De La Salle University – Dasmariñas

COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND COMPUTER STUDIES

MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT
City of Dasmariñas, Cavite

SMATH001LA – Data Analytics for Engineering

2nd Semester / Midterm Period / S.Y. 2020-2021

LABORATORY ACTIVITY #1
Descriptive Statistics
Score:
NAME: __Mabini, Jea Angeline B. ____ DATE: _January 11, 2021_____

COURSE/YEAR & SECTION: _BSA22____________ PROF.: _Dhenmar, Chua______

All Greens Franchise

The data (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6) are for each franchise store.
X1 = annual net sales/$1000
X2 = area of store in sq. ft./1000
X3 = inventory/$1000
X4 = amount spent on advertizing/$1000
X5 = size of sales district/1000 families
X6 = number of competing stores in district

Perform the following:

1. Determine which variables are correlated.

2. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and area of store in sq. ft. as independet variable, perform
simple linear regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.

3. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and inventory as independet variable, perform simple linear
regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.

4. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and amount spent on advertizing as independet variable,
perform simple linear regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.

5. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and size of sales district independent variable, perform
simple linear regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.

6. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and number of competing stores in district as independent
variable, perform simple linear regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.
1. Determine which variables are correlated.

Pearson’s Correlations

Pearson’s r p interpretation

X1 - X2 0.894 - <.001 Very Strong Positive Correlation

X1 - X3 0.946 - <.001 Very Strong Positive Correlation

X1 - X4 0.914 - <.001 Very Strong Positive Correlation

X1 - X5 0.954 - <.001 Very Strong Positive Correlation

X1 - X6 -0.912 - <.001 Very Strong Negative Correlation

X2 - X3 0.844 - <.001 Very Strong Positive Correlation

X2 - X4 0.749 - <.001 Strong Positive Correlation

X2 - X5 0. 838 - <.001 Very Strong Positive Correlation

X2 - X6 -0.766 - <.001 Strong Negative Correlation

X3 - X4 0.906 - <.001 Very Strong Positive Correlation

X3 - X5 0.864 - <.001 Very Strong Positive Correlation

X3 - X6 -0.807 - <.001 Very Strong Negative Correlation

X4 - X5 0.795 - <.001 Strong Positive Correlation

X4 - X6 -0.841 - <.001 Very Strong Negative Correlation

X5 - X6 -0.87 - <.001 Very Strong Negative Correlation

The table above shows the Pearson’s correlation of the given data which results mostly to Positive Correlation.
2. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and area of store in sq. ft. as independent variable, perform
simple linear regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.

Linear Regression

Model Summary - Annual Net Sales

Durbin-Watson
Model R R² Adjusted R² RMSE Autocorrelation Statistic p
H₀ 0.000 0.000 0.000 192.062 0.252 1.479 0.164
H₁ 0.894 0.799 0.791 87.725 -0.016 1.438 0.115

ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
H₁ Regression 766689.456 1 766689.456 99.627 < .001
Residual 192390.896 25 7695.636
Total 959080.352 26
Note. The intercept model is omitted, as no meaningful information can be shown.

Coefficients
95% CI
Model Unstandardized Standard Error Standardized t p Lower Upper
H₀ (Intercept) 286.574 36.962 7.753 < .001 210.597 362.551
H₁ (Intercept) 2.577 33.085 0.078 0.939 -65.562 70.716
area of store in sq. 85.389 8.555 0.894 9.981 < .001 67.770 103.008

Descriptives
N Mean SD SE
Annual Net Sales 27 286.574 192.062 36.962
area of store in sq. 27 3.326 2.011 0.387

• Based on the R2, the store explains 79.9% of the variation in annual net sales, with the remaining
20.1% explained by the other variables.
• The findings from the ANOVA presents that there is a well-fitting model. The 2.577 intercept is not
significant in the coefficients section because its p-value is more than 0.5, but the 8.389 is.
• The formula for the area in sq. is
Annual Net Sales = 2.577 + 85.389* store area in sq.
3. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and inventory as independet variable, perform simple linear
regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.

Linear Regression

Model Summary - Annual Net Sales

Durbin-Watson
Model R R² Adjusted R² RMSE Autocorrelation Statistic p
H₀ 0.000 0.000 0.000 192.062 0.252 1.479 0.164
H₁ 0.946 0.894 0.890 63.776 0.219 1.550 0.210

ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
H₁ Regression 857395.877 1 857395.877 210.798 < .001
Residual 101684.475 25 4067.379
Total 959080.352 26
Note. The intercept model is omitted, as no meaningful information can be shown.

Coefficients
95% CI
Model Unstandardized Standard Error Standardized t p Lower Upper
H₀ (Intercept) 286.574 36.962 7.753 < .001 210.597 362.551
H₁ (Intercept) -81.504 28.167 -2.894 0.008 -139.514 -23.494
inventory 0.950 0.065 0.946 14.519 < .001 0.815 1.085

Descriptives
N Mean SD SE
Annual Net Sales 27 286.574 192.062 36.962
inventory 27 387.481 191.168 36.790

• Based on the R2, the inventory count explains 89.4% of the variation in annual net sales, with the other
variables accounting for the remaining 10.4%.
• The findings from the ANOVA presents that there is a well-fitting model. The p-value is less than 0.5,
the coefficients -81.504 and 0.950 are significant.
• The formula is
Annual Net Sales = -81.504 + 0.950* inventory
4. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and amount spent on advertizing as independet variable,
perform simple linear regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.

Linear Regression

Model Summary - Annual Net Sales

Durbin-Watson
Model R R² Adjusted R² RMSE Autocorrelation Statistic p
H₀ 0.000 0.000 0.000 192.062 0.252 1.479 0.164
H₁ 0.914 0.835 0.829 79.455 0.033 1.739 0.468

ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
H₁ Regression 801254.098 1 801254.098 126.920 < .001
Residual 157826.254 25 6313.050
Total 959080.352 26
Note. The intercept model is omitted, as no meaningful information can be shown.

Coefficients
95% CI
Standard
Model Unstandardized Standardized t p Lower Upper
Error
H₀ (Intercept) 286.574 36.962 7.753 < .001 210.597 362.551
-
H₁ (Intercept) -90.150 36.770 -2.452 0.022 -14.421
165.878
amount spent on
46.509 4.128 0.914 11.266 < .001 38.007 55.012
advertizing

Descriptives
N Mean SD SE
Annual Net Sales 27 286.574 192.062 36.962
amount spent on advertizing 27 8.100 3.775 0.726

• Based on the R2, the amount spent on advertising accounts for 83.5% of the variation in annual sales,
with the remaining 16.5% explained by other variables.
• The findings from the ANOVA presents that there is a well-fitting model. The -90.150 and 46.509 is
statistically significant.
• The formula for the is
Annual Net Sales = -90.150 + 46.509* amount spent on advertizing
5. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and size of sales district independent variable, perform
simple linear regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.

Linear Regression

Model Summary - Annual Net Sales

Durbin-Watson
Model R R² Adjusted R² RMSE Autocorrelation Statistic p
H₀ 0.000 0.000 0.000 192.062 0.252 1.479 0.164
H₁ 0.954 0.910 0.906 58.919 -0.273 2.535 0.171

ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
H₁ Regression 872294.494 1 872294.494 251.278 < .001
Residual 86785.858 25 3471.434
Total 959080.352 26
Note. The intercept model is omitted, as no meaningful information can be shown.

Coefficients
95% CI
Model Unstandardized Standard Error Standardized t p Lower Upper
H₀ (Intercept) 286.574 36.962 7.753 < .001 210.597 362.551
H₁ (Intercept) -58.823 24.563 -2.395 0.024 -109.412 -8.235
size of sales district 35.635 2.248 0.954 15.852 < .001 31.005 40.265

Descriptives
N Mean SD SE
Annual Net Sales 27 286.574 192.062 36.962
size of sales district 27 9.693 5.140 0.989

• Based on the R2, the size of sales district explains 91% of the variation in annual net sales, with the
remaining 9% explained by the other variables.
• The findings from the ANOVA indicates that there is a well-fitting model. The -58.823 and 35.635 are
statistically significant.
• The formula for the is
Annual Net Sales = -58.823 + 35.635* size of sales district
6. Setting Annual net sales as dependent variable and number of competing stores in district as independent
variable, perform simple linear regression. INTERPRET THE RESULTS.

Linear Regression

Model Summary - Annual Net Sales

Durbin-Watson
Model R R² Adjusted R² RMSE Autocorrelation Statistic p
H₀ 0.000 0.000 0.000 192.062 0.252 1.479 0.164
H₁ 0.912 0.832 0.825 80.239 0.151 1.581 0.256

ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
H₁ Regression 798122.917 1 798122.917 123.965 < .001
Residual 160957.435 25 6438.297
Total 959080.352 26
Note. The intercept model is omitted, as no meaningful information can be shown.

Coefficients
95% CI
Standard
Model Unstandardized Standardized t p Lower Upper
Error
H₀ (Intercept) 286.574 36.962 7.753 < .001 210.597 362.551
H₁ (Intercept) 563.593 29.283 19.246 < .001 503.283 623.902
number of competing -
-35.787 3.214 -0.912 < .001 -42.407 -29.167
store in district 11.134

Descriptives
N Mean SD SE
Annual Net Sales 27 286.574 192.062 36.962
number of competing store in district 27 7.741 4.896 0.942

• Based on the R2, the number of competing stores in the district explains 83.2% of the variation in
annual net sales, with the remaining 16.8% explained by the other variables.
• The findings from the ANOVA indicates that there is a well-fitting model. The 563.593 and - 35.787 are
statistically significant intercepts.
• The formula for is
Annual Net Sales = 563.593 - 35.787* number of competing stores in the district