Table: Chapter 13.

3
Technique: One way Anova
Dependent variable: Sales (in Rs. Lakhs)
Factor: Type of Packaging
ANOVA
Sales (in Rs. Lakhs)
Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

Between Groups

3808.867

1904.433

Within Groups

3140.500

27

116.315

Total

6949.367

29

F
16.373

p-value

Sig.
.000

Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the sales across the three types of packaging (The sales is significantly the same irrespective of the packaging)
Alternative Hypothesis: there is a significant difference in the sales across the three types of packaging.
HOMOSCADAATY
Interpretation:
Assuming alpha = 5% (or confidence interval is 95%)
p-value < 0.05 ; Reject null; Accept alternative.
ie., there is a significant difference in the sales across the three types of packaging

Since we have found that there is a significant difference, we perform Tukeys test (a series of t-tests) to check wthere there is any significant difference in sales between the
pair of packaging type.

Hi Alan, Naveen,
1

Please correct my email id in the records:

New: anjana.rajpoot@mba.christuniversity.in
Old: anjana.rajpoot17@gmail.com
Thanks & regards,
Anjana Rajpoot
+91-8970548177
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Sales (in Rs. Lakhs)
Tukey HSD
(I) Type of Packaging

(J) Type of Packaging

Mean Difference

Std. Error

Sig.

(I-J)
Plastic

Glass

Tetra packs

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Glass

27.600

4.823

.000

15.64

39.56

Tetra packs

13.700*

4.823

.022

1.74

25.66

Plastic

-27.600

4.823

.000

-39.56

-15.64

Tetra packs

-13.900*

4.823

.020

-25.86

-1.94

-13.700

4.823

.022

-25.66

-1.74

13.900

4.823

.020

1.94

25.86

Plastic
Glass

p-value
<0.05,
reject null

95% Confidence Interval

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

p-value
<0.05,
reject null
p-value
<0.05,
reject null

(A) Null hypothesis (1): there is no significant difference in the sales across the plastic and glass type of packaging
Alternative Hypothesis (1): there is a significant difference in the sales across the plastic and glass type of packaging
Interpretation: p-value < 0.05, reject null;accept alternative.
Ie, there is a significant difference

(B) Null hypothesis (2): there is no significant difference in the sales across the plastic and tetra packs type of packaging
Alternative Hypothesis (2): there is a significant difference in the sales across the plastic and tetra packs type of packaging
Interpretation: p-value < 0.05, reject null;accept alternative.
Ie, there is a significant difference

(C) Null hypothesis (3): there is no significant difference in the sales across the glass and tetra packs type of packaging
Alternative Hypothesis (3): there is a significant difference in the sales across the glass and tetra packs type of packaging
Interpretation: p-value < 0.05, reject null;accept alternative.
Ie, there is a significant difference
2

Table: Chapter 15.17

Technique: Multiple Regression
Dependent variable: Preference
Factor: Nutrition Value, Taste, Preservation Quality

Table 1 &2 show the descriptive and correlation

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
Mean

Std. Deviation

Preference

4.7250

1.79726

40

Nutrition Value

4.0250

1.73187

40

Taste

4.0000

2.08782

40

Preservation Quality

3.8750

1.71251

40

Table 2: Correlations
Preference

Nutrition Value

Taste

Preservation
Quality

Preference
Pearson Correlation

1.000

.810

.841

.888

Nutrition Value

.810

1.000

.759

.719

Taste

.841

.759

1.000

.818

Preservation Quality

.888

.719

.818

1.000

.000

.000

.000

Nutrition Value

.000

.000

.000

Taste

.000

.000

.000

Preservation Quality

.000

.000

.000

Preference

40

40

40

40

Nutrition Value

40

40

40

40

Taste

40

40

40

40

Preservation Quality

40

40

40

40

Preference
Sig. (1-tailed)

13.5
13.9

Actual output of regression is: table 3, 4 & 5

Table 3: Model Summary
Model

R Square

.928a

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.860

.849

.69921

a. Predictors: (Constant), Preservation Quality, Nutrition Value, Taste

Overall model is really good as R Square = 0.860 > 0.7

Ie 86% of the variation in the dependent variable preference for the product is explained by the three independent variables.

Table 4: ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

Residual
Total

df

Mean Square

108.375

36.125

17.600

36

.489

125.975

39

Sig.
.000b

73.891

p-value <
0.05

a. Dependent Variable: Preference

b. Predictors: (Constant), Preservation Quality, Nutrition Value, Taste

Null: The overall model is not significant

Alternate: overall model is significant
Interpretation: reject null, accept alternative
Hence the model is significant
Table 5: Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Null: The individual beta is not significant

Standardized

Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

Coefficients
B

Std. Error

(Constant)

.733

.301

Nutrition Value

.295

.103

Taste

.170

Preservation Quality

.548

a. Dependent Variable: Preference

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

2.436

.020

.284

2.865

.007

.395

2.531

.103

.198

1.655

4.107

.271

3.690

.118

.522

4.660

.000

.309

3.238

Alternate: individual beta is significant

Interpretation: reject null, accept alternative for all three
p-value <

variables
0.05nutrition value, taste & preservation quality
Coefficient f nutrition value(perception)o

There is a significant impact of variables nutrition value, taste & preservation quality on preference for the product

Hence the regression equation here is,

Preference for the product = 0.733 + 0.295 Nutrition value + 0.170 Taste + 0.548 Preservation quality