Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ASSIGNMENT 2
PART A
Question 1
Table 1 shows that the mean in the weekly income of the respondent is $367.20 with a
standard deviation of $120.839.
Mean = 367.20
Finite population:
=Y + 1.96
1
120.839 3000100
= 367.20 + 1.96
100 30001
= 367.20 + 19.341
= ($347.859, $386.541)
Conclusion
We are 95% confident that the mean of the income of the respondents is between $347.859
and $386.541.
Question 2
2a.
2b.
Table 2a show that the mean and standard deviation for male in income are $359.47 and $119.140.
For table 2b, it show that the mean and standard deviation for female are $377.44 and $123.714
1600(359.47)+1400(377.44)
= 3000
1103568
= 3000
= 367.856
=11.981
c. The 95% confidence interval is calculated as below:
1.96
= 367.856 1.96 (11.981)
=367.856 13.941
= (353.915, 381.797)
Conclusion
We are 95 % confident that the mean income for the male respondents and female
respondents within the population is between 353.915 and 381.797.
Question 3
Valid N (listwise) 57
Table 5 shows the proportion of Male respondents for the mean has a positive respond 0.32
with a standard deviation 0.469.
The 95% confidence in the interval of proportion positive of male respondent to attitude is
calculated as below:
1.96 1
0.32(10.32) 160057
= 0.32 1.96
57 16001
Question 4A
Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test
Hypothesis
H0: The distributions of purchase in the month before being exposed to the advertising
campaign are the same as for Full-time workers and Part-time workers in the population of
customers
H1: The distributions of purchase in the month before being exposed to the advertising
campaign are not the same as for Full-time workers and Part-time workers in the population
of customers
45 59.37 2671.50
Part time
55 43.25 2378.50
Before Full-time
100
Total
Table 7: Test Statisticsa
Before
Mann-Whitney U 838.500
Wilcoxon W 2378.500
Z -2.767
Conclusion
At the 5% level of significance, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the
distributions of purchase in the month before being exposed to the advertising campaign
are not the same for Full-time workers and Part-time workers in the population of
customers.
Question 4B
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Hypothesis
H0: The purchase in the month before the advertising exposure is the same as the month after
for the population of customers.
H1: The purchase in the month before the advertising exposure is not the same as the month
after for the population of customers.
Table 8: Ranks
Mean
N Sum of Ranks
Rank
Total 300
AFTER - BEFORE
Z -.706b
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .480
The significance of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test is 0.48, which is larger than 0.05,
the level of significance for the test. Therefore, we do not reject the null hypothesis.
The significant value of 0.48 indicates that there is insufficient evidence from the
sample to reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion
Question 5A
Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test
Hypothesis
H0: Positive, neutral and negative responses are equally likely among the population of part-time
workers.
H1: Positive, neutral and negative responses are not equally likely amongst the population of part-time
workers.
Chi-Square 11.840a
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .003
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 33.3.
Table 10 shows the Chi Square Goodness of Fit Test of the population of part-time workers response towards the
advertisement campaign.
Cases
Question 5B
Chi-Square Test of Independence
H0: Attitudes and the method of advertising campaign are independent.
H1: Attitudes and the method of advertising campaign are dependent.
a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.80.
Question 5C
Cross tabulate of SUCCESS with ADVERTISING methods
Count 6 10 6 10 32
Count 3 8 6 3 20
Count 10 11 13 14 48
The significance level of the on-way ANOVA test of sales by success is 0.001, which is
smaller than the level of significance for the test 0.05.
We reject null hypothesis that the mean sales are the same in all three displays locations.
Conclusion:
At 5% significance level, there is sufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis and to conclude that the
mean sales are different in at least one according to different displays locations.
Question 7
Tukeys Confident Interval by DISPLAY
Hypothesis:
H0: The mean sales difference between pair of display location for sales is not significant.
H1: The mean sales difference between pair of display location for sales is significant.
It can be observed:
Base on the significant of the test, the pair Upper-Lower-Middle has significant different
mean sales.
The significance value of the Upper-Lower is 0.000, which is smaller than 0.05, the level of
significance for the test. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.
The significance value of the Upper-Middle is 0.020, which is smaller than 0.05, the level of
significance for the test. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.
The significance value of 0.020 < (0.05) indicates that there is relatively strong evidence
from the sample to reject the null hypothesis.
We are 95% confidence that the mean sales different between Upper-Lower display location
is between $6369.30 and $1572.40.
We are 95% confidence that the mean sales difference between Upper-Middle display
locations is between $4839.61 and $331.26.
Conclusion:
At 5% of significant level, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the mean sales difference
between Upper-Lower location (p=0.000) and Upper-Middle location (p=0.020) for sales is
significant.
Question 8
Two-Way ANOVA
1 Brand A 19
2 Brand B 29
PRODUCT
3 Brand C 25
4 Brand D 27
1 Leaflet 18
PROMOTION 2 Posters 27
3 Newspapers 25
4 Brochures 30
Table 17: Two-way ANOVA Test of SALES Tests of Between Subjects Effects
Type III Sum of
Source df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Observation 1:
The significance value of the two-way ANOVA test between product and promotion is 0.000,
which is smaller than 0.05, the level of significance for the test.
The significance value of 0.000 indicates that there is strong evidence to reject the null
hypothesis. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion 1:
Based on the sample of 100 salespersons, at 5% significance level, there is sufficient evidence to
conclude that there are interaction effect between product and promotion that affect sales.
Hypothesis 2:
H0: The mean sales for all products are the same.
H1: At least one different in mean sales according to the different products.
Observation 2:
The significance of the two-way ANOVA test for products is 0.000, which is smaller than the
0.05, the level of significance for the test.
The significance value of 0.000 indicates that there is strong evidence to reject the null
hypothesis. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion 2:
Based on the sample 100 salespersons, at 5% of significance level, there is sufficient evidence to
conclude that there are at least one difference in mean sales according to the different products.
Hypothesis 3:
H0: The mean sales are the same for all promotion methods.
H1: At least one difference in mean sales according to promotion methods.
Observation 3:
The significance of the two-way ANOVA test for promotion methods is 0.053, which is
greater than the 0.05, the level of significance for the test.
The significance value of 0.053 indicates that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null
hypothesis. Therefore, we do not reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion 3:
Based on the sample of 100 salespersons at 5% significance of level, there is insufficient evidence to
conclude that at least one difference in mean sales according to promotion methods.
Question 9
Tukey CI of Sales
Question10
Kruskal-Wallis Test of SALES
Lower 29 61.48
SALES
Chi-Square 12.013
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .002
Question 11
Check normality of SALES