HOLY ANGEL UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTANCY

BUSSTATS
MIDTERM PROJECT

6345 – B211

GROUP NUMBER 6

Caisip, Justin Gabriel

Esguerra, Francesca
Lagman, Jashtin
Mitra, Maria Sarah Luciae
Perolino, Lailanie

Dr. Erlinda Alejandrino

October 7, 2022

1|Page
1. What is the frequency distribution of respondents’ demographics?

Frequencies of Age

Levels Counts % of Total Cumulative %

1 2 2.0 % 2.0 %

2 11 11.0 % 13.0 %

3 17 17.0 % 30.0 %

4 26 26.0 % 56.0 %

5 24 24.0 % 80.0 %

6 19 19.0 % 99.0 %

7 1 1.0 % 100.0 %

This frequency distribution may further be subdivided into two

frequencies as per the demographics of the respondents. For age, they are coded
into seven (7) levels ranging from the ages of 18–25 years old. To interpret this
table, 2 out of 100 respondents are the ones that have participated in the study,
or alternatively, 2% of the respondents are 18 years old. For the second level,
11 out of 100 respondents who are over 19 years of age also participated,
corresponding to 11% of the total percentage of respondents. As for the third
level, 17% of which are over 20 years old, this also indicates that there are 17
out of 100 respondents for this level.

Furthermore, 26% of the respondents, which means that there are 26 out
of 100 respondents who are 21 years old. There are also 24 out of 100
respondents, or 24%, who are 22 years old and have also participated in this
study. The second to the last level has 24-year-old respondents who tallied 19%
of the total percentages of respondents. Lastly, only 1%, or 1 respondent out of
100 respondents who are 25 years old, participated in this study.

2|Page
 Frequencies of Gender

Levels Counts % of Total Cumulative %

1 55 55.0 % 55.0 %
2 45 45.0 % 100.0 %

The second frequency for the respondent’s demographics is “gender.”

To interpret this data, as seen from the results illustrate that there are more
males who use this program. 55% or 55 out of the 100 respondents are male
while the remaining 45 respondents which equal to 45% are female.

2. What is the mean rating of the following:

A. Quality Content

Descriptives

(QC1) (QC2) (QC3) (QC4) Quality Content

N 100 100 100 100 100

Mean 4.02 4.02 4.18 4.27 4.12
Standard deviation 0.635 0.765 0.642 0.601 0.460

In interpreting the mean score of the respondents’ responses about the

quality content, the table shows a mean of 4.02 for "Quality Content 1", 4.02
for "Quality Content 2", 4.18 for "Quality Content 3", and lastly, 4.27 for
"Quality Content 4", with a total of 100 respondents. Based on the mean score
above, the results show that most of the respondents agree. This is based on a
five-point scale: 1 - Strongly Disagree (1.00 to 1.80), 2 - Disagree (1.81 to
2.60), 3 - Neutral/Uncertain (2.61-3.40), 4 - Agree (3.41 to 4.20), and 5 -
Strongly Agree (4.21 to 5.00). To conclude, the average score of the "Quality

3|Page
Content" category is 4.12, which implies that the respondents agree with all the
questions that were given.

B. User Experience
Descriptives

(UE1) (UE2) (UE3) (UE4) User Experience

N 100 100 100 100 100

Mean 4.18 3.76 3.41 3.78 3.78
Standard deviation 0.716 0.878 0.975 0.949 0.651

To interpret the mean score of the respondents’ responses to their user

experience, the scale would provide these measurements: 1 means strongly
disagree (1.00 to 1.80); 2 means disagree (1.81 to 2.60); 3 means
neutral/uncertain (2.61-3.40); 4 means agree (3.41 to 4.20); and 5 means
strongly agree (4.21 to 5.00). The table shows a mean of 4.18 for the "User
Experience Content 1", 3.76 for the "User Experience Content 2", while 3.41
for "User Experience Content 3, and lastly, 3.78 for the "User Experience
Content 4" gathered from the respondents with a total of 100 respondents.
Based on the mean score above, the results show that many of the respondents
agree. As a result, the average score for User Experience Content is 3.78,
indicating that the respondents agree with all the questions asked during this
study.

C. Frequently Visit

Descriptives

(FV1) (FV2) (FV3) (FV4) Frequently Visit

N 100 100 100 100 100

Mean 4.12 4.28 4.26 4.24 4.22
Standard deviation 0.700 0.637 0.691 0.780 0.550

To interpret the mean score of the respondent’s responses on their frequent

visits, it will be described in terms of scale 1 – Strongly Disagree (1.00 to 1.80);
2 – Disagree (1.81 to 2.60); and 3 – Neutral/Uncertain (2.61-3.40); 4 – Agree
(3.41 to 4.20); and 5 – Strongly Agree (4.21 to 5.00). The results show that for
FV1 it has a mean of 4.12, followed by FV2 with a mean of 4.28, and FV3 has

4|Page
a mean of 4.26. FV4 has a mean of 4.24. The average value of all variables is
higher than the mean score of 4.21, which indicates that respondents strongly
agree with the frequently visited category.

D. Customer Engagement

Descriptives

(CE1) (CE2) (CE3) (CE4) Customer Engagement

N 100 100 100 100 100

Mean 4.35 4.37 4.41 4.32 4.36
Standard deviation 0.557 0.562 0.605 0.618 0.471

This table presents the mean scores of the respondents' responses

regarding customer engagement. In determining the respondents' ratings, the
researchers used a 5-point psychometric response scale, namely, the Likert
Scale, as shown above in the displayed tables. And the researchers identified
their responses by stating, 1 – Strongly Disagree (1.00 to 1.80); 2 – Disagree
(1.81 to 2.60); 3 – Neutral (2.61 to 3.40); 4 – Agree (3.41 to 4.20); and Strongly
Agree (4.21 to 5.00). The result of the computed mean score interpretation for
overall customer engagement has a value of 4.36, which means that the four
other variables also have a very high mean score interpretation. In detail, the
results of CE 3 carry the highest mean score of 4.41, followed by CE 2 (4.37),
then CE 1, (4.34), and lastly CE 4 (4.32). The mentioned mean scores exceed
the scale of 5 (4.21 to 5.00), proving that the respondents strongly agree with
the customer engagement factor.

5|Page
3. Is your data parametric or non-parametric based on your normality test?
Descriptives

(QC1) (QC2) (QC3) (QC4)

N 100 100 100 100

Mean 4.02 4.02 4.18 4.27
Standard deviation 0.635 0.765 0.642 0.601
Shapiro-Wilk W 0.785 0.792 0.778 0.755
Shapiro-Wilk p < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001

A normality test is often used in research to identify whether the data being
studied has been drawn from a normally distributed population. To interpret the
results of this table, it can be seen that this data set falls under the non-parametric
category. As looking at the Shapiro-Wilk p, wherein this is the basis for identifying
whether the data is parametric or non-parametric. In here, all categories or groups
of the quality content are less than .001 (<.001), which solidifies the claim that this
data is non-parametric.

Descriptives

(UE1) (UE2) (UE3) (UE4)

N 100 100 100 100

Mean 4.18 3.76 3.41 3.78
Standard deviation 0.716 0.878 0.975 0.949
Shapiro-Wilk W 0.802 0.870 0.881 0.872
Shapiro-Wilk p < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001

The Shapiro-Wilk p will be used as the basis for measurement to determine

if this data is parametric or non-parametric when interpreting this table. The value
of the data must be less than .001 (<.001) to be considered as a data set that falls
under the non-parametric category. It is clear that from the table that all the user
experience groups, from UE1 to UE4, demonstrate that their measurement for
normality testing is less than .001 (<.001). This demonstrates the non-parametric
nature of the data.

6|Page
 Descriptives

(FV1) (FV2) (FV3) (FV4)

N 100 100 100 100

Mean 4.12 4.28 4.26 4.24
Standard deviation 0.700 0.637 0.691 0.780
Shapiro-Wilk W 0.803 0.763 0.775 0.772
Shapiro-Wilk p < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001

Observing the table, from FV1 to FV4, all of them have the same values of
“<.001.” This indicates that the data falls under the non-parametric category. In
support of this identification, based on the Shapiro-Wilk p, it can be identified that
all the groups under "Frequently Visit" are less than .001 (<.001). This is because,
as a general rule, for normality testing, if the values that are exhibited on the row
of the Shapiro-Wilk p are <.001, then the data would be classified as non-
parametric.

Descriptives

(CE1) (CE2) (CE3) (CE4)

N 100 100 100 100

Mean 4.35 4.37 4.41 4.32
Standard deviation 0.557 0.562 0.605 0.618
Shapiro-Wilk W 0.719 0.721 0.721 0.758
Shapiro-Wilk p < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001

For this data set's normality test interpretation, the table indicates the values
of the “Customer Engagement” category. It can be observed that this data is non-
parametric. Looking at the Shapiro-Wilk p, all the values from CE1 through CE4
are "<.001." In keeping with this, "<.001" denotes non-parametric data if this result
is displayed. Thus, it can be interpreted that "Customer Engagement" falls under
the category of a non-parametric data set.

7|Page
4. Is there a significant difference in respondents’ customer engagement
when groups are based on gender?

Independent Samples T-Test

Independent Samples T-Test

Statistic df p

Customer Engagement Student's t -0.0797 98.0 0.937

In this table, the researchers used the Mann-Whitney U Test to determine

the two independent samples from the same distribution. The mentioned data
was not normally distributed, so the researchers used a nonparametric test to
identify its significant value. The variables used in this computation are gender
and the average value of customer engagement. The result of the calculation
shows that it has a greater than .05 value, which only proves that there is no
significant difference in the respondents' customer engagement when groups
are based on gender. The engagement will be the same for all the respondents
regardless of their gender or if they belong to the male or female population of
this data set.

5. Is there a significant difference in respondents’ quality contents when

groups are based on gender?

Independent Samples T-Test

Independent Samples T-Test

Statistic p

Quality Content Mann-Whitney U 1127 0.437

Based on the data, the computed value is greater than .05, which means
that there is no significant difference in the respondents' quality content when
groups are based on gender. This is in line with the calculation of the "p" value
as seen on the table. This value was calculated with the use of the "Mann-
Whitney U Test," which is an umbrella test for the "Independent Samples T-
Test." In determining the significance, the "p" value must be less than .05 (<.05)
to have a significant difference. In here, the "p" value is 0.437, again indicating
that there is no significant difference. This means that the quality under
investigation in this study is perceived to be almost identical among male and

8|Page
 female respondents, so one gender group may perceive the quality to be the same
in comparison with the other gender group.

6. Is there a significant difference in respondents’ user experience when

groups are based on gender?

Independent Samples T-Test

Independent Samples T-Test

Statistic p

User Experience Mann-Whitney U 1135 0.475

The calculation of the "p" value, which is shown in the table, will serve
as the foundation for this measurement in order for there to be no significant
difference. In the event that the computed value of "p" is greater than .05 (>.05),
there will be no significant difference. Due to the non-parametric nature of the
data, the "Mann-Whitney U Test" was applied, which falls under the
"Independent Samples T-Test" in this instance. When groups are based on
gender, it is clear from this table that the respondents' user experiences are
significantly the same. The interpretation is that neither of the gender groups
(male or female) had a noticeably better user experience than that of the other.

7. Is there a significant difference in respondents’ frequent visit when groups

are based on gender?

Independent Samples T-Test

Independent Samples T-Test

Statistic p

Frequently Visit Mann-Whitney U 1237 1.000

Based on the data, there is no significant difference in the respondents'

frequent visits when groups are based on gender. The computed p-value, as seen
from the table and calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test, is 1.000. This is a
numerical value that is greater than .05 (>.05). The computed p-value exceeding
.05 indicates that there is no statistically significant difference. Overall, the
results show that there is no significant difference in the respondents’ frequent

9|Page
visits when groups are based on gender. This can mean that, regardless of
gender, the respondents have still frequently visited this establishment.

10 | P a g e