14 views

Uploaded by Ventzico

- vvxc
- solucionario estadística matematica con aplicaciones
- EXERCICES.doc
- 3. Production Process Characterization
- Geodetic Deformation Analysis
- AP STATISTICS Inference Take Home Test
- Tugas Quantitative Analysis 5 Hal 322.xlsx
- Statistics
- MBA133 Courseplan L
- Two Persons Zero Sum Games
- Anova
- zobel 1988.pdf
- Iqbal Jurnal Analisa Data
- An Ova
- Statistics Pdkt
- Marketing Research
- Model Stad Tehadap Hasil Belajar
- Stats_11_ANOVA.pdf
- iji_2019_3_10
- CRITERIA OF GOOD RESERCH

You are on page 1of 17

ASSIGNMENT 2

PART A

Question 1

Table 1 shows that the mean in the weekly income of the respondent is $367.20 with a

standard deviation of $120.839.

Mean = 367.20

Finite population:

=Y + 1.96

1

120.839 3000100

= 367.20 + 1.96

100 30001

= 367.20 + 19.341

= ($347.859, $386.541)

Conclusion

We are 95% confident that the mean of the income of the respondents is between $347.859

and $386.541.

Question 2

2a.

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Valid N (listwise) 57

2b.

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Valid N (listwise) 43

Table 2a show that the mean and standard deviation for male in income are $359.47 and $119.140.

For table 2b, it show that the mean and standard deviation for female are $377.44 and $123.714

N1 1

=

1600(359.47)+1400(377.44)

= 3000

1103568

= 3000

= 367.856

1 2

ST = 2 [ 11

1

]

= (1600)2 [ ] [ 57 ] + (1400)2 [ 14001 ] [ ]

3000 16001 43

1

= 3000 615173704.7 + 676686398.2

1

= 3000 (35942.455)

=11.981

c. The 95% confidence interval is calculated as below:

1.96

= 367.856 1.96 (11.981)

=367.856 13.941

= (353.915, 381.797)

Conclusion

We are 95 % confident that the mean income for the male respondents and female

respondents within the population is between 353.915 and 381.797.

Question 3

Valid N (listwise) 57

Table 5 shows the proportion of Male respondents for the mean has a positive respond 0.32

with a standard deviation 0.469.

The 95% confidence in the interval of proportion positive of male respondent to attitude is

calculated as below:

1.96 1

0.32(10.32) 160057

= 0.32 1.96

57 16001

= 0.32 0.119

= (0.201, 0.439)

Conclusion

We are 95% confident that the proportion of male customers in the population with positive

response is between 20.1% and 43.9%

Question 4A

Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test

Hypothesis

H0: The distributions of purchase in the month before being exposed to the advertising

campaign are the same as for Full-time workers and Part-time workers in the population of

customers

H1: The distributions of purchase in the month before being exposed to the advertising

campaign are not the same as for Full-time workers and Part-time workers in the population

of customers

N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

After 100 50.21 25.114 .730 .241 .706 .478

Valid N (listwise) 100

Table 6: Descriptive Statistic: Ranks

45 59.37 2671.50

Part time

55 43.25 2378.50

Before Full-time

100

Total

Table 7: Test Statisticsa

Before

Mann-Whitney U 838.500

Wilcoxon W 2378.500

Z -2.767

It can be observed that:

The significance of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test is 0.006, which is smaller than 0.05,

the level of significance for the test. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

The significant value of 0.006 indicates there is relatively strong evidence from the

sample to reject the null hypothesis.

Conclusion

At the 5% level of significance, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the

distributions of purchase in the month before being exposed to the advertising campaign

are not the same for Full-time workers and Part-time workers in the population of

customers.

Question 4B

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

Hypothesis

H0: The purchase in the month before the advertising exposure is the same as the month after

for the population of customers.

H1: The purchase in the month before the advertising exposure is not the same as the month

after for the population of customers.

Table 8: Ranks

Mean

N Sum of Ranks

Rank

AFTER - BEFORE

Ties 6c

Total 300

b. AFTER > BEFORE

c. AFTER = BEFORE

AFTER - BEFORE

Z -.706b

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .480

b. Based on negative ranks.

It can be observed that:

The significance of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test is 0.48, which is larger than 0.05,

the level of significance for the test. Therefore, we do not reject the null hypothesis.

The significant value of 0.48 indicates that there is insufficient evidence from the

sample to reject the null hypothesis.

Conclusion

purchase in the month before the advertising exposure is not the same as the month

after for the population of customers.

Question 5A

Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test

Hypothesis

H0: Positive, neutral and negative responses are equally likely among the population of part-time

workers.

H1: Positive, neutral and negative responses are not equally likely amongst the population of part-time

workers.

Observed N Expected N Residual

Neutral 20 33.3 -13.3

Negative 48 33.3 14.7

Total 100

SUCCESS

Chi-Square 11.840a

df 2

Asymp. Sig. .003

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 33.3.

Table 10 shows the Chi Square Goodness of Fit Test of the population of part-time workers response towards the

advertisement campaign.

The significance of Chi-Square Goodness of fit test is 0.003, which is smaller than 0.05, the level of significance

for the test. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

The significance value of 0.003 indicates that there is relatively strong evidence from the sample to reject the null

hypothesis.

Conclusion:

At 5% level of significance, there is adequate confirmation to conclude that the number of population of part-time workers

have no less than one contrast response toward the impact of the customer preferences towards the product range.

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Question 5B

Chi-Square Test of Independence

H0: Attitudes and the method of advertising campaign are independent.

H1: Attitudes and the method of advertising campaign are dependent.

a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.80.

The significance value is 0.690 which is higher than 0.05 which known as the level of

significance.

We do not reject null hypothesis, since the test found that attitudes and the method of

advertising campaign are independent.

Conclusion:

At 5% significance of level, there is sufficient evident to do not reject the null hypothesis that

attitude and success are independent.

Question 5C

Cross tabulate of SUCCESS with ADVERTISING methods

ADVERTISING

Total

Email Leaflets Newspaper Social Media

Count 6 10 6 10 32

Positive % within

31.6% 34.5% 24.0% 37.0% 32.0%

ADVERTISING

Count 3 8 6 3 20

SUCCESS Neutral % within

15.8% 27.6% 24.0% 11.1% 20.0%

ADVERTISING

% of Total 3.0% 8.0% 6.0% 3.0% 20.0%

Count 10 11 13 14 48

Negative % within

52.6% 37.9% 52.0% 51.9% 48.0%

ADVERTISING

Count 19 29 25 27 100

Total % within

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ADVERTISING

% of Total 19.0% 29.0% 25.0% 27.0% 100.0%

PART B

Question 6

One-Way ANOVA

H0: The mean sales are the same in all three display locations.

H1: The mean sales are different in at least one according to different display locations.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Within Groups 1541469091.344 97 15891433.931

Total 1801623979.000 99

The significance level of the on-way ANOVA test of sales by success is 0.001, which is

smaller than the level of significance for the test 0.05.

We reject null hypothesis that the mean sales are the same in all three displays locations.

Conclusion:

At 5% significance level, there is sufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis and to conclude that the

mean sales are different in at least one according to different displays locations.

Question 7

Tukeys Confident Interval by DISPLAY

Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval

(I) DISPLAY (J) DISPLAY Std. Error Sig.

(I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound

Lower

Upper 3970.852* 1007.658 .000 1572.40 6369.30

Lower -1385.415 988.675 .344 -3738.68 967.85

Middle

Upper 2585.437* 947.045 .020 331.26 4839.61

Lower -3970.852* 1007.658 .000 -6369.30 -1572.40

Upper

Middle -2585.437* 947.045 .020 -4839.61 -331.26

Hypothesis:

H0: The mean sales difference between pair of display location for sales is not significant.

H1: The mean sales difference between pair of display location for sales is significant.

It can be observed:

Base on the significant of the test, the pair Upper-Lower-Middle has significant different

mean sales.

The significance value of the Upper-Lower is 0.000, which is smaller than 0.05, the level of

significance for the test. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

The significance value of the Upper-Middle is 0.020, which is smaller than 0.05, the level of

significance for the test. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

The significance value of 0.020 < (0.05) indicates that there is relatively strong evidence

from the sample to reject the null hypothesis.

We are 95% confidence that the mean sales different between Upper-Lower display location

is between $6369.30 and $1572.40.

We are 95% confidence that the mean sales difference between Upper-Middle display

locations is between $4839.61 and $331.26.

Conclusion:

At 5% of significant level, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the mean sales difference

between Upper-Lower location (p=0.000) and Upper-Middle location (p=0.020) for sales is

significant.

Question 8

Two-Way ANOVA

Value Label N

1 Brand A 19

2 Brand B 29

PRODUCT

3 Brand C 25

4 Brand D 27

1 Leaflet 18

PROMOTION 2 Posters 27

3 Newspapers 25

4 Brochures 30

Table 17: Two-way ANOVA Test of SALES Tests of Between Subjects Effects

Type III Sum of

Source df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares

Promotion 76284365.779 3 25428121.926 2.668 .053

Product * Promotion 408958164.069 8 51119770.509 5.363 .000

Error 810141264.229 85 9531073.697

Total 8576724700.000 100

Corrected Total 1801623979.000 99

Hypothesis 1:

H0: There are no interaction effect between product and promotion that affect sales.

H1: There are interaction effect between product and promotion that affect sales.

Observation 1:

The significance value of the two-way ANOVA test between product and promotion is 0.000,

which is smaller than 0.05, the level of significance for the test.

The significance value of 0.000 indicates that there is strong evidence to reject the null

hypothesis. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

Conclusion 1:

Based on the sample of 100 salespersons, at 5% significance level, there is sufficient evidence to

conclude that there are interaction effect between product and promotion that affect sales.

Hypothesis 2:

H0: The mean sales for all products are the same.

H1: At least one different in mean sales according to the different products.

Observation 2:

The significance of the two-way ANOVA test for products is 0.000, which is smaller than the

0.05, the level of significance for the test.

The significance value of 0.000 indicates that there is strong evidence to reject the null

hypothesis. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

Conclusion 2:

Based on the sample 100 salespersons, at 5% of significance level, there is sufficient evidence to

conclude that there are at least one difference in mean sales according to the different products.

Hypothesis 3:

H0: The mean sales are the same for all promotion methods.

H1: At least one difference in mean sales according to promotion methods.

Observation 3:

The significance of the two-way ANOVA test for promotion methods is 0.053, which is

greater than the 0.05, the level of significance for the test.

The significance value of 0.053 indicates that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null

hypothesis. Therefore, we do not reject the null hypothesis.

Conclusion 3:

Based on the sample of 100 salespersons at 5% significance of level, there is insufficient evidence to

conclude that at least one difference in mean sales according to promotion methods.

Question 9

Tukey CI of Sales

(I) PRODUCT (J) PRODUCT Std. Error Sig.

Difference (I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound

Brand B Brand C -1226.11 842.556 .469 -3434.11 981.88

Brand D -4414.13* 825.627 .000 -6577.76 -2250.49

Brand C Brand B 1226.11 842.556 .469 -981.88 3434.11

Brand D -3188.01* 856.881 .002 -5433.55 -942.48

Brand A -228.34 924.466 .995 -2650.99 2194.31

Based on observed means.

The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 9531073.697.

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

(J) PROMOTION Std. Error Sig.

PROMOTION Difference (I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound

Posters Newspapers 2494.25* 856.881 .023 248.72 4739.79

Brochures 725.85 818.966 .812 -1420.32 2872.03

Newspapers Posters -2494.25* 856.881 .023 -4739.79 -248.72

Brochures -1768.40 836.030 .157 -3959.29 422.49

The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 9531073.697.

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Question10

Kruskal-Wallis Test of SALES

DISPLAY N Mean Rank

Lower 29 61.48

Upper 34 37.10

Total 100

SALES

Chi-Square 12.013

df 2

Asymp. Sig. .002

b. Grouping Variable: DISPLAY

Question 11

Check normality of SALES

N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Valid N (listwise) 100

- vvxcUploaded byDep En
- solucionario estadística matematica con aplicacionesUploaded byJeans Carlos
- EXERCICES.docUploaded byabdoul7
- 3. Production Process CharacterizationUploaded byfandisetia
- Geodetic Deformation AnalysisUploaded byYasemin
- AP STATISTICS Inference Take Home TestUploaded bynetsam_flixsam
- Tugas Quantitative Analysis 5 Hal 322.xlsxUploaded byLinna Guinarso
- StatisticsUploaded bymark
- MBA133 Courseplan LUploaded bySoham Samanta
- Two Persons Zero Sum GamesUploaded bygerom
- AnovaUploaded bykateborghi
- zobel 1988.pdfUploaded byMarcio Balestri
- Iqbal Jurnal Analisa DataUploaded byNalau Sapu Rata
- An OvaUploaded byBharat Singh
- Statistics PdktUploaded bymirah yuliarsianita
- Marketing ResearchUploaded byManoj Jhamb
- Model Stad Tehadap Hasil BelajarUploaded byKus Her Yono
- Stats_11_ANOVA.pdfUploaded byNipan Ratchapol Srathongjai
- iji_2019_3_10Uploaded byFaiz Yaakob
- CRITERIA OF GOOD RESERCHUploaded byMurtuza17
- Twowayanova16.xlsxUploaded byAmit Prasad
- Projects on Estimation and Hypothesis Testing F06Uploaded bySoubhik Saha
- Formulae 1Uploaded bydurporbashi
- EvaluationUploaded bySnezaaa
- AnovaUploaded bySakura2709
- Bendrix Regression and Partial SlopeUploaded byVarun Gupta
- Agresti 9 Notes 2012Uploaded bythanhtra023
- Lab Assignment 4Uploaded bySanthosh
- This Report Describes the FirstUploaded byEchi
- SyntaxUploaded byKhairul Azman Mohd Lani

- LO_Unit3_FrameworkForInference.pdfUploaded byCletus Sikwanda
- Theory Short 09Uploaded byRheza Mp
- WINSEM2015-16 CP1615 18-MAR-2016 RM01 Z-test for Means and ProprtionsUploaded bygowtham
- Health Research Methodology WHOUploaded byMustapha Umar Imam
- Introduction to Statistics[1].pdfUploaded byfita efriana
- endogeneity test stata 14.pdfUploaded byUNLV234
- S08 Handout - Hypothesis Tests for Means and ProportionsUploaded byKatherine Sauer
- Table StatisticsUploaded byYoel Orlando 'Treasure'
- Aristotle - RhetoricUploaded byherrJezni
- Aczel Business Statistics Solutions Ch8-12Uploaded byRuchi Patel
- SYLLABUS-628a_13_Uploaded byMarius Constantin
- ch06.pptxUploaded byRay Vega Lugo
- Ch 1 Part 2 Introduction to Accounting TheoryUploaded byJue Yasin
- Khan-WhatisMath-anOverview-IJMCS-2015-4p.pdfUploaded byMichelleneChenTadle
- Reading Response 1Uploaded byRamon Chito S. Pudelanan
- James K. Feibleman - Aesthetics.pdfUploaded bymarkacohen12121
- Training t Test 16 EnUploaded byRaúl Moreno Gómez
- Two-Sample T-Test From Means and SDsUploaded byXiandra Diane
- Hypothesis Testing.pptUploaded byZunairaAslam
- 76197355 Ken Black QA 5th Chapter15 SolutionUploaded byManish Khandelwal
- Essays on Equality, Law and EducationUploaded byVictor Mota
- Lorraine Daston, The History of EmergencesUploaded byakansrl
- Chapter 1 Part 7Uploaded byJohn Good
- ch7 and ch8Uploaded byMachiavelli Herrera
- Out Put Head WayUploaded byErniNoraMardianaSiahaan
- One Way ANOVA in 4 PagesUploaded bybsetiawany
- Ugbs 602 Research Methods 2014 Exam Questions WmbaUploaded byJephthah Bansah
- A Discourse of the Studies of the University of CambridgeUploaded byJames Ungureanu
- Alphabet Soup Blurring the Distinctions Between p’s and a’s in Psychological ResearchUploaded bysal27adam
- Project Time Series 2Uploaded byBratu Andreea