Research methods

10/1/2018

Assignment # 2

Submitted too:
Sir Mian Saqib Mehmood
Submitted by:
Noor ul Hassan Amen
Roll no:
1503-1554-041
Department:
Commerce
Accounting & finance 7th
University of Gujrat
 1

Data set of ships

Co-relation analysis:
No 1. Aggregate months of service:
 Variable # 2:
Aggregate months of service & logarithm of aggregate months of service.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the aggregate months of service and
logarithm of aggregate months of service.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the aggregate months of service and
logarithm of aggregate months of service.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between logarithm of aggregate and
aggregate of months is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.771** shows
that there is significant relationship between both of the variables, because the
significance level is 0.000 which is less than 0.01 thus null hypothesis is
rejected and alternate is accepted.
 Variable # 3:
Aggregate months of service & number of damage incidents.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the aggregate months of service and
logarithm of number of damage incidents.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the aggregate months of service and
logarithm of number of damage incidents.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between logarithm of aggregate and
aggregate of months is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.847** shows
that there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables, because
the significance level is 0.000 which is less than 0.01 thus null hypothesis is
rejected and alternate is accepted.
 Variable # 4:
Aggregate months of service & period of operation.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the aggregate months of service and
period of operation.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the aggregate months of service and
period of operation.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between logarithm of aggregate and
aggregate of months is negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.40 shows
that there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables, because
 2

the significance level is 0.807 which is greater than 0.05 thus null hypothesis
is accepted and alternate is rejected.

 Variable # 5:
Aggregate months of service & year of construction.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the aggregate months of service and
year of construction.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the aggregate months of service and year
of construction.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between aggregate months of service
and year of construction is negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.223
shows that there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables,
because the significance level is 0.116 which is greater than 0.05 thus null
hypothesis is accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 6:
Aggregate months of service & ship type.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the aggregate months of service and
ship type.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the aggregate months of service and ship
type.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between aggregate months of service
and year of construction is negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.282
shows that there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables,
because the significance level is 0.077 which is greater than 0.05 thus null
hypothesis is accepted and alternate is rejected.
No 2. Logarithm of aggregate months of service:
 Variable # 1:
Logarithm of aggregate months of service & aggregate months of service
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and aggregate months of service.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and aggregate months of service.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between logarithm of aggregate and
aggregate of months is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.771**, shows
that there is significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
 3

significance level is 0.000 which is less than 0.01 thus null hypothesis is
rejected and alternate is accepted.

 Variable # 3:
Logarithm of aggregate months of service & number of damage incidents
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and number of damage incidents.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and number of damage incidents.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between logarithm of aggregate and
aggregate of months is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.831** ,
shows that there is in- significant relationship between both of the variables ,
because the significance level is 0.000 which is less than 0.01 , thus null
hypothesis is accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 4:
Logarithm of aggregate months of service & period of operation.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and period of operation.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and period of operation.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between logarithm of aggregate and
period of operation is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.062 , shows
that there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because
the significance level is 0.729 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis
is accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 5 :
Logarithm of aggregate months of service & year of construction.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and year of construction.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and year of construction.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between logarithm of aggregate months
of service and year of construction is positive, the value of the co-efficient is
0.231 , shows that there is in-significant relationship between both of the
variables , because the significance level is 0.189 which is greater than 0.05 ,
thus null hypothesis is accepted and alternate is rejected.
 4

 Variable # 6 :
Logarithm of aggregate months of service & ship type.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and ship type.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the logarithm of aggregate months of
service and ship type.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation between logarithm of aggregate months
of service and ship type is negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.364* ,
shows that there is significant relationship between both of the variables ,
because the significance level is 0.034 which is less than 0.05, thus null
hypothesis is rejected and alternate is accepted.
No 3: number of damage incidents:
 Variable # 1 :
Number of damage incidents & aggregate months of service.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of damage incidents and
aggregate month of service.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of damage incidents and
aggregate month of service.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of damage incidents and
aggregate month of service is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.847**
, shows that there is significant relationship between both of the variables ,
because the significance level is 0.000 which is less than 0.01 , thus null
hypothesis is rejected and alternate is accepted.

 Variable # 2 :
Number of damage incidents & logarithm of aggregate months of service.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of damage incidents and
logarithm of aggregate month of service.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of damage incidents and
logarithm of aggregate month of service.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of damage incidents and
logarithm of aggregate month of service is positive, the value of the co-
efficient is 0.831** , shows that there is in-significant relationship between
both of the variables , because the significance level is 0.000 which is less than
0.01 , thus null hypothesis is accepted and alternate is rejected.
 5

 Variable # 4 :
Number of damage incidents & period of operation.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of damage incidents and
period of operation.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of damage incidents and
period of operation.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of damage incidents and period
of operation is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.069 , shows that
there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 0.698 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 5 :
Number of damage incidents & year of construction.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of damage incidents and
year of construction.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of damage incidents and
year of construction.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of damage incidents and year
of construction is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.005 , shows that
there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 0.977 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 6 :
Number of damage incidents & ship type.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of damage incidents and
ship type.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of damage incidents and
ship type.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of damage incidents and ship
type negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.320 , shows that there is in-
significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 0.065 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
 6

No 4: period of operation:
 Variable # 1 :
Number of period of condition & aggregate months of service.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of period of condition &
aggregate months of service.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of period of condition
and aggregate months of service.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of period of condition and
aggregate months of service is negative, the value of the co-efficient is
-0.040 , shows that there is in-significant relationship between both of the
variables , because the significance level is 0.807 which is greater than 0.05 ,
thus null hypothesis is accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 2 :
Number of period of condition & logarithm of aggregate months of service.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of period of condition &
logarithm of aggregate months of service.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of period of condition
and logarithm of aggregate months of service.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of period of condition &
logarithm of aggregate months of service is negative, the value of the co-
efficient is 0.062 , shows that there is in-significant relationship between both
of the variables , because the significance level is 0.729 which is greater than
0.05 , thus null hypothesis is accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 3 :
Number of period of condition & number of damage incidents.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of period of condition &
number of damage incidents.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of period of condition
and logarithm of aggregate months of service.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of period of condition &
logarithm of aggregate months of service is negative, the value of the co-
efficient is 0.062 , shows that there is in-significant relationship between both
 7

of the variables , because the significance level is 0.729 which is greater than
0.05 , thus null hypothesis is accepted and alternate is rejected.

 Variable # 5:
Number of period of condition & year of construction.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of period of condition &
year of construction.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of period of condition
and year of construction.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of period of condition & and
year of construction is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.000 , shows
that there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because
the significance level is 1.000 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis
is accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 6:
Number of period of condition & ship type.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of period of condition &
ship type.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of period of condition
and ship type.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation number of period of condition & and
ship type is negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.320 , shows that there
is in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 0.065 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
No 4: Year of construction:
 Variable # 1:
Year of construction & aggregate month of service.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the number of period of condition &
ship type.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both and the number of period of condition
and ship type.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation year of construction & and aggregate
month of service is negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.223 , shows
 8

that there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because

the significance level is 0.166 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis
is accepted and alternate is rejected.

 Variable # 2:
Year of construction & logarithm of aggregate month of service.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the year of construction & logarithm of
aggregate month of service.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the the year of construction & logarithm
of aggregate month of service.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation year of construction & and logarithm
of aggregate month of service is positive, the value of the co-efficient is
-0.231 , shows that there is in-significant relationship between both of the
variables , because the significance level is 0.189 which is greater than 0.05 ,
thus null hypothesis is accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 3:
Year of construction & number of damage incident.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the year of construction & number of
damage incident.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the the year of construction & number of
damage incident.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation year of construction & and number of
damage incident is positive, the value of the co-efficient is -0.005 , shows that
there is in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 0.977 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 4:
Year of construction & period of operation.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the year of construction & period of
operation.
Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the the year of construction & period of
operation.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation year of construction & and period of
operation is positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.000 , shows that there is
in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
 9

significance level is 1.000 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.

 Variable # 6:
Year of construction & ship type.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the year of construction & ship type.
Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the the year of construction & ship type.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation year of construction & ship type is
positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.000 , shows that there is in-
significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 1.000 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 6:
Year of construction & ship type.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the year of construction & ship type.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the the year of construction & ship type.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation year of construction & ship type is
positive, the value of the co-efficient is 0.000 , shows that there is in-
significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 1.000 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
No 5: ship type:
 Variable # 1:
Ship type & aggregate month of service.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the ship type & aggregate month of
service.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the ship type & aggregate month of
service.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation the ship type & aggregate month of
service is negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.282 , shows that there is
in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 0.077 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 2:
Ship type & logarithm of aggregate month of service.
 Null hypothesis:
 10

There is no relationship between both the ship type & logarithm of aggregate
month of service.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the ship type & logarithm of aggregate
month of service.

Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation the ship type &logarithm of aggregate
month of service is negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.364* , shows
that there is significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 0.034 which is less than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
rejected and alternate is accepted.
 Variable # 3:
Ship type & number of damage incident.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the ship type & number of damage
incident.
 Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the ship type & number of damage
incident.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation the ship type & number of damage
incident is negative, the value of the co-efficient is -0.320 , shows that there is
in-significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 0.065 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 4:
Ship type & period of operation.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the ship type & period of operation.
Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the ship type & period of operation.
Interpretation:
The co-efficient sign of the co-relation the ship type & period of operation. is
negative, the value of the co-efficient is 0.000 , shows that there is in-
significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 1.000 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
 Variable # 5:
Ship type & year of construction.
 Null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between both the ship type & year of construction.
Alternate hypothesis:
There is a relationship between both the ship type & year of construction.
Interpretation:
 11

The co-efficient sign of the co-relation the ship type & year of construction is
negative, the value of the co-efficient is 0.000 , shows that there is in-
significant relationship between both of the variables , because the
significance level is 1.000 which is greater than 0.05 , thus null hypothesis is
accepted and alternate is rejected.
Regression Analysis:
 Linear regression:
 Dependent variable:
Number of damage incidents
 Independent variable:
Period of operation
Interpretation:
According to the table statistics, there is in-significant relationship between
both of the variables the number of damage incidents & Period of operation
, because significance level is greater than 0.05 that is 0.968.
Value of R:
Our analysis shows that due our independent variable there is -0.026 % change
in our dependent variable, it shows the negative effect on dependent variable.
Value of F:
Our analysis shows that the value of F is not good fit model because the value
of F is greater than 0.05 that is 0.698.
 Multiple regression:
 Dependent variable:
Number of damage incidents
 Independent variable:
Period of operation
Logarithm of aggregate months of service
Aggregate months of service
Ship type
Interpretation:
I. According to the table statistics, there is in-significant relationship
between both of the variables the dependent and in-dependent variable
(number of damage incidents & Period of operation), and the sign of
co-efficient of correlation is positive & value of significance level is
0.244 which is greater than 0.05.
II. According to table statistics, , there is significant relationship between
both of the variables the dependent and in-dependent variable
(logarithm of aggregate of service & number of damage incidents),
and the sign of co-efficient of correlation is positive & value of
significance level is 0.000 which is less than 0.05.
III. According to the table statistics, there is significant relationship
between both of the variables the dependent and in-dependent variable
(number of damage incidents & logarithm of aggregate months of
service ), and the sign of co-efficient of correlation is positive & value
of significance level is 0. which is greater than 0.05.
 12

IV. According to the table statistics, there is in-significant relationship

between both of the variables the dependent and in-dependent variable
(number of damage incidents & ship type), and the sign of co-efficient
of correlation is negative & value of significance level is 0.915 which
is greater than 0.05.
Value of R:
Our analysis shows that due to our independent variable there is 0.778%
change in our dependent variable, it shows the positive effect on dependent
variable.
Value of F:
Our analysis shows that the value of F is good fit model because the value of
F is less than 0.05 that is 0.000.
13