## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

This questionnaire pertains to a project being conducted by a marketing research class. The purpose of this project is to better understand the attitudes and opinions of consumers towards fast-food restaurants. The questionnaire will take only 10-15 minutes to complete, and all responses will remain strictly confidential. Thank you for your help on this project.

**FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS OPINIONS AND PATTERNS
**

1. Below is a listing of various fast-food restaurants. Please check the restaurant that you visit most. (Please check only one) a. KFC b. Subway c. McDonald’s d. Haldiram’s e. Pizza Hut f. Nirula’s 2. In a typical month, how many times would you say you visit fast-food restaurants, such as the ones indicated above? a. One b. Two c. Three d. Four e. Five f. Six g. Seven or more 3. On your last visit to a fast-food restaurant, what was the amount you spent on food and beverages? a. Below Rs. 100 b. Rs. 100 – Rs. 200 c. Rs. 200 – Rs. 300 d. Rs. 300 – Rs. 500 e. Rs. 500 – Rs. 700 f. Above Rs. 700 g. Don’t remember

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

1

4. Regarding your most recent selection of a fast-food restaurant, please rank each of the following attribute: from 1 to 5, with 1 being the most important attribute for selecting the fast-food restaurant and 5 being the least important attribute. 1. Prices of food items 2. Speed of service 3. Convenient location 4. Consistent quality of food 5. Variety of menu items 6. Friendly employees 7. Large size portions

**ATTITUDES OF SATISFACTION, QUALITY AND VALUE
**

5. On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being Very Dissatisfied to 5 being Very Satisfied, please rate the fast-food restaurant that you visited most recently on each of the following dimensions: a. Reasonable prices of food items b. Friendliness of employees c. Variety of menu items d. Speed of service e. Conveniently located f. Quality of food g. Large size portions h. Overall service quality 6. The following questions refer to your perception on the quality, value and offerings of a fast-food restaurant. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being Strongly Agree, and 5 being Strongly Disagree, please choose the rank that best expresses the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. a) I only visit those fast-food establishments that are conveniently located to my phone or work b) I prefer to visit fast-food restaurants that serve healthy/nutritious food c) The price of food items is not important when visiting a fast-food restaurant d) In my opinion, fast-food restaurants are all the same e) All fast-food restaurants should offer some type of child’s menu or kid’s meal f) I tend to visit those fast-food restaurants that offer coupons or special price promotions g) Home delivery would be a great service for fast-food restaurants to offer customers h) When visiting a fast-food restaurant, I normally use the drive-thru window service i) Variety of menu items is important in my selection of a fast-food restaurant

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 2

j) In my opinion, the quality of ingredients a fast-food restaurant uses is more important than the price k) Getting my food order correct is a major problem with many fast-food restaurants l) Friendly employees are important in my selection of a fast-food restaurant m) I prefer to visit fast-food restaurants that offer salads or salad bars n) I go to fast-food restaurants mainly at lunchtime o) I rarely visit a fast-food restaurant for breakfast p) I prefer to buy combination meals having all items from the menu q) The advertisements I see for fast-food restaurants influence my decision to visit the establishment r) I normally eat inside fast-food restaurants s) A major problem with many fast-food restaurants is the inconsistency of quality in food preparation t) I tend to order large size portions or servings at fast-food restaurants 7. Please respond on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all recommended and being definitely recommended for the following statement: If I had to recommend my favorite fast-food restaurant to a friend, it would probably be.

CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION

We need some information for classification purpose. Please tell us a little about yourself. 8. Do you have any children? a. Yes b. No 9. IF YES, How many children do you have living at home? a. None (Skip the next question) b. One c. Two d. Three e. Four or more 9a. What are the ages of those children living at home with you? (Check all age ranges that apply.) a. b. c. d. Under 1 year 1 year 2 years 3-5 years

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 3

e. f. g. h. i. j. k.

6-9 years 10-11 years 12 years 13-17 years 18-24 years 25-34 years 35 years or over

10. How many people are there in your household? (Include yourself, your spouse, any children living at home with you and any other person living with you.) a. One b. Two c. Three d. Four e. Five f. Six g. Seven h. Eight or more 11. Into which category does your total annual household income fall before taxes? a. Under Rs. 20,000 b. Rs. 20,000 – Rs. 29,999 c. Rs. 30,000 – Rs. 39,999 d. Rs. 40,000 – Rs. 49,999 e. Rs. 50,000 – Rs. 59,999 f. Rs. 60,000 – Rs. 69,999 g. Rs. 70,000 – Rs. 79,999 h. Rs. 80,000 – Rs. 89,999 i. Rs. 90,000 – Rs. 99,999 j. Rs. 100,000 or above 12. Which of the following best describes your occupation? a. Managerial b. Professional c. Sales d. Clerical e. Craftsman f. Factory worker g. Self-employed h. Homemaker

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 4

i. Retired j. Student k. Other 13. What is the level of education you have attained? a. Some high school b. High school graduate c. Some college d. College graduate e. Post graduate 14. What is your gender? a. Female b. Male

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

5

Question 1: Make a one way frequency table for Q1

Statistics Various fast-food restaurants N Valid Missing 31 0

Various fast-food restaurants Cumulative Frequency Valid McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 11 7 5 4 1 3 31 Percent 35.5 22.6 16.1 12.9 3.2 9.7 100.0 Valid Percent 35.5 22.6 16.1 12.9 3.2 9.7 100.0 Percent 35.5 58.1 74.2 87.1 90.3 100.0

The above shown frequency table represents the choice of the respondents towards various fastfood restaurants. The frequency distribution shows that maximum respondents have chosen Mcdonald’s.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

6

Question 2: Present the classification information by help of Pie Charts and Bar Diagram. a. Do you have children

The above bar graph and pie chart shows the distribution of respondents on the basis of having children. And it reveals that most of the respondents don’t have any children.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 7

b. No of children living at home

The above bar graph and pie chart shows the distribution of respondents on the basis of the number of children living at home. And it reveals that most of the respondents have no children at home and that is because of the fact of not having any children.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 8

c. Ages of the children living at home

The above bar graph and pie chart show ages of the children living at home. And it reveals that most of the respondents have children of below 1 year at their home.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 9

d. People in household

The above bar graph and pie chart shows the number of people in household. And it reveals that most of the respondents have three people in their household.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 10

e. Monthly household income

The above bar graph and pie chart shows the monthly household income of respondents. And it reveals that most of the respondents have income level of Rs. 100,000 or above.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 11

f. Occupation

The above bar graph and pie chart shows the occupation of respondents. And it reveals that most of the respondents are students.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 12

g. Education level

The above bar graph and pie chart shows the education level of respondents. And it reveals that most of the respondents are college graduate.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 13

h. Gender

The above bar graph and pie chart reveals the gender of the respondents. And it reveals that most of the respondents are male.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 14

Question 3: Draw box plot for Q5

For the first three variables and the last one, box plot reveals that their median and both the quartiles lie at the same point and they don’t have any whiskers too. The box plot of the variables at place 4,5 and 6 reveals that they are skewed to the left as the have more number of respondents in that region. The box plot for 7th variable shows that the data is almost normally distributed.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

15

Question 4: Give summary statistics of Q5

Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Statistic Statistic 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3.97 3.94 3.90 4.19 4.06 4.35 3.71 4.00 Statistic .795 .727 .651 .654 .929 .608 .693 .683 Skewness

Statistic Statistic Reasonable prices of food items Friendliness of employees Variety of menu items Speed of service Conveniently located Quality of food Large size portions Overall service quality Valid N (list wise) 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 2

Statistic Statistic Std. Error .632 .529 .424 .428 .862 .370 .480 .467 -.791 -.456 -.683 -.214 -1.469 -.348 -.184 -.671 .421 .421 .421 .421 .421 .421 .421 .421

The above table lists the sample statistics and includes mean, standard deviation, variance and skewness of the variables showing preference of different attributes for the selection of a fastfood restaurant.

Question 5: Determine whether female respondent are significantly more satisfied then male respondent about the overall service quality of their choice of restaurant.

T-test is used to find out the solution.

Step 1: Formation of hypothesis U1 represents the population mean of females U2 represents the population mean of males. H0:U1-U2 ≤ 0 H1: U1-U2 > 0 Step 2: Level of significance = 5%

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

16

Step 3: Computation of p value

To evaluate the p test, SPSS is used, which shows the following results:

Group Statistics Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Overall service quality Female Male 6 25 4.17 3.96 .408 .735 .167 .147

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances Overall service quality Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed F .612 Sig. .440

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference t .659 df 29 Sig.(2tailed) .515 Mean Difference .207 Std. Error Difference .314 Lower -.435 Upper .848

Overall service quality

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.930

14.032

.368

.207

.222

-.270

.683

As p value is .368 or 36.8 % That is, p value > alpha We conclude that evidences are not strong enough to reject the H0 .Therefore we can say that female respondents are not significantly more satisfied than the male respondents.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

17

**Question 6: Run one way Anova a. Gender and preference of different attributes
**

ANOVA Sum of Squares Prices of food items Between Groups Within Groups Total Speed of service Between Groups Within Groups Total Convenient location Between Groups Within Groups Total Consistent quality of food Between Groups Within Groups Total Variety of menu items Between Groups Within Groups Total Friendly employees Between Groups Within Groups Total Large size portions Between Groups Within Groups Total 2.462 19.473 21.935 .538 11.333 11.871 .674 14.293 14.968 .362 16.993 17.355 1.860 26.140 28.000 .495 21.440 21.935 .263 32.833 33.097 df 1 29 30 1 29 30 1 29 30 1 29 30 1 29 30 1 29 30 1 29 30 .263 1.132 .233 .633 .495 .739 .670 .420 1.860 .901 2.064 .162 .362 .586 .617 .439 .674 .493 1.368 .252 .538 .391 1.376 .250 Mean Square 2.462 .671 F 3.667 Sig. .065

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

18

Step1: Formation of hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between preference for attributes between males and females H1: There is significant difference between preference for attributes between males and females Step2: Level of significance = 5% Step 3: Computing test statistics Attributes

Prices of food items Speed of service Convenient location Consistent quality of food Variety of menu items Friendly employees Large size portions

p-value

0.065 0.25 0.252 0.439 0.162 0.42 0.633

Conclusion: As we can see, in all the attributes, p-value is greater than .05, we conclude that there are not enough evidences to reject the null hypothesis in favor of alternate one. Therefore we say that there is no difference in the preference of various attributes among the two genders.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

19

**b. Occupation and preference of different attributes
**

ANOVA Sum of Squares Prices of food items Between Groups Within Groups Total Speed of service Between Groups Within Groups Total Convenient location Between Groups Within Groups Total Consistent quality of food Between Groups Within Groups Total Variety of menu items Between Groups Within Groups Total Friendly employees Between Groups Within Groups Total Large size portions Between Groups Within Groups Total 1.963 19.973 21.935 .116 11.755 11.871 .168 14.800 14.968 3.900 13.455 17.355 3.027 24.973 28.000 2.045 19.891 21.935 3.124 29.973 33.097 df 4 26 30 4 26 30 4 26 30 4 26 30 4 26 30 4 26 30 4 26 30 .781 1.153 .677 .614 .511 .765 .668 .620 .757 .960 .788 .544 .975 .517 1.884 .143 .042 .569 .074 .990 .029 .452 .064 .992 Mean Square .491 .768 F .639 Sig. .640

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

20

Step1: Formation of hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between preferences for attributes between people of different occupation H1: There is significant difference between preferences for attributes between people of different occupation Step2: Level of significance = 5% Step 3: Computing test statistics Attributes

Prices of food items Speed of service Convenient location Consistent quality of food Variety of menu items Friendly employees Large size portions

p-value

0.64 0.992 0.99 0.143 0.544 0.62 0.614

Conclusion: As we can see, in all the attributes, p-value is greater than .05, we conclude that there are not enough evidences to reject the null hypothesis in favor of alternate one. Therefore we say that there is no difference in the preference of various attributes among the people of different occupations.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

21

**c. Household income and preference of different attributes
**

ANOVA Sum of Squares Prices of food items Between Groups Within Groups Total Speed of service Between Groups Within Groups Total Convenient location Between Groups Within Groups Total Consistent quality of food Between Groups Within Groups Total Variety of menu items Between Groups Within Groups Total Friendly employees Between Groups Within Groups Total Large size portions Between Groups Within Groups Total 4.779 13.329 18.107 3.707 7.257 10.964 4.136 10.829 14.964 4.000 12.429 16.429 3.436 24.564 28.000 4.357 16.357 20.714 13.029 19.400 32.429 df 6 21 27 6 21 27 6 21 27 6 21 27 6 21 27 6 21 27 6 21 27 2.171 .924 2.351 .068 .726 .779 .932 .493 .573 1.170 .490 .809 .667 .592 1.126 .381 .689 .516 1.337 .285 .618 .346 1.788 .150 Mean Square .796 .635 F 1.255 Sig. .320

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

22

Step1: Formation of hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between preferences for attributes between people of different income groups H1: There is significant difference between preference for attributes between people of different income groups

**Step2: Level of significance = 5% Step 3: Computing test statistics Attributes
**

Prices of food items Speed of service Convenient location Consistent quality of food Variety of menu items Friendly employees Large size portions

p-value

0.32 0.15 0.285 0.381 0.809 0.493 0.068

Conclusion: As we can see, in all the attributes, p-value is greater than .05, we conclude that there are not enough evidences to reject the null hypothesis in favor of alternate one. Therefore we say that there is no difference in the preference of various attributes among the people of different income groups

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

23

Question 7: Run Two way Anova for monthly household income and preference of different attributes using gender as blocking variable.

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label Monthly household income 1 Under Rs. 20,000 2 Rs. 20,000 – Rs. 29,999 4 Rs. 40,000 – Rs. 49,999 5 Rs. 50,000 – Rs. 59,999 7 Rs. 70,000 – Rs. 79,999 9 Rs. 90,000 – Rs. 99,999 10 Rs. 100,000 or above Gender 1 2 Female Male 5 23 10 1 2 4 2 2 N 7

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:Prices of food items Type III Sum of Source Corrected Model Intercept Q11 Q14 Q11 * Q14 Error Total Corrected Total Squares 7.137

a

df 9 1 6 1 2 18 28 27

Mean Square .793 70.207 .718 1.969 .672 .609

F 1.301 115.196 1.178 3.231 1.103

Sig. .302 .000 .361 .089 .353

70.207 4.309 1.969 1.344 10.970 151.000 18.107

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

24

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:Prices of food items Type III Sum of Source Corrected Model Intercept Q11 Q14 Q11 * Q14 Error Total Corrected Total Squares 7.137

a

df 9 1 6 1 2 18 28 27

Mean Square .793 70.207 .718 1.969 .672 .609

F 1.301 115.196 1.178 3.231 1.103

Sig. .302 .000 .361 .089 .353

70.207 4.309 1.969 1.344 10.970 151.000 18.107

a. R Squared = .394 (Adjusted R Squared = .091)

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

25

Question 8: Run Cross tabs and Chi squared analysis between a. Monthly household income and Various fast-food restaurants

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Various fast-food restaurants * Monthly household income 28 Percent 90.3% N 3 Missing Percent 9.7% N 31 Total Percent 100.0%

Various fast-food restaurants * Monthly household income Crosstabulation Count Rs. 20,000 – Rs. 29,999 1 1 0 0 0 2 Monthly household income Rs. Rs. Rs. 40,000 – 50,000 – 70,000 Rs. Rs. – Rs. 49,999 59,999 79,999 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 Rs. 90,000 – Rs. 99,999 0 0 0 0 1 1 Rs. 100,000 or above 4 4 1 0 1 10

Various fastfood restaurants

McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Pizza Hut

Under Rs. 20,000 3 1 1 2 0 7

Total 10 7 4 4 3 28

Total

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 27.435

a

df 24 24 1

sided) .285 .346 .778

26.152 .079 28

a. 35 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .11.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

26

Step1: Formation of hypothesis H0: Household income has no significant effect on the choice of restaurant H1: Household income has a significant effect on the choice of restaurant Step2: Level of significance = 5% Step 3: Computation of test variable Cal Chi-square = 27.43 Step 4: Tab Chi-square = 36.41 Cal Chi-square = 27.43 As Cal Chi-square < Tab Chi-square, We conclude that there are not enough evidences to reject the null hypothesis in favor of alternate one. Therefore we say that household income has not a significant effect on the choice of restaurant.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

27

b. Occupation and Various fast-food restaurants

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Various fast-food restaurants * Occupation 31 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% N 31 Total Percent 100.0%

Various fast-food restaurants * Occupation Crosstabulation Count Occupation Professional 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Craftsman 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Selfemployed 2 0 1 2 0 0 5 Student 8 6 4 1 1 2 22 Other 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 11 7 5 4 1 3 31

Various fastfood restaurants

McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut

Total

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 18.577

a

df 20 20 1

sided) .549 .558 .059

18.442 3.555 31

a. 29 cells (96.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

28

Step1: Formation of hypothesis H0: Occupation of the people has no significant effect on the choice of restaurant H1: Occupation of the people has a significant effect on the choice of restaurant Step2: Level of significance = 5% Step 3: Computation of test variable Cal Chi-square = 18.57 Step 4: Tab Chi-square = 31.41 Cal Chi-square = 18.57 As Cal Chi-square < Tab Chi-square, We conclude that there are not enough evidences to reject the null hypothesis in favor of alternate one. Therefore we say that occupation of the people has not a significant effect on the choice of restaurant. .

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

29

c. Education level and Various fast-food restaurants

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Various fast-food restaurants * Education level 31 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% N 31 Total Percent 100.0%

Various fast-food restaurants * Education level Crosstabulation Count Education level Some High School 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 High school graduate 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Some college 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 College graduate 7 2 3 2 1 3 18 Post graduate 2 3 2 1 0 0 8

Various fastfood restaurants

McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut

Total 11 7 5 4 1 3 31

Total

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 16.786

a

df 20 20 1

sided) .667 .644 .591

17.145 .289 31

a. 29 cells (96.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

30

Step1: Formation of hypothesis H0: Education level of the people has no significant effect on the choice of restaurant H1: Education level of the people has a significant effect on the choice of restaurant Step2: Level of significance = 5% Step 3: Computation of test variable Cal Chi-square = 16.78 Step 4: Tab Chi-square = 31.41 Cal Chi-square = 16.78 As Cal Chi-square < Tab Chi-square, We conclude that there are not enough evidences to reject the null hypothesis in favor of alternate one. Therefore we say that education level of the people has not a significant effect on the choice of restaurant.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

31

d. Gender and Various fast-food restaurants

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Various fast-food restaurants * Gender 31 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% N 31 Total Percent 100.0%

Various fast-food restaurants * Gender Crosstabulation Count Gender Female Various fast-food restaurants McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 1 1 2 0 0 2 6 Male 10 6 3 4 1 1 25 Total 11 7 5 4 1 3 31

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 7.725

a

df 5 5 1

sided) .172 .188 .111

7.469 2.537 31

a. 10 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .19.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

32

Step1: Formation of hypothesis H0: Gender type has no significant effect on the choice of restaurant H1: Gender type has a significant effect on the choice of restaurant Step2: Level of significance = 5% Step 3: Computation of test variable Cal Chi-square = 7.72 Step 4: Tab Chi-square = 11.07 Cal Chi-square = 7.72 As Cal Chi-square < Tab Chi-square, We conclude that there are not enough evidences to reject the null hypothesis in favor of alternate one. Therefore we say that gender type has not a significant effect on the choice of restaurant.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

33

Question 9: Run cross tabs and Chi-squared analysis between various fastfood restaurants and Q5 with Q14 as layer variable.

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Various fast-food restaurants * Reasonable prices of food items * Gender Various fast-food restaurants * Friendliness of employees * Gender Various fast-food restaurants * Variety of menu items * Gender Various fast-food restaurants * Speed of service * Gender Various fast-food restaurants * Conveniently located * Gender Various fast-food restaurants * Quality of food * Gender Various fast-food restaurants * Large size portions * Gender Various fast-food restaurants * Overall service quality * Gender 31 100.0% 0 .0% 31 100.0% 31 100.0% 0 .0% 31 100.0% 31 100.0% 0 .0% 31 100.0% 31 100.0% 0 .0% 31 100.0% 31 100.0% 0 .0% 31 100.0% 31 100.0% 0 .0% 31 100.0% 31 100.0% 0 .0% 31 100.0% 31 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% N 31 Total Percent 100.0%

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

34

**Various fast-food restaurants * Reasonable prices of food items * Gender
**

Crosstab Count Reasonable prices of food items Neither Somewhat Satisfied nor Somewhat Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 2 3 5 4 2 2 1 1 15 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 5

Gender Female

Total 1 1 2 2 6 10 6 3 4 1 1 25

Various fastfood restaurants

McDonald's KFC Subway Pizza Hut

Total Male Various fastfood restaurants

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Gender Female Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Male Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value 7.500

a

df 6 6 1

sided) .277 .154 .474

**9.364 .513 6 6.444
**

b

15 15 1

.971 .910 .951

8.330 .004 25

a. 12 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .17. b. 23 cells (95.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .08.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

35

**Various fast-food restaurants * Friendliness of employees * Gender
**

Crosstab Count Friendliness of employees Neither Satisfied nor Somewhat Dissatisfied Satisfied 1 1 1 1 4 McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 6 4 4 2 2 1 1 14

Gender Female

Somewhat Dissatisfied Various fastfood restaurants McDonald's KFC Subway Pizza Hut Total

Very Satisfied 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 4

Total 1 1 2 2 6 10 6 3 4 1 1 25

Male

Various fastfood restaurants

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Gender Female Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Male Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value 1.500

a

df 3 3 1

sided) .682 .553 .404

**2.093 .698 6 9.524
**

b

15 15 1

.849 .766 .083

10.813 3.007 25

a. 8 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .33. b. 23 cells (95.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

36

**Various fast-food restaurants * Variety of menu items * Gender
**

Crosstab Count Variety of menu items Neither Satisfied nor Somewhat Dissatisfied Satisfied 0 1 0 0 1 1 McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 5 5 5 2 2 1 1 16 1 1 0 2 0 0 4

Gender Female

Somewhat Dissatisfied Various fastfood restaurants McDonald's KFC Subway Pizza Hut Total

Very Satisfied

Total 1 1 2 2 6 10 6 3 4 1 1 25

Male

Various fastfood restaurants

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Gender Female Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Male Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value 2.400

a

df 3 3 1

sided) .494 .452 .187

**2.634 1.744 6 18.438
**

b

15 15 1

.240 .356 .263

16.402 1.253 25

a. 8 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .17. b. 23 cells (95.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

37

**Various fast-food restaurants * Speed of service * Gender
**

Crosstab Count Speed of service Neither Satisfied nor Somewhat Dissatisfied Satisfied 1 1 1 2 5 McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 6 1 3 1 0 1 12

Gender Female

Various fastfood restaurants

McDonald's KFC Subway Pizza Hut

Very Satisfied 0 0 1 0 1 2 5 0 2 0 0 9

Total 1 1 2 2 6 10 6 3 4 1 1 25

Total Male Various fastfood restaurants

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Gender Female Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Male Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value 2.400

a

df 3 3 1

sided) .494 .452 .792

**2.634 .070 6 17.477
**

b

10 10 1

.064 .056 .608

17.936 .263 25

a. 8 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .17. b. 18 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .16.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

38

**Various fast-food restaurants * Conveniently located * Gender
**

Crosstab Count Conveniently located Neither Somewhat Satisfied nor Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied 0 1 1 1 3 McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 2 2 1 1 13

Gender Female

Very Dissatisfied Various fast-food restaurants McDonald's KFC Subway Pizza Hut Total

Very Satisfied 1 0 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 0 0 7

Total 1 1 2 2 6 10 6 3 4 1 1 25

Male

Various fast-food restaurants

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Gender Female Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Male Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value 2.000

a

df 3 3 1

sided) .572 .428 .844

**2.773 .039 6 12.827
**

b

20 20 1

.885 .906 .702

12.276 .146 25

a. 8 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .50. b. 29 cells (96.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

39

**Various fast-food restaurants * Quality of food * Gender
**

Crosstab Count Quality of food Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Various fastfood restaurants McDonald's KFC Subway Pizza Hut Total Male Various fastfood restaurants McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

Gender Female

Somewhat Satisfied 1 1 0 0 2 6 1 3 2 1 1 14

Very Satisfied 0 0 2 2 4 3 4 0 2 0 0 9

Total 1 1 2 2 6 10 6 3 4 1 1 25

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Gender Female Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Male Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value 6.000

a

df 3 3 1

sided) .112 .054 .095

**7.638 2.791 6 8.459
**

b

10 10 1

.584 .372 .957

10.813 .003 25

a. 8 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .33. b. 17 cells (94.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .08.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

40

**Various fast-food restaurants * Large size portions * Gender
**

Crosstab Count Large size portions Neither Satisfied nor Somewhat Dissatisfied Satisfied 1 0 0 0 1 2 McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 0 1 0 8 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 4 0 1 14

Gender Female

Somewhat Dissatisfied Various fastfood restaurants McDonald's KFC Subway Pizza Hut Total

Very Satisfied 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

Total 1 1 2 2 6 10 6 3 4 1 1 25

Male

Various fastfood restaurants

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Gender Female Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Male Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value 5.500

a

df 6 6 1

sided) .481 .360 .886

**6.592 .021 6 10.789
**

b

15 15 1

.767 .610 .605

12.906 .267 25

a. 12 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .17. b. 23 cells (95.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

41

**Various fast-food restaurants * Overall service quality * Gender
**

Crosstab Count Overall service quality Neither Satisfied nor Somewhat Dissatisfied Satisfied 1 1 1 2 5 McDonald's KFC Subway Haldiram's Nirula's Pizza Hut Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 5 4 2 3 0 1 15

Gender Female

Somewhat Dissatisfied Various fastfood restaurants McDonald's KFC Subway Pizza Hut Total

Very Satisfied 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 5

Total 1 1 2 2 6 10 6 3 4 1 1 25

Male

Various fastfood restaurants

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Gender Female Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Male Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value 2.400

a

df 3 3 1

sided) .494 .452 .792

**2.634 .070 6 10.333
**

b

15 15 1

.798 .792 .750

10.423 .102 25

a. 8 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .17. b. 23 cells (95.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

42

Question 10: Fit a regression model for the variables recommending the favorite fast-food restaurant and overall service rating.

Dependent Variable: Recommending the fast-food restaurant Independent Variable: Overall service quality To perform the calculations, SPSS is used and the following is the output:

Variables Entered/Removed Model 1 Variables Entered Overall service a quality

b

Variables Removed .

Method Enter

a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: Recommending the favorite fastfood restaurant Model Summary Model 1 R .423

a

R Square .179

Adjusted R Square .151

Std. Error of the Estimate .425

**a. Predictors: (Constant), Overall service quality ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total
**

b

Sum of Squares df 1.143 5.244 6.387 1 29 30

Mean Square 1.143 .181

F 6.320

Sig. .018

a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Overall service quality b. Dependent Variable: Recommending the favorite fast-food restaurant Coefficients

a

Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Overall service quality B 3.567 .286 Std. Error .461 .114

Standardized Coefficients Beta .423 t 7.737 2.514 Sig. .000 .018

a. Dependent Variable: Recommending the favorite fast-food restaurant

From the output, we can see: b0 = 3.567 b1 = 0.286 So the regression line of best fit will be represented by the following equation: Ῡ = 3.567 + 0.286x Where, b1 represents the slope of the line b0 represents the y-intercept

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 43

The coefficient of b1 explains that as x increases by 1 unit, y will increase by 0.286 units. Testing the model: 1. Standard error of estimate The value of SE = 0.425 And for total of 31 responses average y = 4.70 On comparing standard error of estimate with average y, we see that SE is almost 9% of mean y, so we can say it is a comparatively small but not too good to rely totally on the model. 2. t-test It tells us, whether there exists any linear relation among the variables or not. And a linear relation would only exist in the case when b1 is not zero. H0: b1 = 0 H1: b1 ≠ 0 Level of significance = 5% The p-value obtained in the model is 0.018 As p-value < 0.05 We conclude that we have the strong evidences to reject the null hypothesis in favor of alternate hypothesis. And therefore, we say that there exists a linear relation among the variables. 3. Coefficient of determination – R2 This tells us about the strength of the relationship of the two variables and is used to estimate the goodness of fit of the estimated regression model. For the concerned model, R2 = 0.179 That means 17.9 % of the variability in recommendation is explained by overall service rating. Such a low level of R2 shows that the estimated regression model is a bad fit. 4. F-test This tells us about the validity of the model The p-value for the f-test is 0.018 As p-value < 0.05 We conclude that there are strong evidences to infer that the model is good. Conclusion: On the basis of above parameters, we conclude that the estimated regression model is a good fit and can be used in forecasting.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

44

Question 11: Fit a regression model for the variables recommending the favorite fast-food restaurant and friendliness of employees.

Dependent Variable: Recommending the fast-food restaurant Independent Variable: Friendliness of employees To perform the calculations, SPSS is used and the following is the output:

Variables Entered/Removed Model 1 Variables Entered Friendliness of a employees

b

Variables Removed .

Method Enter

a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: Recommending the favorite fastfood restaurant Model Summary Model 1 R .340

a

R Square .115

Adjusted R Square .085

Std. Error of the Estimate .441

**a. Predictors: (Constant), Friendliness of employees ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total
**

b

Sum of Squares df .737 5.650 6.387 1 29 30

Mean Square .737 .195

F 3.781

Sig. .062

a

**a. Predictors: (Constant), Friendliness of employees b. Dependent Variable: Recommending the favorite fast-food restaurant Coefficients
**

a

Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Friendliness of employees B 3.862 .215 Std. Error .443 .111

Standardized Coefficients Beta .340 t 8.713 1.944 Sig. .000 .062

a. Dependent Variable: Recommending the favorite fast-food restaurant

From the output, we can see: b0 = 3.862 b1 = 0.215 So the regression line of best fit will be represented by the following equation: Ῡ = 3.862 + 0.215x Where, b1 represents the slope of the line b0 represents the y-intercept

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 45

The coefficient of b1 explains that as x increases by 1 unit, y will increase by 0.215 units. Testing the model: 1. Standard error of estimate The value of SE = 0.441 And for total of 31 responses average y = 4.70 On comparing standard error of estimate with average y, we see that SE is almost 9% of mean y, so we can say it is a comparatively small but not too good to rely totally on the model. 2. t-test It tells us, whether there exists any linear relation among the variables or not. And a linear relation would only exist in the case when b1 is not zero. H0: b1 = 0 H1: b1 ≠ 0 Level of significance = 5% The p-value obtained in the model is 0.062 As p-value > 0.05 We conclude that we don’t have the enough evidences to reject the null hypothesis in favor of alternate hypothesis. And therefore, we say that there exists no linear relation among the variables. 3. Coefficient of determination – R2 This tells us about the strength of the relationship of the two variables and is used to estimate the goodness of fit of the estimated regression model. For the concerned model, R2 = 0.085 That means 8.5 % of the variability in recommendation is explained by overall service rating. Such a low level of R2 shows that the estimated regression model is a bad fit. 4. F-test This tells us about the validity of the model The p-value for the f-test is 0.062 As p-value > 0.05 We conclude that there are not enough evidences to infer that the model is good. Conclusion: On the basis of above parameters, we conclude that the estimated regression model is a bad fit and should not be used in forecasting.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

46

**Question 12: Run regression analysis between Q7 and Q6 all parts
**

Model Summary Std. Error of the Estimate Adjusted R Square -.226 .511

Model 1

R .769

a

R Square .591

a. Predictors: (Constant), Preference for large size proportions, Influence of advertisements on my decisions, Price of fast-food items is not so important, Visiting fast-food restaurants at lunchtime, Visiting these restaurants for breakfast rarely, Home delivery is a great service, Preference of restaurants with healthy/nutritious fast-food, Usage of drive-thru window service, Friendly employees are important, Visit to the conveniently located restaurants, Preference of combination meals, Variety of menu items, Quality of ingredients, Preference of restaurants that provide salads, All fast-food restaurants are same, Eating inside restaurants, Major problem is Inconsistency of quality, Preference of restaurants with special promotions, Getting correct food order is a problem, These restaurants should provide kid's meal

ANOVA

b

Model 1 Regression Residual Total

Sum of Squares 3.777 2.610 6.387

df 20 10 30

Mean Square .189 .261

**Sig. F .724 .742
**

a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Preference for large size proportions, Influence of advertisements on my decisions, Price of fast-food items is not so important, Visiting fast-food restaurants at lunchtime, Visiting these restaurants for breakfast rarely, Home delivery is a great service, Preference of restaurants with healthy/nutritious fast-food, Usage of drive-thru window service, Friendly employees are important, Visit to the conveniently located restaurants, Preference of combination meals, Variety of menu items, Quality of ingredients, Preference of restaurants that provide salads, All fast-food restaurants are same, Eating inside restaurants, Major problem is Inconsistency of quality, Preference of restaurants with special promotions, Getting correct food order is a problem, These restaurants should provide kid's meal b. Dependent Variable: Recommending the favorite fast-food restaurant

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

47

Coefficients

a

Unstandardized Coefficients Model (Constant) Visit to the conveniently located restaurants Preference of restaurants with healthy/nutritious fastfood Price of fast-food items is not so important All fast-food restaurants are same These restaurants should provide kid's meal Preference of restaurants with special promotions Home delivery is a great service Usage of drive-thru window service Variety of menu items Quality of ingredients Getting correct food order is a problem Friendly employees are important Preference of restaurants that provide salads Visiting fast-food restaurants at lunchtime Visiting these restaurants for breakfast rarely Preference of combination meals B 5.694 .286 -.161 Std. Error .904 .230 .158

Standa rdized Coeffic ients Sig. Beta t 6.297 .640 -.318 1.244 -1.018 .000 .242 .333

-.154 -.117 .229

.144 .140 .352

-.296 -.291 .423

-1.065 -.834 .653

.312 .424 .529

-.007

.155

-.019

-.045

.965

-.087 -.136 -.119 .100 -.194 .201 .033

.217 .170 .180 .225 .182 .192 .137

-.189 -.312 -.257 .180 -.473 .432 .088

-.403 -.799 -.659 .444 -1.070 1.047 .241

.695 .443 .525 .667 .310 .320 .815

.146 -.083

.166 .151

.313 -.223

.879 -.548

.400 .595

-.139

.135

-.307

-1.027

.329

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

48

Influence of advertisements on my decisions Eating inside restaurants Major problem is Inconsistency of quality Preference for large size proportions

-.018

.317

-.037

-.058

.955

-.143 .052 -.056

.216 .216 .163

-.253 .109 -.120

-.661 .239 -.341

.524 .816 .740

a. Dependent Variable: Recommending the favorite fast-food restaurant

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

49

**Question 13: Run Factor Analysis for Q6
**

Communalities Extrac tion Initial Visit to the conveniently located restaurants Preference of restaurants with healthy/nutritious fast-food Price of fast-food items is not so important All fast-food restaurants are same These restaurants should provide kid's meal Preference of restaurants with special promotions Home delivery is a great service Usage of drive-thru window service Variety of menu items Quality of ingredients Getting correct food order is a problem Friendly employees are important Preference of restaurants that provide salads Visiting fast-food restaurants at lunchtime Visiting these restaurants for breakfast rarely Preference of combination meals Influence of advertisements on my decisions Eating inside restaurants Major problem is Inconsistency of quality Preference for large size proportions Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .828 .771 .747 .711 .870 .806 .690 .594 .725 .735 .775 .677 .753 .454 .865 .828 .829 .813 .802 .766

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

50

Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Initial Eigenvalues Comp onent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 % of Varianc e 20.352 14.459 12.323 9.461 7.457 5.868 5.290 4.463 4.096 3.154 2.839 2.405 2.062 1.525 1.252 1.136 .779 .604 .317 .157 Cumul ative % 20.352 34.811 47.134 56.595 64.052 69.921 75.211 79.674 83.770 86.924 89.763 92.168 94.229 95.754 97.007 98.143 98.922 99.526 99.843 100.000 % of Variance 20.352 14.459 12.323 9.461 7.457 5.868 5.290 Cumul ative % 20.352 34.811 47.134 56.595 64.052 69.921 75.211

Total 4.070 2.892 2.465 1.892 1.491 1.174 1.058 .893 .819 .631 .568 .481 .412 .305 .250 .227 .156 .121 .063 .031

Total 4.070 2.892 2.465 1.892 1.491 1.174 1.058

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

51

Component Matrix

a

Component 7 1 Visit to the conveniently located restaurants Preference of restaurants with healthy/nutriti ous fast-food Price of fastfood items is not so important All fast-food restaurants are same These restaurants should provide kid's meal Preference of restaurants with special promotions Home delivery is a great service Usage of drive-thru window service Variety of menu items Quality of ingredients Getting correct food order is a problem Friendly employees are important Preference of restaurants that provide salads Visiting fastfood restaurants at lunchtime .549 2 -.147 3 .623 4 -.297 5 .109 6 -.123 -.037

.406

-.208

-.296

-.263

.358

.137

.509

.150

-.089

-.046

.723

.018

.364

.242

.446

-.392

.455

.238

.246 .073

.165

-.076

.596

.128

-.406

.446

.296

-.203

.724

-.247

.158

-.135

.133

-.289

-.278

.048 .693

.682

-.244

-.357

.016 .213

-.151

.115

.152

-.181

.101

.037

-.037

.171 .004 .670

.759 .786 .047

.305 -.156 .109

.010 -.203 -.406

.032 .075 .101

-.069 .082 .270

-.145 .198 -.254

.432

.575

-.121

-.068

.072

.349

-.116

.694

-.176

-.140

-.062

.310

.000

.349

.310

-.374

.277

-.304

.099

-.028

.198

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

52

Visiting these restaurants for breakfast rarely Preference of combination meals Influence of advertisemen ts on my decisions Eating inside restaurants Major problem is Inconsistenc y of quality Preference for large size proportions

.101

.147

.055

.219

.862

-.126

-.152

.419

.150

.038

.449

.196 .003

-.504

.368

.520

-.044

-.585

.179

-.312

-.293

.189 .500

.336 .002

.730 -.375

.051 -.291

.073 .548

.310 -.073

.166 .147

.192

.494

.486

.353

.083

-.331

.087

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 7 components extracted.

Fast-Food Restaurant Survey

53

- Free Fall
- Stat992(Chap14)
- Questions 41 and 42 and 44 (2)
- Hardee's - Delivery Feasibility Study
- UT Dallas Syllabus for hcs6312.001.10f taught by Pamela Rollins (rollins)
- ch13-solns-all_skuce_2e
- Abdul Wahid
- Research Article
- Lecture13 Regression
- 2.7_Regression+with+a+Single+Regressor+Hypothesis+Tests..一元回归：假设检验与置信区间
- SAIL Valuation
- gender discrimination
- STAT 125-HK. Business Statistics Midterm Exam.docx
- Introduction Ts
- File 3
- Alfonso's Department Store
- Sales Prediction Thesis 1
- Assignment
- 317(1)
- THE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTHERS PERFECTIONISM WITH THE MENTAL HEALTH OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN SHIRAZ
- EViewsOutput2
- Mama Revised
- Statistics (2)
- heart disease
- envhper00511-0097
- Course Review
- Atenuasi Sesar Campbell Bozorgnia 2008
- Quantitative techniques final as @ 4 May 2005.doc
- BdM_A New Model for Predicting Policy ChoicesREvised
- Multiple linear regression

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading