Overview of Hypothesis Testing Analyses

Independent Sample T-Test One-Way ANOVA Correlation Regression

To compare the test To compare the test To examine the To examine the
Purpose variable between two variable more than two relationship influence of IV(s) on DV
groups groups between variables
1. Analyze 1. Analyze 1. Analyze 1. Analyze
2. Compare means 2. Compare means 2. Correlate 2. Regression
3. Independent Sample T- 3. One-Way ANOVA 3. Bivariate 3. Linear
Steps in SPSS Test 4. Dependent list: ? 4. Variables 4. Dependent: ?
Menu 4. Test variable(s): ? 5. Factor: ? 5. Ok 5. Independent(s): ?
5. Grouping variable: ? 6. Post_Hoc: ? 6. Ok
6. Define group 7. Continue, Ok
7. Continue, Ok
1. Equality assumption test 1. Compare: p </> alpha 1. Compare: p </> 1. Compare: p </>
2. Compare: p </> alpha 2. Decide: reject/fail to alpha alpha
Steps in 3. Decide: reject/fail to reject Ho 2. Decide: 2. Decide: reject/fail to
interpretation reject Ho 3. Conclude reject/fail to reject Ho
4. Conclude reject Ho 3. Conclude
3. Conclude
To examine the
Example of To compare OPB among To examine the
To compare OPB between relationship
research urban, suburban and rural influence of TAS, ITP,
male and female students between ITP and
objective areas SC, PV on OPB
OPB
Ho: There is no sig different Ho: There is no sig Ho: There is no sig Ho: There is no sig
of OPB between male and different of OPB among r/ship between ITP influence of TAS, ITP,
female students areas and OPB SC, PV on OPB
Example of
hypothesis
H1: There is a sig different H1: There is a sig different H1: There is a sig H1: There is a sig
of OPB between male and of OPB among areas r/ship between ITP influence of TAS, ITP,
female students and OPB SC, PV on OPB
1. Equality assumption: p 1. Compare: p (0.035) < 1. Compare: p 1. Compare: p (0.000)
(0.538) > alpha (0.05) = alpha (0.05) (0.001) < alpha < alpha (0.05)
Equal variances assumed 2. Decide: reject Ho (0.05) 2. Decide: reject Ho
2. Compare: p (0.034) < 3. Conclude: There is a 2. Decide: reject 3. Conclude: There is a
alpha (0.05) sig different of OPB Ho sig influence of TAS,
3. Decide: fail to reject Ho among areas 3. Conclude: There PV, and SC on ITP
4. Conclude: There is ao sig 4. Significant pair(s): is a sig and +ve/ 4. Model fit: R-
different of OPB Significant difference -ve r/ship squared of 0.404
between male and is found between between ITP and implies that the
female students urban and rural OPB three predictor
5. Descriptive: OPB males (p=0.011) variables explain
is significantly higher 5. Descriptive: The about 40.4% of the
Example of
(mean=3.9211) than highest OPB are found variation in the
report (exam)
female (3.7619). from urban areas online purchase
(mean=3.9211) behavior. This is a
followed by suburban quite a good and
(3.7619) and rural respectable model
(3.4928) 5. Inf of each var:
 TAS has no sig
influence on ITP
(p=0.051)
 SC has sig n +ve
influence on ITP
(p=0.001)
 PV has sig n +ve
 influence on ITP
(p=0.002)
6. Contribution:
 TAS contribute the
highest variation
of ITP (beta=.318)
 CG contribute the
lowest variation of
JS (beta=.288)
 Example of report (APA)
Independent Sample t-Test was performed to investigate the mean difference of online purchase
behavior between genders. Levene’s test for equality of variances was found to be not violated
for the present analysis (F = 0.006, p = .538). Thus, the assumption of homogeneity of variance
was met.

Independent Based on Table 4.x, the result shows a significant difference of online purchase behavior between
Sample T-Test gender (p=0.034 < α). The result indicates that male and female students in UUM behave
differently when purchase online where online purchase behavior of males is found significantly
higher (mean=3.9211) than female (3.7619). This finding consistent with previous studies that also
found a significant different of online purchase behavior between gender (e.g. Toby, Marshall,
Egan, Baiyin Yang, & Bartlett, 2004; Judge & AIlies, 2004).

A one-way ANOVA between-groups analysis of variance was performed to investigate the mean
difference of online purchase behavior among areas. Based on Table 4.x, the result shows a
significant difference of online purchase behavior among areas (p=0.035 < α). The result indicates
that students live in urban, suburban, and rural areas behave differently when purchase online.
This finding is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Hanson, 2013, Md Noor & Rizuan, 1999; Aimi
One-Way et al., 2014) that highlighted the role of areas in determining the online purchase behavior. They
ANOVA asserted that consumers in urban areas were more involved in online purchase as they prefer the
convenient way of shopping due to hectic schedule.

In this study, the highest online purchase behavior is found from urban areas (mean=3.9211)
followed by suburban (3.7619) and rural (3.4928). Based on Post-hoc Multiple Comparison
analysis, a significant difference is found between urban and rural (p=0.011).

Pearson correlation was performed to determine the association between intention to purchase
and online purchase behavior. Based on Table 3, the result shows a significant and positive
relationship between online purchase behavior (p=0.001 < α). The result indicates that the higher
Correlation
the level of intention to purchase, the higher the probability the UUM’s students to purchase
online. This finding is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Hanson, 2013, Md Noor & Rizuan,
1999; Aimi et al., 2014).

Multiple Linear Regression was performed to determine the best set of predictor variable in
predicting online purchase behavior. The ANOVA table revealed that the F-statistics (12.160) is
large and the corresponding p-value is highly significant (0.000) or lower than the alpha value of
0.05. This indicates that the slope of the estimated linear regression model line is not equal to
zero confirming that there is linear relationship between intention to purchase and the three
predictor variables (trust and security, product variety). This finding is consistent with previous
studies (e.g., Hanson, 2013, Md Noor & Rizuan, 1999; Aimi et al., 2014).

Based on Model Summary table, the R-squared of 0.404 implies that the three predictor variables
explain about 40.4% of the variation in the online purchase behavior. This is a quite a good and
Regression respectable model.

Based on Coefficient table, two predictor variables which are shopping convenience (p=0.001 <
alpha) and product variety (p= 0.002 < alpha) were found to be of significance in explaining
intention to purchase. Meanwhile, trust and security is not able to show any significant result
(p=0.051 > alpha). The largest beta coefficient is found shopping convenience (beta=0.318) and
followed by product variety (beta=0.288). This means that shopping convenience makes the
strongest contribution to explain the dependent variable (intention to purchase). It suggests that
one standard deviation increase in shopping convenience is followed by 0.318 standard deviation
increase in intention to purchase. Product variety is the second highest indicating that it made the
lesser contribution than shopping convenience.