Example Data

A Survey of 50 Companies

In January 08, fifty customers of a lumber manufacturer were surveyed regarding their
satisfaction with products and service. These customers buy from the supplier and sell to
retail chains like Home Depot and Lowes. Shortly after, the manufacturing company was
sold. In June 08, the customers were telephoned and interviewed and were asked to rate
overall satisfaction again.

Variable Position Label
Measurement
Level
id 1 ID Scale Participant ID number
delivery
2
Delivery
Reliability
Scale
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you
rate the reliability of delivery of your
orders?
Prodsat
3
Product
Satisfaction
Scale
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you
rate your satisfaction with the quality
of your most recently purchased
products?
Techsat
4
Technical
Support
Scale
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you
rate your satisfaction with the
technical support?
Salesat
5 Salesforce Scale
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you
rate your satisfaction with the sales
support?
Size
6 Firm Size Ordinal
0 = small (less than 100 emp.) 1 =
large (100 or more)
Usage
7 Usage Level Scale
What percent of your purchases are
from our company?
Satjan
8
Overall
Satisfaction
in January
Scale
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your overall
satisfaction with your most recent
purchasing experience.
Satjun
8
Overall
Satisfaction
in June
Scale
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your overall
satisfaction with your most recent
purchasing experience.
Structure
10
Structure of
Procurement
Nominal
How your purchasing is structured?
0 = Decentralized; 1 = Centralized
OwnType
11
Type of
Ownership
Nominal
0 = Publicly Traded; 1 Privately
owned
PurType
12
Type of
Purchasing
Nominal
1 = Private Label; 2 = Company
Brand; 3 = Both
Variables in the working file


For each research question, describe in your Microsoft Word document the application
of the seven steps of the hypothesis testing model.

Step 1: State the hypothesis (null and alternate).
Step 2: State your alpha (unless requested otherwise, this is always set to alpha = .05).
Step 3: Collect the data (use one of the data sets).
Step 4: Calculate your statistic and p-value. (This is where you run spss and examine
your output files.)
Step 5: Accept or reject the null hypothesis. (This is where you report the results of your
analyses t (df) = t-value, p = sig. level.)
Step 6: Assess the Risk of Type I and Type II Error. (Did the data meet the assumptions
of the statistic, effect size, and sample size?)
Step 7: State your results in APA style and format.



Example 7

Question 1: Is there a relationship among the variables measuring different aspects of
customer satisfaction?
1. Run a Pearson correlation matrix using delivery reliability, product satisfaction,
technical support, sales satisfaction, overall satisfaction in January and overall
satisfaction in June.

Correlations

Delivery
Reliability
Product
Satisfaction
Technical
Support
Sales
force
Overall
Satisfaction in
January
Overall
Satisfaction
in June
Delivery Reliability Pearson Correlation 1 .193 .436
**
.112 .206 .628
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.180 .002 .439 .152 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50
Product Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .193 1 .317
*
.726
**
.195 .484
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .180

.025 .000 .174 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50
Technical Suppor Pearson Correlation .436
**
.317
*
1 .133 .340
*
.555
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .025

.356 .016 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50
Salesforce Pearson Correlation .112 .726
**
.133 1 .173 .326
*

Sig. (2-tailed) .439 .000 .356

.229 .021
N 50 50 50 50 50 50
Overall Satisfaction in
January
Pearson Correlation .206 .195 .340
*
.173 1 .479
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .152 .174 .016 .229

.000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50
Overall Satisfaction in June Pearson Correlation .628
**
.484
**
.555
**
.326
*
.479
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .021 .000

N 50 50 50 50 50 50
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


2. Create a scatter plot for the following pairs: (1) delivery reliabilityoverall
satisfaction in June; (2) product satisfactionoverall satisfaction in June; and
delivery reliabilityproduct satisfaction.


The scatter diagram suggest that there is a weak positive correlation between the
two variables.

The scatter diagram suggest that there is a weak positive correlation between the
two variables.


The scatter diagram suggest that there is a weak positive correlation between the
two variables.


3. Report the descriptive statistics, assumptions tests, as well as tests of statistical
significance identify of positive and negative relationships.

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N
Delivery Reliability 4.34 1.673 50
Product Satisfaction 5.34 1.154 50
Technical Support 2.88 .895 50
Sales force 2.66 .848 50
Overall Satisfaction in January 3.58 1.372 50
Overall Satisfaction in June 4.70 .953 50

Students t test is adopted to check whether there is any significant positive
correlation between the variables.

H0: Correlation coefficient =0
H1: Correlation coefficient >0 (One sided hypothesis)

Test Statistic used is t test
2
2
1
r n
t
r

Significance level =0.05
Decision rule : Reject the null hypothesis if the p value is less than the
significance level.

The Correlation coefficient with p value of the one tailed test is given below.
Correlations

Delivery
Reliability
Product
Satisfaction
Technical
Support
Sales
force
Overall
Satisfaction in
January
Overall
Satisfaction
in June
Delivery Reliability Pearson Correlation 1 .193 .436
**
.112 .206 .628
**

Sig. (1-tailed)

0.090 .001 0.219 0.075 .000
Product Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .193 1 .317
*
.726
**
.195 .484
**

Sig. (1-tailed) 0.090

0.0125 .000 0.087 .000
Technical Support Pearson Correlation .436
**
.317
*
1 .133 .340
*
.555
**

Sig. (1-tailed) .001 0.0125

0.178 .016 .000
Sales force Pearson Correlation .112 .726
**
.133 1 .173 .326
*

Sig. (1-tailed) 0.219 .000 0.178

0.1145 0.015
Overall Satisfaction
in January
Pearson Correlation .206 .195 .340
*
.173 1 .479
**

Sig. (1-tailed) 0.075 0.087 .016 0.114
5

.000
Overall Satisfaction
in June
Pearson Correlation .628
**
.484
**
.555
**
.326
*
.479
**
1
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .0.015 .000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Conclusion
The t test for the significant correlation indicates that the correlation between Product
satisfaction- Delivery reliability, Sales force- Delivery reliability, Overall satisfaction-
Delivery reliability, Over all satisfaction Product satisfaction ,Sales force Technical
support, Overall satisfaction in January Technical support are insignificant.




Question 2: Does delivery reliability impact overall satisfaction in June?
1. Run a simple regression using delivery reliability as the independent variable and
overall satisfaction in June as the dependent variable.

Coefficients
a

Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B
Std.
Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.147 .297

10.595 .000
Delivery Reliability .358 .064 .628 5.596 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction in June

The estimated regression model is
Overall Satisfaction in June = 3.147 +0.358 * Delivery Reliability


Model Summary
b

Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .628
a
.395 .382 .749
a. Predictors: (Constant), Delivery Reliability
b. Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction in June

The model adequacy measure R
2
suggests that 39.5% variability in Overall
Satisfaction in June can be explained by the regression model.


2. Report the descriptive statistics, assumptions tests (scatter plots), as well as tests
of statistical significance.

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N
Overall Satisfaction in June 4.70 .953 50
Delivery Reliability 4.34 1.673 50


Correlations

Overall
Satisfaction in
June
Delivery
Reliability
Pearson Correlation Overall Satisfaction in June 1.000 .628
Delivery Reliability .628 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Overall Satisfaction in June . .000
Delivery Reliability .000 .
N Overall Satisfaction in June 50 50
Delivery Reliability 50 50


The Correlation coefficient between Overall Satisfaction in June and delivery
reliability is positive with 0.628. The regression coefficient of Delivery Reliability
on Overall Satisfaction in June can be interpreted as
For a unit increase in Delivery Reliability, the Overall Satisfaction in June
increase by 0.358 units
The significance of this regression coefficient is tested using the t test
H0: Regression coefficient =0
H1: Regression coefficient > 0

Significance level =0.05
Decision rule: Reject the null hypothesis if the p value is less than the significance
level.
Details
T statistic =5.596
P value =0.000
Conclusion: Reject the null hypothesis. The sample provides enough evidence to
support the claim that Delivery Reliability has a significant effect on Overall
Satisfaction in June.

The assumption for the validity of regression analysis is checked using the residual
analysis. The histogram and normal probability plots suggest that the residuals are
normally distributed. The homogeneity of variance assumption is valid as the plots of
residuals against the predicted values are random.



Question 3: Does delivery reliability and product satisfaction impact overall satisfaction
in June?
1. Run a multiple regression using delivery reliability as the independent variable
and overall satisfaction in June as the dependent variable.

Coefficients
a

Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.662 .479

3.467 .001
Delivery Reliability .316 .058 .556 5.464 .000
Product Satisfaction .312 .084 .377 3.712 .001
a. Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction in June

The estimated regression model is

Overall Satisfaction in June =1.662+ 0.316 * Delivery Reliability+0.312* Product Satisfaction

Model Summary
b

Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .729
a
.532 .512 .666
a. Predictors: (Constant), Product Satisfaction, Delivery Reliability
b. Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction in June
The model adequacy measure R
2
suggests that 53.2 % variability in Overall Satisfaction
in June can be explained by the regression model.

2. Report the descriptive statistics, assumptions tests (scatter plots), as well as tests
of statistical significance.

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N
Overall Satisfaction in June 4.70 .953 50
Delivery Reliability 4.34 1.673 50
Product Satisfaction 5.34 1.154 50


Correlations

Overall
Satisfaction in
June
Delivery
Reliability
Product
Satisfaction
Pearson Correlation Overall Satisfaction in June 1.000 .628 .484
Delivery Reliability .628 1.000 .193
Product Satisfaction .484 .193 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Overall Satisfaction in June . .000 .000
Delivery Reliability .000 . .090
Product Satisfaction .000 .090 .
N Overall Satisfaction in June 50 50 50
Delivery Reliability 50 50 50
Product Satisfaction 50 50 50
The Correlation coefficient between Overall Satisfaction in June and delivery reliability is
positive with 0.628 and Overall Satisfaction in June and Product satisfaction is 0.484 .
The regression coefficient of Delivery Reliability on Overall Satisfaction in June can be
interpreted as
For a unit increase in Delivery Reliability, the Overall Satisfaction in June
increase by 0.358 units,.
For a unit increase in product satisfaction, the Overall Satisfaction in June
increase by 0.312 units,.

The significance of this regression coefficient is tested using the t test
H0: Regression coefficient =0
H1: Regression coefficient > 0

Significance level =0.05
Decision rule: Reject the null hypothesis if the p value is less than the significance
level.
Details
Delivery Reliability Product Satisfaction
T statistic 5.464 3.712
P value 0.000 0.001


Conclusion: Reject the null hypothesis. The sample provides enough evidence to support
the claim that Delivery Reliability and product satisfaction has a significant effect on
Overall Satisfaction in June.

The assumption for the validity of regression analysis is checked using the residual
analysis. The histogram and normal probability plots suggest that the residuals are
normally distributed. The homogeneity of variance assumption is valid as the plots of
residuals against the predicted values are random.




Write a brief conclusion statement summarizing your results. What can you tell this
manufacturing company about the relationship among satisfaction variables? Are there
any areas they need to improve? Does adding a second variable to the regression
equation increase prediction of customer satisfaction?


The regression analysis indicates that both Delivery Reliability and Product Satisfaction
Satisfaction variables have a significant effect on overall satisfaction in June. The
multiple regression models is able to explain 52.3% variability in overall satisfaction in
June. We may add more explanatory variables to improve the model adequacy to a
higher level.
It can be noted that the model adequacy increase from 39.5% to 52.3% due to the
addition of Product Satisfaction as the second explanatory variable .


Example 8

Question 1: Before the change of ownership, the company was encouraging its
customers to reduce private labeling as a way to reduce cost of goods sold. Explore the
distribution of customers by purchase type. Does the distribution of customers (private
label, brand label, or both) differ from what one would expect by chance? Does if differ
they expect more brand labeling?


Type of Purchasing

Observed N Expected N Residual
Private label 18 16.7 1.3
Company Brand 18 16.7 1.3
Both 14 16.7 -2.7
Total 50



H0: There is no significant difference in the number of customers in the three categories.
H1: There is significant difference in the number of customers in the three categories.
Test Statistic used is Chi square test for goodness of fit.
Significance level =0.05
Decision rule: Reject the null hypothesis if the p value is less than the significance level.
Details



Test Statistics

Type of
Purchasing
Chi-Square .640
a

df 2
Asymp. Sig. .726
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected
frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency
is 16.7.
Conclusion: Fails to reject the null hypothesis. The sample does not provides enough
evidence to support the claim that there is significant difference in the number of
customers in the three categories.


Question 2: Run a chi square goodness of fit using purchase type as the variable with
all categories equal for the expected value.
1. Run a chi square goodness of fit using purchase type as the variable with all
categories unequal with 12, 26, and 12 as the expected values.


Type of Purchasing

Observed N Expected N Residual
Private label 18 12.0 6.0
Company Brand 18 26.0 -8.0
Both 14 12.0 2.0
Total 50


2. Report the observed and expected values and the tests of statistical significance.



H0: The number of customers in the three categories are (12,26,12).
H0: The number of customers in the three categories are different from (12,26,12).


Significance level =0.05
Decision rule: Reject the null hypothesis if the p value is less than the significance level.
Details
Test Statistics

Type of
Purchasing
Chi-Square 5.795
a

df 2
Asymp. Sig. .055
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected
frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency
is 12.0.
Conclusion: Fails to reject the null hypothesis. The sample does not provides enough
evidence to support the claim that there is significant difference in the number of
customers in the three categories are different from (12,26,12).

Question 3: Is there a relationship between the company size and type of procurement?
Run chi-square independence test (crosstabs) using company size and type of
procurement. Use the chi square and the phi coefficient to evaluate the relationship and
statistical significance. Report the observed and expected values and the tests of
statistical significance.


H0: There is no association between company size and type of procurement.
H1: There is association between company size and type of procurement.

Test Statistic used is Chi square test for independence
Significance level =0.05
Decision rule: Reject the null hypothesis if the p value is less than the significance level.
Details


Firm Size * Structure of Procurement Crosstabulation
Count

Structure of Procurement
Total

Decentralized Centralized
Firm Size Small 14 13 27
Large 12 11 23
Total 26 24 50


Firm Size * Structure of Procurement Crosstabulation
Expected Count

Structure of Procurement
Total Decentralized Centralized
Firm Size Small 14.0 13.0 27.0
Large 12.0 11.0 23.0
Total 26.0 24.0 50.0




Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .001
a
1 .982
Continuity Correction
b
.000 1 1.000
Likelihood Ratio .001 1 .982
Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear Association .001 1 .982
N of Valid Cases 50


Conclusion: Fails to reject the null hypothesis. The sample does not provide enough
evidence to support the claim that there is association between company size and type
of procurement. The phi and chi square coefficients indicate jointly the strength and the
significance of a relationship. The value of Phi is very small indicating that there is no
relationship between company size and type of procurement.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi -.003 .982
Cramer's V .003 .982
N of Valid Cases 50