Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by:
NAME MATRIC NO
SUREN S/O POONIAH 250696
NURUL AEIDA BINTI AZIZEE 250785
Tandatangan:
Nama Penyelia: DR. SUHAILA BINTI ABDUL HANAN
(Name of supervisor)
Tandatangan:
Nama Pensyarah Kursus: DR. EMY EZURA BINTI A JALIL
(Course Lecturer Name)
i
DEDICATION
iii
LIST OF TABLE
DECLARATION i
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEGEMENT iii
LIST OF TABLE iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 BACKGROUND OF STUDY 1
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT 3
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 7
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 7
1.6 SCOPE OF STUDY 8
1.7 SIGNIFICANT OF THE STUDY 9
CONCLUSION 9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION 10
2.2 UNDER-PINNING THEORY 10
2.3 INDEPENDENT & DEPENDENT VARIABLE
2.3.1 SERVICE QUALITY 12
2.3.2 COMFORT 14
2.3.3 ASSURANCE 16
2.3.4 TANGIBLE 18
2.3.5 RELIABILITY 20
2.3.6 SAFETY 20
2.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 21
2.5 ASSUMPTION 23
CONCLUSION 23
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION 24
CONCLUSION 36
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION 37
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTIC 38
4.2.1 DATA SCREENING & CLEANING 41
4.3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 41
4.3.1 COMFORT 42
4.3.2 ASSURANCE 43
ix
4.3.3 TANGIBLE 44
4.3.4 RELIABILITY 45
4.3.5 SAFETY 46
4.4 RELIABILITY TEST
4.4.1 RELIABILITY TEST FOR INDEPENDANT
VARIABLE (COMFORT) 47
4.4.2 RELIABILITY TEST FOR INDEPENDANT
VARIABLE (ASSURANCE) 49
4.4.3 RELIABILITY TEST FOR INDEPENDANT
VARIABLE (TANGIBLE) 50
4.4.4 RELIABILITY TEST FOR INDEPENDANT
VARIABLE (RELIABILITY). 51
4.4.5 RELIABILITY TEST FOR INDEPENDANT
VARIABLE (SAFETY) 52
4.5 ANOVA ANALYSIS 53
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1
However, in Malaysia the number of vehicles is increasing, a large
number of Malaysians can afford to buy a car (Ong, Ng, Giam, Kasim &
Hizza, 2015). Ministry of Transport (2016) stated that, this has caused
the city to face huge problems due to traffic congestion in that area.
Because of that, most of society whom highly depended on public
transportation which is being utilized for leisure, work travelling and own
purposes especially for this sector (Dahalan, Silva, Abdullah, Ismail, &
Ahmad, 2017). Not only that, the public transport provided has been one
of the factor to solve the problem. Part of that, public transport has also
given more convenient and comfortable travel mode (Ministry of
Transport, 2016)
The one of the major problem faced by any female passenger of any
mode of transportation is harassment, which can be done verbally or
physically and this have been happening globally. Due to this
uncontrollable situation it might change the behavior of passenger’s
travelling pattern.
With this ongoing issues, this can be uncomfortable nature for the
female passenger to travel and use public transportation. Female
passenger tends to be feel safer being in their own space among female
companion. The research also proves that one of the way women take
action as not to become a victim is by avoiding certain areas. This also
can fall into public transportation areas. Besides that, a demotivated
passenger who suffers from this issue could avoid the usage of public
transport where it can result affecting the carrier’s good name and also
could effect in profits due to reducing in passengers. In order to ensure
the safety and security this research could be a beneficial to the
respective officials and the passengers.
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The significant of this study is to analyze the factors that affect the
services quality on women-only train among public users in Klang Valley
area. This research has collected the necessary data and gained
knowledge based on the previous research studies by the researchers.
Not only that, it is also to study the factors that can improve the service
quality on public transport. Finally, this study directly helps to the users
(women) for their fulfilment of their needs by consistently used the
railway transportation as they main transport to use for daily basis.
1.8 CONCLUSION
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.3.2 COMFORT
2.3.5 RELIABILITY
2.3.6 SAFETY
Assurance
Service quality of
women-only train
Tangible
Reliability
Safety
2.6 Conclusion
METHODOOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
For the most part, for the examination reason can lead through two
techniques, which are qualitative and quantitative. Quantitative
investigation relevant to concentrate on social affair information and
broke down numerical information with material scientifically techniques
(Apuke, 2017). As for this study, the researchers decided to select the
quantitative method to find the relationship between independent variable
and dependent variable to survey the service quality by implementing
women only train.
3.4 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
H1: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the comfort
of service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
comfort of service woman-only train.
H2: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
assurance of service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
assurance of service woman-only train.
H3: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the tangible
of service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
tangible of service woman-only train.
H4: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
reliability of service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
reliability of service woman-only train.
H5: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the safety of
service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the safety
of service woman-only train.
H6: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the comfort
of service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
comfort of service woman-only train.
H7: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
assurance of service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
assurance of service woman-only train.
H8: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the tangible
of service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
tangible of service woman-only train.
H9: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
reliability of service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the
reliability of service woman-only train.
H10: There are differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the safety
of service woman-only train.
HO: There is no differences in frequency of utilizing KTMB with the safety
of service woman-only train.
3.5 SAMPLING METHOD & COLLECTION METHOD
This study will use the Likert scale as it will generate appropriate
answers from section B to section F. The scale will represent how strongly
is the connection the respondents can relate to the questions in the
questionnaire. And as for section A, the scale of nominal will be used as
the objective is to collect necessary information for demographics. Part A
context the demographic that relates the background of the respondent.
The number of the questionnaire for the item section A is 9 items only.
Respondents need to fill all the questions that necessitate their
information. As for this section, it was measured by using ordinal scale.
SCALE Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
SCORE 1 2 3 4 5
4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter four expound the data are gathered through the structured
questionnaires that have been compassed and be explain in this chapter.
The data analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS). The researcher was conducted pilot test with the sample size of
20 respondents. In addition, descriptive statistics, reliability statistics and
correlation analysis were type of data analysis carried out in this study.
Furthermore, in this study gender, race, age, marital status, salary range,
frequency of utilizing KTMB service, purpose of utilizing train and
travelling in women only coach measured as a demographic profile.
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Gender
Male 37 28.5%
Female 93 71.5%
Age
Below 18 0 0%
30-39 4 3.1%
40-49 1 0.8%
50 and above 0 0%
Races
Malay 96 73.8%
Chinese 4 3.%
Indian 28 21.5%
Others 2 1.5%
Marital status
Married 13 10.0%
Job status
Student 51 39.2%
Private 57 43.8%
sector employee
Salary
Work
18 13.8%
Studies
16.2%
21
26.2%
Leisure 34
43.8%
Other 57
Frequency travel with Women only coach
Yes 82 63.1%
No 48 36.9%
Besides that, the researcher has categorized the races into four
categories which are Malay, Chinese, Indian and Others. The frequency
displays that the higher respondents are from Malay passengers as 96
21.5% followed by Indian passengers with 28 21.5, then Chinese
passengers with 4 3% and other races recorded 2 1.5% passengers.
The table also shows that there are single passengers with 117
passengers with 90% of sample and 10 passengers with 10%
respectively. to 20, 21– 23 years old, 23 – 25 years old and 25 years
old and above. It refers to 3 persons (2.57%), 40 persons (36.4%), 25
persons (22.7%) and 42 persons (38.2%) respectively. The most user
of KTMB services are from private sector employee with 57 passengers
of 43.8%., followed by students recorded with 51 passengers 39.2%,
15 passengers 11.5% are from self-employed and the least passengers
are from civil sector with
7 passengers 5.4% of the sample. Furthermore, the researcher
categorizes the income of respondent to four categories which are
below RM 1500 recorded the highest passengers with 61 46.9%, for
salary range RM 1500-RM 3000 recorded 60 passengers 46.2, for RM
3001- RM5000 there are 6 passengers 4.6% and for salary of RM 5000
and above 3 passengers 2.3%. The respondents have answered the
questions as for the number of utilization of KTMB service as for
regularly 1-5 times per a week there are 12 passengers 9.2%, as for
1-5 per month 27 passengers 20.8% and the highest user are from
occasionally users as 91 passengers 70%. Moreover, the researchers
stated the question of purpose for utilizing KTMB services. As for work
purposes there are 18 passengers 13.8%, for studies 21 16.2%, for
leisure 34 26.2% and the highest number is for other with 57 43.8%.
The researcher also includes a question to identify the number of
passenger who have used special (Women only) coach. With 82
respondents have been travelled in women only coach with 63.1% and
48 passengers 36.9% have not travel in special coach.
Depending on the table below, the description for the five (5)
independent variable 1 questionnaire (Comfortable) is displayed. The
results show that, the Cronbach Alpha is 0.718 which is more than 0.7,
the questionnaire is reliable. Therefore, it reveals that for this study the
whole question of independent variable 1 is reliable.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Based on
Cronbach's Standardiz N of
Alpha ed Items Items
.718 .740 5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach
Mean Variance Item- Multiple ' s Alpha
if Item if Item Total Correlati if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlatio o Deleted
n n
Comfortable 1 15.25 4.807 .677 .540 .586
Comfortable 2 15.32 5.275 .612 .493 .622
Comfortable 3 15.18 5.221 .662 .462 .606
Comfortable 4 15.56 5.721 .307 .178 .743
Comfortable 5 15.52 5.942 .246 .173 .768
Table 4.7: Reliability test of independent variable (Comfort)
4.4.2 RELIABILITY TEST FOR INDEPENDANT VARIABLE (
ASSURANCE)
Depending on the table below, the description for the four (2)
independent variable 1 questionnaire (Assurance) is displayed. The results
show that, the Cronbach Alpha is 0.774 which is more than 0.7, the
questionnaire is reliable. Therefore, it shows that for this study the whole
question of independent variable 2 is reliable
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Based on
Cronbach's Standardiz N of
Alpha ed Items Items
.774 .774 4
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach'
Mean Variance Item- Multiple s Alpha if
if Item if Item Total Correlati Item
Deleted Deleted Correlatio o Deleted
n n
Assurance 2 11.96 2.595 .597 .432 .708
Assurance 3 12.08 2.528 .632 .458 .689
Assurance 4 12.17 2.715 .632 .409 .693
Assurance 5 12.27 2.958 .454 .261 .781
Table 4.8: Reliability test of independent variable (Assurance)
4.4.3 RELIABILITY TEST FOR INDEPENDANT VARIABLE (TANGIBLE)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Based on
Cronbach's Standardiz N of
Alpha ed Items Items
.761 .787 5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach
Mean Variance Item- Multiple ' s Alpha
if Item if Item Total Correlati if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlatio o Deleted
n n
Tangible 1 15.30 5.343 .413 .226 .790
Tangible 2 15.05 6.013 .574 .338 .705
Tangible 3 15.20 5.851 .545 .455 .712
Tangible 4 15.05 5.927 .700 .608 .673
Tangible 5 15.09 6.131 .535 .407 .717
Table 4.9: Reliability test of independent variable (Tangible)
4.4.4 RELIABILITY TEST FOR INDEPENDANT VARIABLE
(RELIABILITY).
Based on the table below, the description of independent variable 5
(Safety) for the five (5) question is seen. The result indicates that when
the Cronbach Alpha is 0.763 which is more than 0.7 the questionnaire is
reliable. Ultimately, it indicates that all the question is reliable for this
research for the independent variable 5.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Based on
Cronbach's Standardiz N of
Alpha ed Items Items
.763 .771 5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale
Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach'
if Item Variance Item- Multiple s Alpha if
Delete if Item Total Correlati Item
d Deleted Correlatio o Deleted
n n
Reliability 1 14.20 10.130 .264 .273 .820
Reliability 2 13.92 9.436 .538 .359 .718
Reliability 3 13.82 8.260 .684 .549 .663
Reliability 4 13.59 8.693 .634 .589 .684
Reliability 5 13.73 8.787 .601 .612 .695
Table 4.10: Reliability test of independent variable (Reliability)
4.4.5 RELIABILITY TEST FOR INDEPENDANT VARIABLE
(SAFETY)
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach'
Mean Variance Item- Multiple s Alpha if
if Item if Item Total Correlati Item
Deleted Deleted Correlatio o Deleted
n n
Safety 1 13.84 7.454 .545 .338 .772
Safety 2 14.09 6.782 .641 .464 .742
Safety 3 14.28 6.531 .686 .498 .727
Safety 4 14.18 6.751 .614 .383 .749
Safety 5 14.59 6.321 .480 .251 .809
Table 4.11: Reliability test of independent variable (Safety)
4.5 ANOVA ANALYSIS
ANOVA
MEAN COMFORT
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between .492 2 .246 .856 .427
Groups
Within 36.488 127 .287
Groups
Total 36.980 129
Table 4.12 Anova Analysis of Variable (Comfort)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
4.5.2 ASSURANCE (FREQUENCY OF UTILIZING KTMB)
Descriptive
MEAN ASSURANCE
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
1.00 12 4.1458 .48216 .13919 3.8395 4.4522 3.00 4.75
2.00 27 4.0648 .47834 .09206 3.8756 4.2540 3.00 5.00
3.00 91 4.0192 .55054 .05771 3.9046 4.1339 3.00 5.00
Total 130 4.0404 .52809 .04632 3.9487 4.1320 3.00 5.00
ANOVA
MEAN ASSURANCE
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between .190 2 .095 .338 .714
Groups
Within 35.785 127 .282
Groups
Total 35.975 129
Table 4.13 Anova Analysis of Variable (Assurance)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
4.5.3 TANGIBLE (FREQUENCY OF UTILIZING KTMB)
Descriptive
MEAN TANGIBLE
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
1.00 12 3.9000 .52223 .15076 3.5682 4.2318 3.00 5.00
2.00 27 3.9259 .49036 .09437 3.7319 4.1199 3.00 5.00
3.00 91 3.7275 .61717 .06470 3.5989 3.8560 2.20 5.00
Total 130 3.7846 .58753 .05153 3.6827 3.8866 2.20 5.00
ANOVA
MEAN TANGIBLE
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between .996 2 .498 1.453 .238
Groups
Within 43.533 127 .343
Groups
Total 44.529 129
Table 4.14 Anova Analysis Of Variable (Tangible)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
4.5.4 RELIABILITY (FREQUENCY OF UTILIZING KTMB)
Descriptive
MEAN RELIABILITY
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
1.00 12 3.4500 .68821 .19867 3.0127 3.8873 2.00 4.20
2.00 27 3.6000 .71897 .13837 3.3156 3.8844 2.00 5.00
3.00 91 3.4242 .74287 .07787 3.2695 3.5789 1.60 5.00
Total 130 3.4631 .73116 .06413 3.3362 3.5900 1.60 5.00
ANOVA
MEAN RELIABILITY
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between .646 2 .323 .600 .550
Groups
Within 68.317 127 .538
Groups
Total 68.963 129
Table 4.15 Anova Analysis of Variable (Reliabity)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
4.5.5 SAFETY (FREQUENCY OF UTILIZING KTMB)
Descriptive
MEAN SAFETY
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
1.00 12 3.6167 .44687 .12900 3.3327 3.9006 2.80 4.20
2.00 27 3.5556 .51540 .09919 3.3517 3.7594 2.60 4.80
3.00 91 3.5385 .68941 .07227 3.3949 3.6820 2.20 5.00
Total 130 3.5492 .63457 .05566 3.4391 3.6593 2.20 5.00
ANOVA
MEAN SAFETY
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between .066 2 .033 .081 .922
Groups
Within 51.879 127 .408
Groups
Total 51.945 129
Table 4.16 Anova Analysis of Variable (Safety)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
4.5.6 COMFORT (DIFFERENCES IN PURPOSE OF UTILISING KTMB)
Descriptive
MEAN COMFORT
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
1.00 18 3.8667 .51791 .12207 3.6091 4.1242 2.60 4.80
2.00 21 3.7143 .74986 .16363 3.3730 4.0556 2.00 5.00
3.00 34 3.7765 .43139 .07398 3.6260 3.9270 2.80 4.60
4.00 57 3.7754 .51418 .06811 3.6390 3.9119 2.40 5.00
Total 130 3.7785 .53541 .04696 3.6856 3.8714 2.00 5.00
ANOVA
MEAN COMFORT
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between .227 3 .076 .260 .854
Groups
Within 36.753 126 .292
Groups
Total 36.980 129
Table 4.17 Anova Analysis of Variable (Comfort)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
4.5.7 ASSURACNCE (DIFFERENCES IN PURPOSE OF UTILISING
KTMB)
Descriptive
MEAN ASSURANCE
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
1.00 18 4.0556 .42492 .10015 3.8442 4.2669 3.00 4.75
2.00 21 4.0000 .44721 .09759 3.7964 4.2036 3.25 5.00
3.00 34 3.9706 .55991 .09602 3.7752 4.1660 3.00 5.00
4.00 57 4.0921 .57015 .07552 3.9408 4.2434 3.00 5.00
Total 130 4.0404 .52809 .04632 3.9487 4.1320 3.00 5.00
ANOVA
MEAN ASSURANCE
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between .357 3 .119 .420 .739
Groups
Within 35.619 126 .283
Groups
Total 35.975 129
Table 4.18 Anova Analysis Of Variable (Assurance)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
4.5.8 TANGIBLE (DIFFERENCES IN PURPOSE OF UTILISING KTMB)
Descriptive
MEAN TANGIBLE
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
1.00 18 3.8556 .37451 .08827 3.6693 4.0418 3.00 4.60
2.00 21 3.8952 .51621 .11265 3.6603 4.1302 3.00 5.00
3.00 34 3.8235 .53204 .09124 3.6379 4.0092 2.20 5.00
4.00 57 3.6982 .68985 .09137 3.5152 3.8813 2.20 5.00
Total 130 3.7846 .58753 .05153 3.6827 3.8866 2.20 5.00
ANOVA
MEAN TANGIBLE
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between .824 3 .275 .792 .500
Groups
Within 43.705 126 .347
Groups
Total 44.529 129
Table 4.19 Anova Analysis Of Variable (Tangible)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
4.5.9 RELIABILITY (DIFFERENCES IN PURPOSE OF UTILISING
KTMB)
Descriptive
MEAN RELIABILITY
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
1.00 18 3.4444 .60413 .14239 3.1440 3.7449 2.00 4.40
2.00 21 3.7619 .75265 .16424 3.4193 4.1045 2.40 5.00
3.00 34 3.3471 .68633 .11770 3.1076 3.5865 2.00 4.60
4.00 57 3.4281 .77316 .10241 3.2229 3.6332 1.60 5.00
Total 130 3.4631 .73116 .06413 3.3362 3.5900 1.60 5.00
ANOVA
MEAN RELIABILITY
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between 2.409 3 .803 1.520 .212
Groups
Within 66.554 126 .528
Groups
Total 68.963 129
Table 4.20 Anova Analysis Of Variable (Reliability)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
4.5.10 ASSURACNCE (DIFFERENCES IN PURPOSE OF UTILISING
KTMB)
Descriptive
MEAN SAFETY
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
1.00 18 3.7000 .50527 .11909 3.4487 3.9513 2.80 5.00
2.00 21 3.5810 .62898 .13726 3.2946 3.8673 2.60 5.00
3.00 34 3.5294 .69784 .11968 3.2859 3.7729 2.20 5.00
4.00 57 3.5018 .64156 .08498 3.3315 3.6720 2.20 5.00
Total 130 3.5492 .63457 .05566 3.4391 3.6593 2.20 5.00
ANOVA
MEAN SAFETY
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between .572 3 .191 .468 .705
Groups
Within 51.373 126 .408
Groups
Total 51.945 129
Table 4.21 Anova Analysis of Variable (Safety)
The table above shows that the ANOVA analysis of variable for comfort is
not significantly different, where significant value is more than p<0.05.
CONCLUSION
This chapter had concluded the findings of this study and analysis
the data. Firstly, this chapter outlined the profiles of the respondents in
term gender, age group, races, marital status, job status, salary, purpose
and frequency of utilizing the KTMB service. Reliability has been verified
by using the Cronbach's Alpha was optimized for the analysis. A
hypothesis testing is used to evaluate normality when hypothesis is used
to determine accepted and rejected section.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
5.0 INTRODUCTION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
24-hour KTM Komuter services for Thaipusam. (2018, January 24). New
Straits Times. Retrieved from administrative services. International
journal of scientific and research publications, 2(3), 1-6. Retrieved
fromhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d923/0681c752ddd9fa91ce7d
ea8537019930fd1.pdf and
Objects:http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-
language/difference-
Aziz, L. (2016). We're Seeing Pink with Malaysia's First Women-Only Ride-
Sharing Service. Retrieved July 21, 2020, from
https://vulcanpost.com/591730/riding-pink-ride-sharing-malaysia-
women/
Chong, D. (2019, June). KL-Seremban bus firms must now offer women
only coaches daily, says transport minister. Retrieved July 21, 2020,
from https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/06/13/kl-
seremban-bus-firms-must-now-offer-women-only-coaches-daily-
says-transpor/1761709
Cozens, P., Neale, R., Whitaker, J., & Hillier, D. (2003). Managing Crime
and the Fear of Crime at Railway Stations. A case study in South
Wales(UK). International Journal of Transport Management, 1 (3),
121-132.
Dahalan, D., D’Silva, J., Abdullah, H., Ismail, I., & Ahmad, N. (2020).
Youth confidence in the quality of public transport services: The
case of Greater KL, Malaysia. Retrieved 2 April 2020, from
http://ejournal.ukm.my/gmjss/article/view/18827
Dell' Olio, L., Ibeas, A., & Cecin, P. (2011). The quality of service desired
by public transport users. evidence”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22. facilities inside a railway station.
Transportation Research
Procedia, 25, 4767-4774.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.488
Ibrahim, N.I., Adiji, B.M, and Karim, M.R (2013). Public Transport
Passengers’ Perception and Demand Satisfaction: A Case Study at
Petaling Jaya Municipal Distinct, Malaysia. Proceeding of the Eastern
Asia Society for Transportation Studied, 9, 1-13.
&
Leisure Property, 8(3), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1057/rlp.2009.7
Ong, V., Ng, M.Y., Giam, J.H., Kasim, N., & Hizza, I. (2015). The impact
of service automation on customer satisfaction and customer
retention: An empirical study of Malaysian rail transportation.
Proceeding of 4th global business and finance research conference,
World Business Institute, Melbourne. Retrieved from
http://zantworldpress.com/wp
content/uploads/2015/05/504-Victor-Ong.pdf
Shen, W., Xiao, W., & Wang, X. (2016). Passenger satisfaction evaluation
model for Urban rail transit: A structural equation modelling based
on partial least squares. Transport Policy, 46, 20-31.
https://doi.org.libezp.utar.edu.my/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.
Stelzer, A., Englert, F., Hörold, S., Mayas, C., 2014. Using customer
feedback in public transportation systems. In: IEEE (Ed.),
International Conference
T. (2010). KTM to introduce women-only coaches from today. Retrieved July 20,
2020, from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2010/04/28/ktm-to-
introduce-womenonly-coaches-from-today/
We are student from School of Technology Management and Logistics (STML), University Utara
Malaysia, Kedah is conducting a research study as partial fulfilment to complete our BPMG3123
Transport Management Seminar course. Please take a few minutes to answer All the survey
questions which consist of two (6) pages. The survey only takes about 10-15 minutes of your time.
Your answers are anonymous and will be kept confidential. Only aggregate data will be presented
or documented, not individual answer. Please return the complete questionnaires once you have
finished answering them. Thank you very much for all your cooperation in this study.
Gender / Jantina
( )Male
( )Female
Age / Umur
( )19 – 29
( )30- 39
( )40-49
Race / Bangsa
( )Malay
( )Chinese
( )Indian
( )Others
( )Single
( )Married
Occupation / Pekerjaan
( )Student
( )Self-employed
( )Civil servant
Salary / Gaji
( )Below RM 1500
( )RM 3001-RM5000
( )Occasionally
Purpose of utilizing train services (KTMB) / Tujuan menggunakan perkhidmatan kereta api (KTMB)
( )Work
( )Studies
( )Leisure
( )Others
Have you travel with commuter "Women only coach" / Adakah anda pernah
menggunakan gerabak train "Women only coach" (Gerabak train wanita sahaja)
( )Yes
( )No
Comfort
Please indicate your level of agreement with the statements below (Sila nyatakan tahap
persetujan anda dengan pernyataan di bawah)
3. Neutral
4. Agree (Bersetuju)
I feel condition of the train seat facilities and / Wen et al. (2005);
equipment of the train is very good/ Saya berasa Transportation Research
keadan kemudahan tempat duduk kereta api adalah Board (1999))
sangat bagus
The cleanliness of public transport exterior and / Lai and Chen (2011);
interior is very good / Kebersihan luaran dan dalaman Sezhian et al.
pengangkutan awam adalah bagus (2011); Suman
(2007)
I feel safe to travel along with opposite gender / Saya / Eboli and Mazzulla (2007);
berasa selamat untuk menempuh perjalanan dengan Caro and Garcia (2008)
jantina yang berlainan
I think the attitude of opposite gender causes / Eboli and Mazzulla (2007);
uncomfortable to travel / Saya berasa sikap berlainan Caro and Garcia (2008)
jantina menyebabkan perjalanan tidak selesa
Assurance
Please indicate your level of agreement with the statements below (Sila nyatakan tahap
persetujan anda dengan pernyataan di bawah)
3. Neutral
4. Agree (Bersetuju)
I feel KTMB understand passengers needs / Saya / Eboli and Mazzulla (2007);
berasa KTMB memahami keperluan penumpang Caro and Garcia (2008
Tangible
Please indicate your level of agreement with the statements below (Sila nyatakan tahap
persetujan anda dengan pernyataan di bawah)
3. Neutral
4. Agree (Bersetuju)
The personnel are visible to seek for help / Pegawai / Wen et al. (2005); Sezhian
sentiasa ada ketika diperlukan pertolongan et al. (2011); Caro and
Garcia (2008); Suman
(2007); Transportation
Research Board (1999)
The facilities and equipment are very helpful for me / Transportation Research
/ Kemudahan dan peralatan sangat membantu saya Board (1999); Lai and Chen
(2011)
Please indicate your level of agreement with the statements below (Sila nyatakan tahap
persetujan anda dengan pernyataan di bawah)
3. Neutral
4. Agree (Bersetuju)
I feel KTMB train arrived at the destination in a right / Eboli and Mazzulla (2007);
time/ Saya berasa train KTMB menuju ke destinasi Caro and Garcia (2008
pada masa yang ditetapkan
I feel KTMB provide a useful traveling time schedule / Eboli and Mazzulla (2007);
for passenger/ Saya berasa KTMB menyediakan Caro and Garcia (2008)
jadual perjalanan yang berguna kepada penumpang
I feel the waiting time set by KTMB is very / Eboli and Mazzulla (2007);
reasonable/ Saya berasa masa menunggu yang Caro and Garcia (2008)
ditetapkan oleh KTMB adalah sangat wajar
Safety
Please indicate your level of agreement with the statements below (Sila nyatakan tahap
persetujan anda dengan pernyataan di bawah)
3. Neutral
4. Agree (Bersetuju)
I feel secure from crime while using KTMB train / Lai and Chen (2011); Eboli
service/ Saya berasa selamat daripada sebarang and Mazzulla (2007);
jenayah semasa menggunakan perkhidmatan Suman (2007);
kereta api KTMB Transportation Research
Board (1999)
I feel safe related to the behaviour of other / Transportation Research
passengers while using KTMB train service/ Saya Board (1999)
berasa lebih selamat berkaitan dengan tingkah laku
penumpang lain menggunakan perkhidmatan
kereta api KTMB
I feel secured while waiting for the train at waiting / Eboli and Mazzulla (2007);
area / Saya berasa selamat semasa menunggu Suman (2007);
kereta api di tempat menunggu Transportation Research
Board (1999)