You are on page 1of 29

# ANNEXURE 3 The influence of price of petrol on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation

y= 11497.65 + 691.7753x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of petrol prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of petrol prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.275919. This means that 27.59% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the price of petrol. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.185) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.118956; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that price of petrol has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p value=0.118956). ANNEXURE 5 The influence of price of diesel on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= -7338.74+ 1556.257x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of diesel prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of diesel prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.402614. This means that 40.26% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the price of diesel. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.32794) is small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.402614; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that that price of diesel has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p-value = 0.402614).

ANNEXURE 7 The influence of price of crude oil on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 23249.23+ 292.3596x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of crude oil prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of crude oil prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.328206. This means that 32.82% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the price of crude oil. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.244231) is small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.083439; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that price of crude oil has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p-value=0.083439). ANNEXURE 9 The influence of price of domestic LPG on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= -12867.8+ 186.2685x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of domestic LPG prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of domestic LPG prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.333577. This means that 33.35% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the price of domestic LPG. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.250274) is small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.080379; this value is more than 0.05. This

value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that price of domestic LPG has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p value=0.080379). ANNEXURE 11 The influence of exchange rate(USD/RS) on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 92854.80044-1050.339779x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of exchange rate (usd/rs) on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of exchange rate (usd/rs on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.059835479. This means that 5.98% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the exchange rate of USD/RS. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.057685086) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.495794; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that exchange rate usd/rs has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (pvalue=0.495794). ANNEXURE 13 The influence of population of India on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= -196700 + 212.602x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of population of India on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of population of India on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry)

The R2 value is 0.454218. This means that 45.42% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the population of India. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.385995) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.385995; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that population of India has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p-value=0.385995).

ANNEXURE 15 The influence of exchange rate (SDR/RS) on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 8157.324 + 527.704x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of exchange rate of special drawing rights on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of exchange rate of special drawing rights on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.029198. This means that 2.91% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the rate of special drawing rights. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.09215) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.636937; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that exchange rate of special drawing rights has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (P-VALUE=0.636937). ANNEXURE 17

The influence of exchange rate (POUND STERLING/RS) on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 150245.6 -1343.61x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of exchange rate of POUND STERLING/RUPEE on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of exchange rate of POUND STERLING on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.274282. This means that 27.42% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the rate pound sterling. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.183567) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.120256; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that exchange rate of pound sterling has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p value=0.120256). ANNEXURE 19 The influence of GDP GROWTH RATE on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 28814.84 + 2016.91x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of GDP growth rate of India on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of GDP growth rate of India on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.096838. This means that 9.68% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the GDP growth rate of India. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.01606) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any

conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.381454; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that GDP growth rate of India has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p value=0.381454). ANNEXURE 21 The influence of TOURIST ARRIVAL TO INDIA on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= -19355.9+ 13677.36x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of tourist arrival to India on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of tourist arrival to India on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.938666. This means that 93.86% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the tourist arrival to India. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.928444) is not small and significantly not different than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is adequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.0000738; this value is much less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that tourist arrival to India has quite a significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p value=0.0000738). ANNEXURE 23 The influence of CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM IN INDIA on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 30450.49+
284.3081x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows.

H0: b = 0 (no influence of CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM IN INDIA on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM IN INDIA on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry)

The R2 value is 0.142948. This means that 14.29% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the tourist arrival to India. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.035816) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.281372; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR PROMOTION OF
ECO TOURISM IN INDIA has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of

the hospitality industry (p value=0.281372). ANNEXURE 25 The influence of expenditure for promotion on eco tourism on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 17628.47+787.8395x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of expenditure for promotion on eco tourism on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of expenditure for promotion on eco tourism on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.9338. This means that 93.38% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the expenditure for promotion on eco tourism. The adjusted R2 (0.925525) is not small and is not significantly different from the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is adequate to draw conclusions about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 5.4E-06; this value is less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that expenditure for promotion on eco tourism has a very significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry. (p value= 5.4E-06) ANNEXURE 27 The influence of % SHARE OF INDIA IN WORLD TOURIST ARRIVAL on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 40712.97 + 1771.802x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows.

H0: b = 0 (no influence of SHARE OF INDIA IN WORLD TOURIST ARRIVAL on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of SHARE OF INDIA IN WORLD TOURIST ARRIVAL on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.116309. This means that 11.63% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the tourist arrival to India. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.005847) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.334856; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that SHARE OF INDIA IN WORLD TOURIST
ARRIVAL has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality

industry. (p value = 0.334856) ANNEXURE 29 The influence of WORLD TOURIST ARRIVALS on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= -95034.5+ 162.8583x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of WORLD TOURIST ARRIVALS on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of WORLD TOURIST ARRIVALS on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.889431. This means that 88.94% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the tourist arrival to India. therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.871003) is not significantly different than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is adequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.000441; this value is less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that WORLD TOURIST ARRIVALS has a significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry. (p value= 0.000441)

ANNEXURE 31 The influence of domestic tourist visits on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= -6760.424086+ 9.67752E-05x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of domestic tourist visits on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of domestic tourist visits on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.980558775. This means that 98.05% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the tourist arrival to India.. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.977318571) is not significantly different than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is adequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 2.3132E-06; this value is less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that domestic tourist visits have a significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p-value= 2.3132E-06). ANNEXURE 33 The influence of cement prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 211.5338 + 216.0725x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of cement prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of cement prices on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.414436. This means that 41.44% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the prices of cement. Therefore, the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.34124) is different than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is adequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.04458; this value is less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that prices of

cement have a significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality

industry (p-value= 0.04458). ANNEXURE 35 The influence of assistance sanctioned by TFCI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 30874.31+ 0.499129. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of assistance sanctioned by TFCI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of assistance sanctioned by TFCI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.700804. This means that 70.08% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the assistance sanctioned by TFCI. Therefore, the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.650938) is different than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.009523; this value is less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that assistance
sanctioned by TFCI has a significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the

hospitality industry (p-value= 0.009523). ANNEXURE 37 The influence of assistance disbursed by TFCI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 30120.77+ 1.00949. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of assistance disbursed by TFCI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of assistance disbursed by TFCI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.668586. This means that 66.85% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the assistance sanctioned by

TFCI. Therefore, the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.61335) is not very different than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is adequate to draw conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.013157; this value is less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that assistance disbursed by TFCI has a significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality industry (p-value= 0.013157). ANNEXURE 39 The influence of Number OF PROJECTS SANCTIONED BY MTI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 20731.93 + 161.0817x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of Number OF PROJECTS SANCTIONED BY MTI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of Number OF PROJECTS SANCTIONED BY MTI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.409282. This means that 40.92% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the Number OF PROJECTS
SANCTIONED BY MTI. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied

upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.212376) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.245048; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that Number OF PROJECTS
SANCTIONED BY MTI has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the

hospitality industry (p-value= 0.245048). ANNEXURE 41 The influence of amount SANCTIONED BY MTI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y= 19903.39+ 49.85517x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of amount SANCTIONED BY MTI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry)

Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of amount SANCTIONED BY MTI on foreign exchange earnings from hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.289168. This means that 28.91% of the variation in the foreign exchange earnings in hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the Number OF PROJECTS
SANCTIONED BY MTI. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied

upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.052223) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.349926; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that amount SANCTIONED BY
MTI has no significant influence on the foreign exchange earnings of the hospitality

industry (p-value= 0.349926). ANNEXURE 43 The influence of price of petrol on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=15.40605 - 0.10324x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of petrol prices on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of petrol prices on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.044185. This means that 4.41% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the price of petrol. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.07529) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.559967; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that price of petrol has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.559967). ANNEXURE 44

The influence of price of diesel on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=18.96734 - 0.25477x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of diesel prices on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of diesel prices on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.077583. This means that 7.75% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the price of diesel. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.03772) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.435811; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that price of diesel has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry. (p-value= 0.435811) ANNEXURE 45 The influence of price of crude oil on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=12.08683 -0.0221x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of crude oil prices on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of crude oil prices on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.013484. This means that 1.34% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the price of crude oil. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.10983) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.749381; this

value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that price of crude oil has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.749381). ANNEXURE 46

The influence of price of domestic LPG on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=18.79772 - 0.027x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of domestic LPG prices on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of domestic LPG prices on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.050411. This means that 5.04% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the price of domestic LPG. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.06829) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.532874; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that price of domestic LPG has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.532874). ANNEXURE 47 The influence of EXCHANGE RATE USD/RS on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=41.72358-0.67875x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of EXCHANGE RATE USD/RS on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of EXCHANGE RATE USD/RS on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry)

The R2 value is 0.179667. This means that 17.96% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the
EXCHANGE RATE USD/RS. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be

relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.077126) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is
0.222181; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this

hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that EXCHANGE
RATE USD/RS has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost

of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.222181). ANNEXURE 48

The influence of population of India on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=72.37894-0.05456x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of population of India on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of population of India on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.215083. This means that 21.50% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the population
of India. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon.

Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.116968) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.176987; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that population of India has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.176987).

ANNEXURE 49

The influence of exchange rate sdr/rs on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=53.47431-0.62418x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of exchange rate sdr/rs on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of exchange rate sdr/rs on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.293724. This means that 29.37% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the exchange
rate sdr/rs. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon.

Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.20544) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.105601; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that exchange rate sdr/rs has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.105601). ANNEXURE 50

The influence of exchange rate pound sterling on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=-46.0437 + 0.718234x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of exchange rate pound sterling on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of exchange rate pound sterling on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.563557. This means that 56.35% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the exchange
rate pound sterling. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon.

Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.509002) is very small and significantly different and less than the

R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.012349; this value is less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that pound sterling has a significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.012349). ANNEXURE 51

The influence of GDP growth rate on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=7.045521+ 0.44145x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of GDP growth rate on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of GDP growth rate on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.033357. This means that 3.33% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in the GDP
growth rate. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon.

Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.08747) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.613539; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that GDP growth rate has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.613539). ANNEXURE 52 The influence of TOURIST ARRIVAL TO INDIA on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=24.15739 - 2.99301x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of TOURIST ARRIVAL TO INDIA on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry)

Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of TOURIST ARRIVAL TO INDIA on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.177111. This means that 17.71% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in TOURIST
ARRIVAL TO INDIA. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied

upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.039963) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.299134; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that TOURIST ARRIVAL TO
INDIA has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of

hospitality industry (p-value= 0.299134). ANNEXURE 53 The influence of CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM IN INDIA on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=9.692648- 0.015926x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM IN INDIA on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM IN INDIA on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.003225. This means that 0.32% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in CAPITAL
OUTLAY FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM IN INDIA. As this is very small therefore the regression

outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.12137) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.876171; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM IN INDIA has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.876171).

ANNEXURE 54 The influence of EXPENDITURE FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=16.065860.16373x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows.

H0: b = 0 (no influence of EXPENDITURE FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of EXPENDITURE FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.289998. This means that 28.99% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in
EXPENDITURE FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM. As this is very small therefore the

regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.201248) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.10828; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that EXPENDITURE FOR PROMOTION OF ECO TOURISM has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.10828). ANNEXURE 55 \The influence of % SHARE OF INDIA IN WORLD TOURIST ARRIVAL on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=10.877150.1855x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows.

H0: b = 0 (no influence of % SHARE OF INDIA IN WORLD TOURIST ARRIVAL on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of % SHARE OF INDIA IN WORLD TOURIST ARRIVAL on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.009167. This means that 0.91% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in % SHARE OF

INDIA IN WORLD TOURIST ARRIVAL. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes

cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.11469) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.792473; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that %
SHARE OF INDIA IN WORLD TOURIST ARRIVAL has no significant influence on the

annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.792473). ANNEXURE 56

The influence of WORLD TOURIST ARRIVALS on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=23.64968-0.01495x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of WORLD TOURIST ARRIVALS on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of WORLD TOURIST ARRIVALS on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.065803. This means that 6.58% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in WORLD
TOURIST ARRIVALS. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied

upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.05097) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.47435; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that WORLD TOURIST
ARRIVALS has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of

hospitality industry (p-value= 0.47435). ANNEXURE 57(ask) The influence of DOMESTIC TOURIST VISITS on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=27.76235128-3.38102E-08x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows.

H0: b = 0 (no influence of DOMESTIC TOURIST VISITS on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of DOMESTIC TOURIST VISITS on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.471590322. This means that 47.15% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in DOMESTIC TOURIST VISITS. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.383522042) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.059935; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that DOMESTIC TOURIST VISITS has a significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.059935).

ANNEXURE 58

The influence of PRICES OF CEMENT on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=24.49731092-0.068377126x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of PRICES OF CEMENT on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of PRICES OF CEMENT on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.298423172. This means that 29.84% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in PRICES OF
CEMENT. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied upon.

Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.210726068) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.102307; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that PRICES OF CEMENT has

no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value= 0.102307).

ANNEXURE 59

The

influence

of

ASSISTANCE

SANCTIONED

BY

TFCI

(TOURISM

FINANCE

CORPORATION OF INDIA) on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=16.24532-0.00025x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of ASSISTANCE SANCTIONED BY TFCI on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of ASSISTANCE SANCTIONED BY TFCI on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.680411. This means that 68.04% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in ASSISTANCE
SANCTIONED BY TFCI. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied

upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.627146) is small and different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is somewhat inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.011726; this value is less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that ASSISTANCE SANCTIONED
BY TFCI has a significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of

hospitality industry (p-value= 0.011726).

ANNEXURE 60

The influence of ASSISTANCE DISBURSED BY TFCI (TOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA) on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=16.49852-0. 00049x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of ASSISTANCE DISBURSED BY TFCI on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry)

Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of ASSISTANCE DISBURSED BY TFCI on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.62273. This means that 62.27% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in ASSISTANCE
SANCTIONED BY TFCI. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes cannot be relied

upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.559852) is small and different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is somewhat inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.01989; this value is less than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is rejected and that means that ASSISTANCE DISBURSED BY
TFCI has a significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of

hospitality industry (p-value=0.01989).

ANNEXURE 61

The influence of NUMBER OF PROJECTS SANCTIONED BY MTI (MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY)on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=11.90195-0.02569x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of NUMBER OF PROJECTS SANCTIONED BY MTI on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of NUMBER OF PROJECTS SANCTIONED BY MTI on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.069155. This means that 6.91% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in NUMBER OF
PROJECTS SANCTIONED BY MTI. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes

cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (-0.24113) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is somewhat inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.669073; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that NUMBER OF PROJECTS SANCTIONED BY MTI has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value=0.669073).

ANNEXURE 62

The influence of AMOUNT SANCTIONED BY MTI (MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY)on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry is given by the regression equation y=22.95406-0.02304x. The hypothesis tested with the regression equation is as follows. H0: b = 0 (no influence of AMOUNT SANCTIONED BY MTI on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) Ha: b ≠ 0(influence of AMOUNT SANCTIONED BY MTI on annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry) The R2 value is 0.410275. This means that 41.02% of the variation in the annual growth rate of GDP at factor cost of the hospitality industry is being explained by the changes in NUMBER OF
PROJECTS SANCTIONED BY MTI. As this is very small therefore the regression outcomes

cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the adjusted R2 (0.213699) is very small and significantly different and less than the R2. This also means that the sample size taken into consideration is inadequate to draw any conclusion about the true relation between the chosen variables. The p value is 0.244289; this value is more than 0.05. This value of p is the level of significance at which this hypothesis can be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is accepted and that means that
AMOUNT SANCTIONED BY MTI has no significant influence on the annual growth rate of

GDP at factor cost of hospitality industry (p-value=0.244289).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY DRAFT Research Methodology is an overall framework of the project that stipulates what information is to be collected from which source by what procedures. If descriptive information is needed, then a quantitative study is likely to be needed. Quantitative Research is based on measurement of quantity or amount, and Qualitative Research is concerned with qualitative phenomenon, i.e., phenomena relating to quality or kind. The data collected here is quantitative data relating to the graphs and the statistics required to analyze the data. The choice of data collection methods for this study includes secondary data from websites, reports, books and journals available in the Learning Resource Centre of our college.

Various secondary data have been found and from these DATA, data analysis has been done. Charts and graphs have been used in order to analyze the data. Regression has already been used to find out the link between various variables of the hospitality industry. Hypothesis is made in order to examine the effect of one variable over others. Due to paucity of time, secondary data is mainly used for this Project Report, and this research is of a quantitative nature. The various methods used by me are:

Secondary data: Published data and the data collected in the past or other parties is called secondary data. Secondary data is data that has already been collected by someone else for a different purpose to yours. The methods for collection are:  Internet  Magazines  CMIE 3.3 TOOLS RELATED TO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:  Computation tools  Statistical tools COMPUTATION TOOLS USED o Microsoft Excel o Microsoft word
STATISTICAL TOOLS USED CORRELATION: Degree and type of relationship between any two or more quantities (variables) in which they vary together over a period;. A positive correlation exists where the high values of one variable are associated with the high values of the other variable(s). A 'negative correlation' means association of high values of one with the low values of the other(s). Correlation can vary from +1 to -1. Values close to +1 indicate a high-degree of positive correlation, and values close to -1 indicate a high degree of negative correlation. Values close to zero indicate poor correlation of either kind, and 0 indicates no correlation at all. Given below is the formula by Karl Pearson for sample correlation coefficient, commonly denoted r:

REGRESSION: A statistical measure that attempts to determine the strength of the relationship between one dependent variable (usually denoted by Y) and a series of other changing variables (known as independent variables). The two basic types of regression are linear regression and multiple regressions. Linear regression uses one independent variable to explain and/or predict the outcome of Y, while multiple regressions use two or more independent variables to predict the outcome. The general form of each type of regression is:

Linear Regression: Y = a + bX + u Where: Y= the variable that we are trying to predict (dependant variable) X= the variable that we are using to predict Y (independent variable) a= the intercept b= the slope u= the regression residual. DEPENDENT VARIABLE: A dependent variable is a variable dependent on another variable: the independent variable. In simple terms, the independent variable is said to cause an apparent change in, or simply affect, the dependent variable. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: An independent variable is a factor that can be varied or manipulated in an experiment (e.g. time, temperature, concentration, etc). It is usually what will affect the dependent variable. There are two types of independent variables, which are often treated differently in statistical analyses: (1) quantitative variables that differ in amounts or scale and can be ordered (e.g. weight, temperature, time). (2) Qualitative variables which differ in "types" and can not be ordered (e.g. gender, species, method). By convention when graphing data, the independent variable is plotted along the horizontal X-axis with the dependent variable on the vertical Y-axis. INTERCEPT: The x-intercepts are where the graph crosses the x-axis, and the y-intercepts are where the graph crosses the the y-axis. Then, algebraically,   an x-intercept is a point on the graph where y is zero, and a y-intercept is a point on the graph where x is zero.

More specifically,

 

an x-intercept is a point in the equation where the y-value is zero, and

a y-intercept is a point in the equation where the x-value is zero.

CO-EFFICIENT: A coefficient is a number in front of a variable. For example, in the expression x2-10x+25, the coefficient of the x2 is 1 and the coefficient of the x is -10. The third term, 25, is called a constant. If the expression were -x2+10x+25, the coefficient of the x2 would be -1, and the coefficient of the x would be 10. P-Value: P value is associated with a test statistic. It is "the probability, if the test statistic really were distributed as it would be under the null hypothesis, of observing a test statistic [as extreme as, or more extreme than] the one actually observed.” The smaller the P value, the more strongly the test rejects the null hypothesis, that is, the hypothesis being tested. A p-value of .05 or less rejects the null hypothesis "at the 5% level" that is, the statistical assumptions used imply that only 5% of the time would the supposed statistical process produce a finding this extreme if the null hypothesis were true. Consider an experiment where you've measured values in two samples, and the means are different. How sure are you that the population means are different as well? There are two possibilities:

 The populations have different means.  The populations have the same mean, and the difference you observed is a coincidence of
random sampling. The P value is a probability, with a value ranging from zero to one. It is the answer to this question: If the populations really have the same mean overall, what is the probability that random sampling would lead to a difference between sample means as large (or larger) than we observed? What is R2 : R-Square is the proportion of variation in the dependent variable (Y) that can be explained by the predictors (X variables) in the regression model. As predictors (X variables) are added to the model, each predictor will explain some of the variance in the dependent variable (Y) simply due to chance. One could continue to add predictors to the model which would continue to improve the ability of the predictors to explain the dependent variable, although some of this increase in R-Square would be simply due to chance variation. There are several

different definitions of R2 which are only sometimes equivalent. One class of such cases includes that of linear regression. In this case, R2 is simply the square of the sample correlation coefficient between the outcomes and their predicted values, or in the case of simple linear regression, between the outcome and the values being used for prediction. In such cases, the values vary from 0 to 1. Important cases where the computational definition of R2 can yield negative values, depending on the definition used, arise where the predictions which are being compared to the corresponding outcome have not derived from a model-fitting procedure using those data. Adjusted R2 : The Adjusted R_Square value is an attempt to correct this shortcoming by adjusting both the numerator and the denominator by their respective degrees of freedom. Unlike the R_Square, the Adjusted R_Square can decline in value if the contribution to the explained deviation by the additional variable is less than the impact on the degrees of freedom. This means that the Adjusted R_Square will react to alternative equations for the same dependent variable in a manner similar to the Standard Error of the Estimate; i.e., the equation with the smallest Standard Error of the Estimate will most likely also have the highest Adjusted R square. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Statistical measure of the number of times out of 100 that test results can be expected to be within a specified range. For example, a confidence level of 95% means that the result of an action will probably meet expectations 95% of the time. Most analyses of variance or correlation are described in terms of some level of confidence. HYPOTHESES: Hypotheses may be defined as a set of proposition set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomenon either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide some investigation or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. A hypothesis should be clear and precise and also be capable of being tested. It should state relationship between variables and must be consistent with a substantial body of established facts. A researcher must remember those narrower hypotheses are generally more testable and acceptable.  Null hypotheses: typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect. Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the data are, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data are very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null

hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then no conclusion is made. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion. For instance, a certain drug may reduce the chance of having a heart attack. Possible null hypotheses are "this drug does not reduce the chances of having a heart attack" and "this drug has no effect on the chances of having a heart attack".  Alternative hypothesis: the hypothesis to be accepted if the null hypothesis is rejected. It is compared with the null hypothesis in a statistical test. It is usually the one which one wishes to prove whereas null hypothesis is usually the one which one wishes to disapprove.

SOURCE: 1. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/correlation.html#ixzz143utZ Zyw 2. http://www.investorwords.com/4137/regression_equation.html 3. http://cnx.org/content/m13446/latest/ 4. http://cnx.org/content/m13448/latest/ 5. http://www.purplemath.com/modules/intrcept.htm 6. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Coefficient 7. http://www.answers.com/topic/confidence-level 8. http://www.nullhypothesis.co.uk/science/item/what_is_a_null hypothesis 9. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-alternative-hypothesis.htm