Raghav Parthasarathy February 24, 2011

1. How well does the survey address the research needs of the Pankey Institute?
The objective of the study is to assess overall satisfaction with the education services at Pankey and gain insights
into factors that affect participants’ decision to return to Pankey. The questionnaire does a good job of covering
the areas that Pankey thinks will affect the participants’ decision. The survey must have included a question to
determine if a participant plans to return to Pankey after attending a continuum. Qn 7 does not provide us this
information. Therefore, we cannot find out the reason for a dentist not returning to Pankey and instead
determine the factors on which Pankey scores less and address areas of improvement. (Exhibit 1)
2. Using information from the 467 participants who completed the questionnaire, what can you conclude
about the representativeness of this sample?
The sample is significantly different from the population on Participant Gender but is similar on Practice
Location. The sample had the null hypotheses rejected for Gender with a calculated probability (Asymp Sig) of
0.000(Exhibits 2a). To determine if this affects the survey response, we use the Pearson Chi-Square test on the
question – I was very satisfied with the course. We observe that the probability that the Null Hypothesis is true
("Pearson Chi-Square Asymp. Sig. 2-sided") is 0.039(Exhibit 2b). Therefore there is a significant relationship
between the two variables and the non-representativeness of the sample on Gender must be taken into
consideration. The null hypothesis was accepted for Practice Location with an Asymp Sig of 0.123 (Exhibit 2c).
3. Overall, how well has the Pankey Institute performed? How important are the various aspects of the
program?
Overall satisfaction on the course is 3.41 on 4 and indicates participants are happy with the courses. Availability
of industry averages would have provided a good benchmark to evaluate Pankey’s performance. From (Exhibit
3a) we see that Pankey has scored high on enjoyment and environment/staff. A factor analysis on Q1-10, 12-14,
provides five uncorrelated factors (Exhibit 3b). A regression between these factors and the overall performance
(Q15) shows that they explain close to 50 % of the changes in overall satisfaction (Adj R 2 = 0.494, Exhibit 3c).
Value for money (Std Beta Coefficient= 0.512) and Enjoyment (0.417) explain most of the overall satisfaction and
are thus very important.(Exhibit 3d) Environment and Newness are important but not as significant as Value for
money and Enjoyment while applicability has the least influence on a dentists’ overall satisfaction.
4. Are there any differences in the perceptions of dentists who have participated in the Institute's programs?
Dentists who are under 35 and over 65 seem to rate the accommodation more favorably than the rest (Exhibit
4a).Based on the type of practice, Dentists with individual and group practice don’t seek as much guidance on
managing a dental practice as others (Exhibit 4b). Dentists who practice in large major metro area give less
favorable ratings for Overall satisfaction (Q15) and Value for money (Q12-14) (Exhibit 4c). Dentists who have
attended only 1 continuum rate Pankey less favorably on overall satisfaction and value for money (Exhibit 4d).
5. Based on your analyses, what changes (if any) would you make to the programs at The Pankey Institute?
We must overcome the sampling error in the survey results caused by the underrepresentation of women
participants. Enjoyment and value for money are critical factors and dentists who attended only the first
continuum have given lower ratings. From Exhibit 3a we see the areas where participants seek improvement.
Based on the responses Pankey could focus more on hands-on learning in its courses. Also participants seem to
think that Pankey's service is expensive. Therefore Pankey could create newer continuums with subsets of
courses at prices that are affordable to participants. A focus group of dentists who have not returned after the
first continuum would provide great insights. Dentists with a practice in a metropolitan area seem to be less
satisfied and so online/remote learning opportunities should be provided to participants who do not wish to
stay away from their busy practices to attend the training.

M503, 11:15 AM Pankey Institute

Raghav Parthasarathy February 24, 2011

Exhibit 1 - Questions that could improve the quality of Pankey Institute’s Survey

Question
1. Do you plan to return to Pankey to attend
the next Continuum ?
2. Did the use of Dental equipment at
Pankey help you address your patient’s
problems ?
3. Why do you plan to not attend the next
Continuum at Pankey ?
4. What did you like most about your
training at Pankey ?
5. What are some of the courses that you
feel should have been addressed in your
training ?
Purpose
Metric to identify a participant’s satisfaction with
the experience at the Pankey institute. Also will
help segment participants and understand factors
that drive a participant to not return to Pankey.
To determine if the state of the art equipment at
Pankey mirrors the technology that is currently
available to doctors. It is possible that especially
doctors who run an individual practice do not
carry all the equipment that is available at
Pankey and hence do not find value in using
them.
To understand the primary factors that drives a
participant to not return to Pankey. This would be
the issue that the institute must first address.
Helps us identify areas where our performance is
the best. Our strategy could be to elevate the
importance of these factors if participants do not
value them highly.
Identify courses that are important to
participants. This would help Pankey increase its
service to create new continuums based on
courses that participants need.

The survey has addressed several areas that would help understand a participant’s satisfaction with the course
at Pankey. Questions 1- 3 are all very affirmative and may influence the participant’s response. These questions
could have been worded differently and a ranking system could have been used. While question 7 addresses the
overall satisfaction with the course, participants could have also been asked for their least and most favorite
courses. This could have helped tailor the course content in the various continuums. Questions 12-14 related to
the price of the course address the same issue and seem redundant.

External factors like competition, economy could be reasons as well and should be explored. A focus group with
customers to gauge the prevailing concerns could have helped prepare a survey to better address Pankey’s
needs.

M503, 11:15 AM Pankey Institute

Raghav Parthasarathy February 24, 2011

Exhibit 2a – Frequencies and Goodness of fit test

Test
Gender
Statistics
Valid Q20:
 
  Percent Gender
Female 12.4 Chi- 16.771a
Square
Male 87.6 df 1
Total 100.0 Asymp. .000
Sig.

Exhibit 2b – Gender * I was very satisfied with the course

Chi-Square Tests

  Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
Pearson Chi- 8.363a 3 .039
Square

Exhibit 2c
Q23: Practice located in major metro area

Observed N Expected N Residual

No 207 190.7 16.4

Yes 258 274.4 -16.4

Total 465

M503, 11:15 AM Pankey Institute

Raghav Parthasarathy February 24, 2011

Test Statistics

Q23: Practice
located in major
metro area

Chi-Square 2.377a

df 1

Asymp. Sig. .123

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected

frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency
is 190.7.

Exhibit 3a – Mean Scores on the Pankey Institute Survey

X

Min Max Mean

Q1: All instructors were experts 1 4 3.32
Q2: Support staff were all very helpful 1 4 3.81
Q3: Dental equipment was state-of-the-art 1 4 3.45
Q4: A lot of the course material was new to me 1 4 2.73

Q5: Some material was difficult to 1 4 2.08

comprehend
Q6a: Devote more of course to dental 1 4 2.56
procedures
Q6b: Devote more of course to managing a 1 4 2.59
practice
Q6c: Devote more of course to hands-on 1 4 2.75
learning
Q7: I enjoyed the course 1 4 3.74
Q8: I liked the visting instructors 1 4 3.57
Q9: I liked the in-house instructors 1 4 3.67
Q10: Overall, I enjoyed the week at Pankey 1 4 3.75

M503, 11:15 AM Pankey Institute

Raghav Parthasarathy February 24, 2011

Q12: Price of the course was very reasonable 1 4 2.8

Q13: Good value for the money 1 4 3.25
Q14: Total expense was worth the money 1 4 3.28
Q15: I was very satisfied with the course 1 4 3.41
Q16: Meals provided were: 1 5 3.35
Q17: Lodging accommodations were: 1 5 4.04
Q18: My experience outside Institute was: 1 5 3.28
Q19: My experience at Institute was: 1 5 4.13

Exhibit 3b – Factor Analysis Report

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5

Q10: Overall, I enjoyed the .854 .221 -.068 .098 -.033

week at Pankey

Q7: I enjoyed the course .850 .168 -.002 .097 .028

Q9: I liked the in-house .766 .126 .013 .293 -.018

instructors

Q8: I liked the visting .758 .044 -.123 .188 -.043

instructors

Q13: Good value for the .169 .821 .002 .167 .094
money

Q12: Price of the course was .075 .806 .038 .030 -.132
very reasonable

Q14: Total expense was .263 .766 -.159 .057 .107

worth the money

Q6a: Devote more of course -.148 -.148 .828 .068 .088

to dental procedures

Q6c: Devote more of course -.007 -.101 .824 .007 .064

to hands-on learning

Q6b: Devote more of course -.004 .136 .611 -.132 -.090

to managing a practice

M503, 11:15 AM Pankey Institute

Raghav Parthasarathy February 24, 2011

Q3: Dental equipment was .047 .036 .000 .865 -.105

state-of-the-art

Q1: All instructors were .288 .114 -.116 .603 .141

experts

Q2: Support staff were all .255 .083 .014 .561 -.027
very helpful

Q4: A lot of the course -.021 .219 -.150 .020 .766

material was new to me

Q5: Some material was -.026 -.173 .198 -.047 .737

difficult to comprehend

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Factor analysis results in the identification of 5 factors – enjoyment, value for money, newness of material,
environment/staff and applicability.

Exhibit 3c – Regression between the factors and Qn15 – I was very satisfied with the course.

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .512a .262 .260 .513

2 .660b .435 .433 .450

3 .695c .483 .479 .431

d
4 .702 .492 .487 .427

5 .708e .501 .494 .425

M503, 11:15 AM Pankey Institute

Raghav Parthasarathy February 24, 2011

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.422 .025 135.277 .000

Value .305 .025 .512 12.068 .000

2 (Constant) 3.420 .022 154.364 .000

Value .305 .022 .512 13.786 .000

Enjoyment .251 .022 .416 11.201 .000

3 (Constant) 3.421 .021 161.122 .000

Value .305 .021 .512 14.388 .000

Enjoyment .251 .021 .416 11.672 .000

Environment .130 .021 .218 6.129 .000

4 (Constant) 3.420 .021 162.399 .000

Value .305 .021 .512 14.503 .000

Enjoyment .251 .021 .416 11.789 .000

Environment .130 .021 .218 6.174 .000

Newness .058 .021 .097 2.745 .006

5 (Constant) 3.420 .021 163.533 .000

Value .305 .021 .512 14.606 .000

Enjoyment .252 .021 .417 11.894 .000

Environment .130 .021 .218 6.215 .000

Newness .058 .021 .097 2.773 .006

Applicability -.054 .021 -.091 -2.598 .010

a. Dependent Variable: Q15: I was very satisfied with the course

Exhibit 3d – Value and Enjoyment seem to explain most of the variation in Overall satisfaction.

M503, 11:15 AM Pankey Institute

Raghav Parthasarathy February 24, 2011

Exhibit 4a

Report

Q17: Lodging accommodations were:

Q21: Age Mean N Std. Deviation

Under 35 4.20 84 .818

35 - 44 4.01 293 .792

45 - 54 3.90 68 .849

55 and over 4.57 7 .787

Total 4.04 452 .811

Sig = 0.030

Exhibit 4b
Report

Q6b: Devote more of course to managing a practice

Q22: Type
of practice Mean N Std. Deviation

Individual 2.64 306 .747

Group 2.56 103 .709

Other 2.17 30 .699

Total 2.59 439 .743

Sig = 0.003

Exhibit 4c

Report

Q12: Price of the Q14: Total Q15: I was very

Q23: Practice located in course was very Q13: Good value expense was satisfied with the
major metro area reasonable for the money worth the money course

No Mean 2.88 3.35 3.38 3.52

Yes Mean 2.72 3.16 3.20 3.33

Total Mean 2.79 3.24 3.28 3.41

Sig = 0.003 Sig = 0.001 Sig= 0.003 Sig= 0.001

M503, 11:15 AM Pankey Institute

Raghav Parthasarathy February 24, 2011

Exhibit Q12: Q13: Q14: Q15: I Q16:

4dXQ11: Price of Good Total was Meals
Last the value expens very provide
Continuu course for the e was satisfie d were:
m that was very money worth d with
you reasonabl the the
attended e money course

C-I Mean 2.71 3.07 3.09 3.27 3.25

C-II Mean 2.86 3.32 3.41 3.51 3.37
C-III Mean 2.89 3.46 3.5 3.62 3.46
C-IV Mean 2.8 3.33 3.33 3.36 3.56
C-V Mean 3.14 3.57 3.71 3.43 3.57
C-VI Mean 3 4 4 4 4
Total Mean 2.8 3.24 3.29 3.41 3.36

Sig = .052 Sig= 0.00 Sig=0.00 Sig = 0.00 Sig= 0.077

I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this deliverable.

Raghav Parthasarathy

M503, 11:15 AM Pankey Institute