Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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.
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
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
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 Mcdonalds.
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 dont have any children.
Fast-Food Restaurant Survey 7
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
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
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
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 dont 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.
15
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%
16
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
.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.
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
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.
19
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.
21
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
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
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
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
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
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
26.152 .079 28
a. 35 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .11.
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.
27
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
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
18.442 3.555 31
a. 29 cells (96.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.
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. .
29
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
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
17.145 .289 31
a. 29 cells (96.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.
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.
31
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
7.469 2.537 31
a. 10 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .19.
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.
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%
34
Gender Female
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 7.500
a
df 6 6 1
15 15 1
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.
35
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
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
15 15 1
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.
36
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
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
15 15 1
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.
37
Gender Female
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
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
10 10 1
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.
38
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
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
20 20 1
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.
39
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
10 10 1
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.
40
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
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
15 15 1
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.
41
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
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
15 15 1
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.
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
a. Predictors: (Constant), Overall service quality ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total
b
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
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: = 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.
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
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
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: = 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 dont 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.
46
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
df 20 10 30
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
47
Coefficients
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
-.007
.155
-.019
-.045
.965
.146 -.083
.166 .151
.313 -.223
.879 -.548
.400 .595
-.139
.135
-.307
-1.027
.329
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
49
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
51
Component Matrix
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
.432
.575
-.121
-.068
.072
.349
-.116
.694
-.176
-.140
-.062
.310
.000
.349
.310
-.374
.277
-.304
.099
-.028
.198
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
53