute for .794 43 .431 .15909 -.2448 .5630
plastic bag ]

11
 Table 3 - Group Statistics

Std. Error
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
[Plastic Bag is must Male 31 2.9032 1.49119 .26783
when buying
groceries/vegetables ] Female 13 2.5385 1.05003 .29123
[Plastic Bag is harmful Male 31 1.4194 .95827 .17211
for environment] Female
13 1.3846 .65044 .18040

[I do not wish to quit Male 31 3.3548 1.17042 .21021

using Plastic Bags] Female 13 3.8462 1.06819 .29626
[I try to avoid Plastic Male 31 2.8387 1.24088 .22287
Bags as much as I can] Female 13 2.6154 .86972 .24122
[Plastic Bag Ban is not Male 31 1.8710 .95715 .17191
enforced properly] Female 13 1.6154 .86972 .24122
[Paper Bag is not a Male 31 3.2903 1.34644 .24183
useful substitute for Female 13 2.8462 1.28103 .35529
plastic bag ]

Table 4 - Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
[Plastic Bag is must Equal variances
5.327 .026 .800 42 .428 .36476 .45586 -.55520 1.28473
when buying assumed
groceries/vegetables ] Equal variances
.922 31.787 .364 .36476 .39566 -.44137 1.17090
not assumed
[Plastic Bag is harmful Equal variances
.331 .568 .119 42 .906 .03474 .29122 -.55297 .62245
for environment] assumed
Equal variances
.139 32.888 .890 .03474 .24933 -.47260 .54207
not assumed
[I do not wish to quit Equal variances
.192 .663 -1.302 42 .200 -.49132 .37740 -1.25293 .27030
using Plastic Bags] assumed
Equal variances
-1.352 24.628 .189 -.49132 .36326 -1.24005 .25742
not assumed
[I try to avoid Plastic Equal variances
3.195 .081 .589 42 .559 .22333 .37905 -.54163 .98828
Bags as much as I can] assumed
Equal variances
.680 31.926 .501 .22333 .32841 -.44569 .89234
not assumed
[Plastic Bag Ban is not Equal variances
.123 .727 .829 42 .412 .25558 .30829 -.36657 .87773
enforced properly] assumed
Equal variances
.863 24.733 .397 .25558 .29621 -.35480 .86596
not assumed
[Paper Bag is not a Equal variances
.841 .364 1.012 42 .317 .44417 .43883 -.44143 1.32977
useful substitute for assumed
plastic bag ] Equal variances
1.033 23.663 .312 .44417 .42978 -.44353 1.33187
not assumed

12
 Table 5 - Group Statistics

Std. Error
age_redefined N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
[Plastic Bag is must Younger respondent 40 2.8500 1.33109 .21046
when buying
groceries/vegetables ] Older Respondent 4 2.2500 1.89297 .94648
[Plastic Bag is harmful Younger respondent 40 1.3000 .68687 .10860
for environment] Older Respondent
4 2.5000 1.73205 .86603

[I do not wish to quit Younger respondent 40 3.5000 1.15470 .18257

using Plastic Bags] Older Respondent 4 3.5000 1.29099 .64550
[I try to avoid Plastic Younger respondent 40 2.7500 1.12660 .17813
Bags as much as I can] Older Respondent 4 3.0000 1.41421 .70711
[Plastic Bag Ban is not Younger respondent 40 1.7250 .93336 .14758
enforced properly] Older Respondent 4 2.5000 .57735 .28868
[Paper Bag is not a Younger respondent 40 3.2750 1.32021 .20874
useful substitute for Older Respondent 4 2.0000 .81650 .40825
plastic bag ]

Table 6 - Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
[Plastic Bag is must Equal variances
.424 .519 .830 42 .411 .60000 .72307 -.85921 2.05921
when buying assumed
groceries/vegetables ] Equal variances
.619 3.303 .576 .60000 .96960 -2.33142 3.53142
not assumed
[Plastic Bag is harmful Equal variances
7.588 .009 -2.833 42 .007 -1.20000 .42356 -2.05478 -.34522
for environment] assumed
Equal variances
-1.375 3.095 .260 -1.20000 .87281 -3.93003 1.53003
not assumed
[I do not wish to quit Equal variances
.000 1.000 .000 42 1.000 .00000 .61091 -1.23287 1.23287
using Plastic Bags] assumed
Equal variances
.000 3.497 1.000 .00000 .67082 -1.97293 1.97293
not assumed
[I try to avoid Plastic Equal variances
.025 .876 -.415 42 .680 -.25000 .60282 -1.46654 .96654
Bags as much as I can] assumed
Equal variances
-.343 3.392 .752 -.25000 .72920 -2.42612 1.92612
not assumed
[Plastic Bag Ban is not Equal variances
.597 .444 -1.620 42 .113 -.77500 .47854 -1.74074 .19074
enforced properly] assumed
Equal variances
-2.390 4.748 .065 -.77500 .32421 -1.62189 .07189
not assumed
[Paper Bag is not a Equal variances
7.508 .009 1.884 42 .067 1.27500 .67688 -.09100 2.64100
useful substitute for assumed
plastic bag ] Equal variances
2.781 4.749 .041 1.27500 .45852 .07733 2.47267
not assumed

13
 ANOVA

rating

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 124.699 4 31.175 25.305 .000

Within Groups 263.639 214 1.232

Total 388.338 218

14
 Multiple Comparisons

rating
Scheffe

95% Confidence Interval

Mean Difference
(I) parameters (J) parameters (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Boun

Plastic bag is a must when Plastic bag is harmful for the 1.38636* .23664 .000 .6511 2.1
buying a groceries/veg environment

I do not wish to quit using -.70455 .23664 .068 -1.4399 .0

plastic bags

I try to avoid plastic bags .02273 .23664 1.000 -.7126 .7

Plastic bag ban is not 1.00476* .23801 .002 .2652 1.7

enforced properly

Plastic bag is harmful for the Plastic bag is a must when -1.38636* .23664 .000 -2.1217 -.6
environment buying a groceries/veg

I do not wish to quit using -2.09091* .23664 .000 -2.8262 -1.3

plastic bags

I try to avoid plastic bags -1.36364* .23664 .000 -2.0989 -.6

Plastic bag ban is not -.38161 .23801 .633 -1.1212 .3

enforced properly

I do not wish to quit using Plastic bag is a must when .70455 .23664 .068 -.0308 1.4
plastic bags buying a groceries/veg

Plastic bag is harmful for the 2.09091* .23664 .000 1.3556 2.8
environment

I try to avoid plastic bags .72727 .23664 .054 -.0080 1.4

Plastic bag ban is not 1.70930* .23801 .000 .9697 2.4

enforced properly

I try to avoid plastic bags Plastic bag is a must when -.02273 .23664 1.000 -.7580 .7
buying a groceries/veg

Plastic bag is harmful for the 1.36364* .23664 .000 .6283 2.0
environment

I do not wish to quit using -.72727 .23664 .054 -1.4626 .0

plastic bags

Plastic bag ban is not .98203* .23801 .002 .2425 1.7

enforced properly

Plastic bag ban is not Plastic bag is a must when -1.00476* .23801 .002 -1.7443 -.2
enforced properly buying a groceries/veg
15
16