Research Question 1:: Frequency Tables For The Demographic Profile

Research Question 1:
● Frequency tables for the demographic profile

Tables showing the frequency for the customer demographics are as follows:
Gender of the customer
Frequen Percen Valid Cumulative

cy t Percent Percent
Vali Male 162 74.0 74.0 74.0
d
Femal 57 26.0 26.0 100.0
e
Total 219 100.0 100.0
Age of the customer

Valid Under 20 13 5.9 6.1 6.1
20 to 29 41 18.7 19.2 25.4
30 to 39 53 24.2 24.9 50.2
40 to 49 79 36.1 37.1 87.3
50 and 27 12.3 12.7 100.0
Over
Total 213 97.3 100.0
Missi 99 6 2.7
ng
Total 219 100.0
Income category of customer

Valid Less than 16 7.3 7.4 7.4
15k
15k up to 26 11.9 12.0 19.4
30k
30k up to 72 32.9 33.2 52.5
45k
45k up to 55 25.1 25.3 77.9
60k
60k and 48 21.9 22.1 100.0
Over
Total 217 99.1 100.0
Missi 99 2 .9
ng
Total 219 100.0
Professional work status of the customer

Valid Student 41 18.7 19.1 19.1
Part-time 52 23.7 24.2 43.3
employed
Full-time 73 33.3 34.0 77.2
employed
Retired 24 11.0 11.2 88.4
Tourist/visitor 25 11.4 11.6 100.0
Total 215 98.2 100.0
Missi 99 4 1.8
ng
Total 219 100.0
● Test that the proportion of all male customers is equal to 75%
Binomial Test for If the proportion of male customers is 75%
Categor Observed Test Exact Sig.

y N Prop. Prop. (1-tailed)
Gender of Group Male 162 .74 .75 .388a

customer 1
Group Female 57 .26

2
Total 219 1.00
a. Alternative hypothesis states that the proportion of cases in the first group < .75.
The null and alternative Hypotheses used for this test are:
➔ H0: Proportion of all male customers = 75%
➔ H1: Proportion of all male customers ≠ 75%

➔ Two tailed test
According to the test results above, p= 0.392, which is higher than 0.05. This cannot allow us to
reject the null hypothesis. Hence leading to the conclusion that the proportion of all the male
customers is statistically equal to 75%. The claim is valid.
● Test that the proportion of customers under the age of 20 is equal to 5%
NOTE: A customer under the age of 20 is categorized as Group 1, and anyone over that is
categorized as Group 2.
The null and alternative Hypotheses used for this test are:
➔ Ho: Proportion of customers under the age of 20 = 5%

➔ H1: Proportion of customers under the age of 20 ≠ 5%
➔ Two tailed test
According to the above tests, p = 0.280 is >0.05, indicating that we cannot reject the null
hypothesis, resulting in the conclusion that the proportion of customers with age under 20 is
statistically equal to 5%. Therefore, the claim is valid.
● Test that the proportion of customers with income between £30k up to £45k is equal to
39%
Null and alternative hypothesis used for this test is:
➔ H0: Proportion of customers with income between £30k and £45k = 39%
➔ H1: Proportion of customers with income between £30k and £45k ≠ 39%
➔ Two tailed test
We have a p value of 0.46, which indicates a rejection of the null hypothesis since p < 0.05. This
signifies that the proportion of customers with income between £30k and £45k does not equal
39%. Therefore, the claim is valid.
● Descriptive statistics for all the service quality item
Std. Varian
N Mean Deviation ce
Food knowledge of 219 3.61 1.368 1.873
staff at the market
Health & safety of 219 2.96 1.330 1.769
staff at the market
Promptness of staff 219 2.95 1.436 2.061
when serving
customers
Staff support to 219 2.95 1.333 1.777
customers
The atmosphere of 219 3.00 1.247 1.555
the food market
Quality of the cooked 219 2.83 1.294 1.673
food at the market
Variety of the cooked 219 2.93 1.285 1.651
food at the market
The value for money 219 4.10 .953 .907
of food at the market
Level of cleanliness of 219 2.97 1.335 1.783
the market
The seating adequacy 219 2.92 1.270 1.613
at the market
The crowd and queue 219 3.52 1.213 1.471
levels at the market
The state of the toilet 219 2.06 .989 .978
facilities
Valid N (listwise) 219
● Descriptive Statistics for the service quality factor.
For professionalism factor, core service factor and environment factor, the descriptive statistics
are as follows:
Descriptive Statistics for Professionalism

Std. Varian
N Mean Deviation ce
Food knowledge of 219 3.61 1.368 1.873
staff at the market
Health & safety of 219 2.96 1.330 1.769
staff at the market
Promptness of staff 219 2.95 1.436 2.061
when serving
customers
Staff support to 219 2.95 1.333 1.777
customers
Descriptive Statistics for Core Service

Std. Varian
N Mean Deviation ce
The atmosphere of 219 3.00 1.247 1.555
the food market
Quality of the cooked 219 2.83 1.294 1.673
food at the market
Variety of the cooked 219 2.93 1.285 1.651
food at the market
The value for money 219 4.10 .953 .907
Descriptive Statistics for Environment

Std. Varian
N Mean Deviation ce
Level of cleanliness of 219 2.97 1.335 1.783
the market
The seating adequacy 219 2.92 1.270 1.613
at the market
The crowd and queue 219 3.52 1.213 1.471
The state of the toilet 219 2.06 .989 .978
facilities
● Test that the average score for each factor “Professionalism”, “Core”, “Environment” is
12.4
This table shows the average scores of the service factors professionalism, core, and
environment along with each item's score:
Descriptive Statistics for service quality items and score for service quality factors
Service Quality Items Mean
Food knowledge of staff at the market 3.61
Health & safety of staff at the market 2.96
Promptness of staff when serving customers 2.95
Staff support to customers 2.95
Score for Professionalism Service quality factor
12.47
The atmosphere of the food market 3.00
Quality of the cooked food at the market 2.83
Variety of the cooked food at the market 2.93
The value for money of food at the market 4.10
Score for Core Service quality factor 12.86
Level of cleanliness of the market 2.97
The seating adequacy at the market 2.92
The crowd and queue levels at the market 3.52
The state of the toilet facilities 2.06
Score for Environment Service quality factor 11.47
Average Score for all the quality factors 12.26
The data from the above table shows us that, the score for Professional Service quality factor is
12.47, Core Service quality factor is 12.86, and Environment Service quality factor is 11.47.
Furthermore, the average factor of all these service factors is 12.26. This translates to an
average score of 12.26 for each factor rather than 12.4, which is only barely noticeable.
Since head researcher is interested to know if the service quality items follow the uniform
distribution, One Sample test of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for Uniformity was done with the
given significance level of 0.05. Following are the results of this test:
From the test results above we can see that all the service quality items have a p-values of less
that 0.05 and hence the null hypothesis that these items have normal distribution was rejected
in all the cases. So, from this we can infer that the distribution of the service items is not
uniform.
● Goodness-of-fit of all the twelve services quality items.

An overview of the test of chi-square for goodness of fit of all the twelve service quality items is
provided below:
Test Statistics
Chi-
Square df Asymptotic. Sig.
Food knowledge of 49.653a 4 .000
staff at the market
Health & safety of 4.858a 4 .302
staff at the market
Promptness of staff 2.758a 4 .599
when serving
customers
Staff support to 7.553a 4 .109
customers
The atmosphere of 16.320a 4 .003
the food market
Quality of the cooked 13.306a 4 .010
food at the market
Variety of the cooked 15.954a 4 .003
food at the market
The value for money 161.936a 4 .000
Level of cleanliness of 4.174a 4 .383
the market
The seating adequacy 13.489a 4 .009
at the market
The crowd and queue 95.452a 4 .000
The state of the toilet 110.795a 4 .000
facilities
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency is 43.8.
The significance level is set at 5%, therefore the p-value is 0.05. The degree of freedom of each
item in the service quality test is 4. A critical value of 9.488 can be calculated by taking p = 0.05
and df = 4.
The hypotheses for a chi-square test take the following form:
▪ Ho: The data meets the specified/expected distribution.
▪ H1: The data does not meet the specified distribution.
A chi-square value of 49.653, 16.32 and 13.306 was obtained for the items describing food
knowledge of staff at the market, atmosphere of the food market, and quality of the food
cooked at market, respectively. All these values are greater than the critical value of 9.488.
Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected in these cases and for the similar cases of the calculated
chi-square values less than 9.488. Alternatively, for the items like Health & Safety of the staff at
market, Promptness of the staff when serving the customers, Staff support to customers, etc.
the chi-square value is 4.858, 2.758, and 7.553, respectively. These values meanwhile are lower
than the critical value of 9.488. Hence, in these cases the null hypothesis was accepted.
Likewise, all the items have their own chi-square value which can be compared with the
obtained critical value of 9.488 to either accept the null hypothesis in case of chi-square value
less than the critical value of 9.488 or reject the null hypothesis leading to accept the
alternative hypothesis where the chi-square value of the item is more than the critical value of
9.488. The full hypothesis test summary generated from this process is given in the below table:
Hypothesis Test Summary

Chi-
N Items Sig. Decision
Square
Food knowledge of staff at the
1 49.653 .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
market
2 Health & safety of staff at the market 4.858 .302 Retain the null hypothesis.
Promptness of staff when serving
3 2.758 .599 Retain the null hypothesis.
customers
4 Staff support to customers 7.553 .109 Retain the null hypothesis.
5 The atmosphere of the food market 16.320 .003 Reject the null hypothesis.
Quality of the cooked food at the
market
Variety of the cooked food at the
market
The value for money of food at the
market
9 Level of cleanliness of the market 4.174 .383 Retain the null hypothesis.
1
The seating adequacy at the market 13.489 .009 Reject the null hypothesis.
0
1 The crowd and queue levels at the
95.452 .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
1 market
1
The state of the toilet facilities 110.795 .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
2
Asymptotic significance is displayed. The significance level is .05 and Critical value is 9.488.
● Association between each of the service quality items and gender.

Using a Chi-square test for association, we can determine the association between each service
item and gender. Here are the hypotheses for the test:
▪ Ho: There is no association between the variables
▪ H1: There is an association between the variables
Given to us is the significance level for this test which is 5% i.e., a = 0.05. Using this value, we
can either accept or reject the null hypothesis leading us to the proper conclusion that if that
variable is statistically significant or not.
For this test if the calculated Asymptotic Significance is greater than a value of 0.05, we cannot
reject the null hypothesis and hence leading us to the conclusion that there is no association
between the variables. But if the Asymptotic Significance is less than a value of 0.05, we reject
the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that there is in fact some statistically
significant association between that service quality item and gender.
The results of the Chi-squared test of the association between gender and each quality service
is presented below:
Chi-Square Test for Food knowledge of staff * Gender

Asymptotic Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.278a 4 .512
Likelihood Ratio 3.440 4 .487
Linear-by-Linear 2.620 1 .106
Association
N of Valid Cases 219
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 6.51.
The significance level of p = 0.512 for association of food knowledge of the market staff with
gender is above our threshold (0.05), therefore, we can accept the null hypothesis that
there is no association between food knowledge of the staff and gender.
Chi-Square Test for Health & Safety of staff * Gender

Value df (2-sided)
Association
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
The significance level of p = 0.319 for association of Health & Safety of staff with gender is more
than our significance level (0.05), therefore, we can accept the null hypothesis that there is no
association between the variable health & safety of staff and gender.
Chi-Square Test for Promptness of staff when serving * Gender

Asymptotic Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Association
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 9.89.
The significance level of p = 0.077 for association of Promptness of staff when serving with the
variable gender is more than our significance level (0.05), therefore, we can accept the null
hypothesis that there is no association between the variable promptness of staff when serving
and gender.
Chi-Square Test for Staff support to customers * Gender

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 12.521 4 .014
a

Association
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 8.07.
The significance level of p = 0.014 for association of Staff Support to customers and variable
gender is less than our significance level (0.05), therefore, we must reject the null hypothesis
concluding that there is in fact some statistically significant association between the variable
staff support to customers and the variable gender.
Chi-Square Test for Atmosphere of the food market * Gender

Value df sided)
Association
count is 7.55.
The significance level of p = 0.092 for association of Atmosphere of the food market with
gender is more than our significance level (0.05), therefore, we cannot reject the null
hypothesis that there is no association between the variable atmosphere of the food market
and variable gender.
Chi-Square Test for Quality of cooked food in the market * Gender

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .867a 4 .929
Likelihood Ratio .865 4 .930
Linear-by-Linear .449 1 .503
Association
count is 7.03.
The significance level of p = 0.929 for association of Quality of the cooked food with gender is
more than our significance level of 0.05. Therefore, we must accept the null hypothesis that the
variable quality of cooked food has no association with the variable gender of the customer.
Chi-Square Test for Variety of cooked food in the market * Gender

Value df sided)
Association
count is 6.51.
The significance level of p = 0.844 for association for Variety of cooked food in the market with
gender is greater than our significance level of 0.05. Therefore, we must accept the null
hypothesis that there is no statically significant association between the variable variety of
cooked food in the market and the variable gender of the customers.
Chi-Square Test for Value for money of food at the market * Gender
Value df sided)
Association
count is 1.56.
Fisher's exact test was needed for this variable value for money of food at the market, since
there were 3 cells had an expected count less than 5:
Chi-Square Tests with Fisher’s Exact test for Value for money at market * Gender
Exact Exact
Asymptotic Sig. Sig. Point
Valu d Significance (2- (2- (1- Proba
e f sided) sided) sided) bility
Pearson Chi-Square 5.62 4 .229 .229
0a
Likelihood Ratio 7.05 4 .133 .169
7
Fisher's Exact Test 5.12 .260
0
Linear-by-Linear 3.32 1 .068 .075 .038 .012
b
Association 2
a. 3 cells (30.0%) have an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 1.56.
b. The standardized statistic is 1.823.
The exact significance level given by Fisher’s Exact test is 0.260 which is greater than our
significance level of 0.05 like our previous p-value of 0.229. Therefore, we must accept the null
hypothesis that there is no statistically significant association between the variable value for
money at the market and the variable gender.
Chi-Square Test for Level of cleanliness of the market * Gender

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Association
count is 9.11.
The significance level of p = 0.263 for the association of the level for cleanliness of the market
with gender of customers is more than our significance level of 0.05, thus we must accept the
null hypothesis that there is in fact no statistically significant association between the variable
level of cleanliness of the market and the variable gender of customers.
Chi-Square Test for Seating Adequacy at the market * Gender

Value df (2-sided)
Association
The significance level of p = 0.378 of association for seating adequacy at the market with
gender is more than the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, we must accept the null
hypothesis that there is in fact no statistically significant association between the variable
seating adequacy at the market and the variable gender of customers.
Chi-Square Test for Crowd and queue levels at market * Gender

Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.848 4 .028
a

Association
The significance level of p = 0.028 for the association of crowd and queue levels at the market
with gender is less than our significance level of 0.05. Therefore, we must reject the null
hypothesis to accept that there is an association between the variable crowd and queue levels
at the market and the variable gender of the customers.
Chi-Square Test for Toilet facilities of market * Gender

Value df sided)
Association
Chi-Square Test with Fisher’s Exact test for Toilet facilities in market * Gender
Exact Exact
Asymptotic Sig. Sig. Point
Val d Significance (2- (2- (1- Proba
ue f sided) sided) sided) bility
Pearson Chi-Square 5.0 4 .281 .280
64a
Likelihood Ratio 6.2 4 .180 .203
71
Fisher's Exact Test 4.3 .348
13
Linear-by-Linear . 1 .570 .588 .315 .054
Association 322
b

a. 3 cells (30.0%) have an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 1.04.
b. The standardized statistic is -.568.
The significance level given by this Fisher’s Exact test, is of p = 0.348, for association of toilet
facilities in the market with gender is more than our significance level of 0.05. Therefore, we
must accept the null hypothesis that there is in fact no statistically significant association
between the variable toilet facilities in the market and the variable gender of the customers.
● Correlation Matrix of different service factors with Expenditure
The hypothesis used for this test of correlation of different service factors with expenditure is:
▪ Ho: The correlation coefficient is not significantly different from zero and consequently
there is no correlation between the variables
▪ Ha: The correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero and consequently
there is significant correlation between the variables.
With the given significance level of 0.05 we can easily imply that if the calculated significance is
greater than 0.05, we must accept the null hypothesis. And alternatively, if the calculated
significance is less than 0.05 we have to reject the null hypothesis to accept the alternative
hypothesis.
Correlations between Professionalism Factors and Expenditure
Amount spent on food and

drink today
Food knowledge of staff at Pearson Correlation .077
the market
Sig. (2-tailed) .254
N 219
Health & safety of staff at Pearson Correlation -.030
the market
N 219
Promptness of staff when Pearson Correlation -.067
serving customers
N 219
Staff support to customers Pearson Correlation -.061
N 219
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The p-values of all professionalism factors in the table are always less than 0.05, i.e., 0.254,
0.659, 0.326, 0.369. This means that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected in the case of all
service factors. Hence, none of the Professionalism factors has any statistically significant
correlation with the customer expenditures. Moreover, "Food Knowledge of Staff at the
Market" appears to have a negative correlation with the expenditures of customers. This means
that the market will have to focus on that variable since that variable is visibly necessary to
have positive impact on the market and hence the market should focus on improving this
factor.
Correlations between Core Service Factors and Expenditure

drink today
The atmosphere of the food Pearson Correlation .587**
market
N 219
Quality of the cooked food Pearson Correlation .659**
at the market
N 219
Variety of the cooked food Pearson Correlation .658**
at the market
N 219
The value for money of food Pearson Correlation .154*
at the market
N 219
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Using the above table, we can see that all the core service factors have a p-value less than 0.05.
The null hypothesis must therefore be rejected. So, we can say that these factors have a
statistically significant correlation with the market expenditures of the customers.
In this data the variable quality of the cooked food at the market has the greatest significant
correlation with the expenditure of customers with the Pearson correlation value of 0.659. This
proves to us that the market must put its most focus on this variable to see some significant
improvement in the customer expenditure at the market.
Correlations between Environment factors and Expenditure
drink today
Level of cleanliness of the Pearson Correlation .192**
market
N 219
The seating adequacy at the Pearson Correlation .271**
market
N 219
The crowd and queue levels Pearson Correlation .136*
at the market
N 219
The state of the toilet Pearson Correlation .147*
facilities
N 219
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
As we can see by the above table, all the Environmental factors appear to have p-values less
than 0.05, indicating that we must reject the null hypothesis for all Environmental factors
suggesting to us that the environment factors have a statistically significant correlation with the
expenditure of the customers at the market. Among the Environmental factors, "Seating
adequacy at the market" appears to have the most statistically significant correlation with the
variable expenditure, followed by "Level of Cleanliness of the market".
● Scatter Diagram between each of the three service quality factors
● Simple linear regression between weekly expenditure and the best of the three
service quality factors
From our earlier test of the correlation of all the items with the expenditure, we can clearly
distinguish that the variable quality of the cooked food at the market had the most statically
significant correlation with weekly expenditure. Due to this reason, this variable was used in
this test of simple linear regression. The results of the linear regression performed between
quality of the food at the market and expenditure of the customers at the market is given
below:
Model Summary
Std. Error
Mod R Adjusted R of the
el R Square Square Estimate
1 .659a .434 .431 .720
a. Predictors: (Constant), Quality of the cooked food at
the market
b. Dependent Variable: Amount spent on food and drink
today
Here we can see that the value of R = 0.659 which indicates a significant correlation degree that
is adequate for this variable to be a good fit for this regression test. Also from the above table
we can see the R Square is 0.434 which says that the weekly expenditure of the customers at
the market can be described by this variable quality of food by 43.3%. The standard error of the
estimate also seems to be low at just 0.720.
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regressio 86.380 1 86.380 166.44 .000b
n 7
Residual 112.615 217 .519
Total 198.995 218
a. Dependent Variable: Amount spent on food and drink today
b. Predictors: (Constant), Quality of the cooked food at the market
From the above table of the ANOVA test we can determine the extent of reliability of this
regression test and its resulting model of linear regression. Here, the Statistical Significance is
lower than our statistical significance level of 5% i.e., p < 0.05. Accordingly, this ANOVA table
implies that the regression model is statistically significant, and this variable quality of the
cooked food at the market can be a good fit to calculate the weekly expenditure of the
customer at the market.
Coefficients
Standardiz
ed
Unstandardized Coefficient
Coefficients s
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.960 .117 42.265 .000
Quality of the cooked .487 .038 .659 12.901 .000
food at the market
From the above Coefficients table, p = 0.000 (not be taken exact but rather approximated)
which is less than 0.05. Hence, from this information we can infer that this variable quality of
cooked food in the market is statistically significant to the resulting model from this linear
regression test predicting the weekly expenditure of the customer. Taking the value of the
constant B and the B value for quality of the cooked food at the market we can make up the
following linear equation:
Expenditure = 4.960 + 0.487 * (quality of the cooked food in the market)
Residuals Statistics
Minim Maxim Std.
um um Mean Deviation N
Predicted Value 5.45 7.39 6.34 .629 219
Residual -1.933 2.093 .000 .719 219
Std. Predicted -1.416 1.677 .000 1.000 219
Value
Std. Residual -2.684 2.906 .000 .998 219
a. Dependent Variable: Amount spent on food and drink today.
This table of residuals gives us the residual statistics of the regression

analysis performed.
● Multiple regression analysis between weekly expenditure and all three service quality
factors
As suggested in this test of multiple regression, the Stepwise method for regression was applied
in this multiple regression test. This method involves removing the weakest correlated variable
from the regression process after making each incremental step. After this process of multiple
regression is completed, the only variables that are best helpful for describing and predicting
the desired outcome are included in the last model which is presumably the best model.
Based on the Multiple Regression Analysis using Stepwise Method, the result of the multiple
regression between weekly expenditures and all three factors of service quality is presented
below:
Model Summary
Std. Error
Mod R Adjusted R of the
el R Square Square Estimate
1 .659 .434 .431 .720
2 .723 .523 .518 .663
3 .752 .565 .559 .634
4 .767 .588 .581 .619
5 .774 .599 .590 .612
6 .780 .608 .597 .606
7 .786 .617 .604 .601
8 .792 .628 .613 .594
NOTE: The variables removed at each iteration of this multiple regression is given below in the
table titled “Excluded Variables”.
Utilizing this model summary table, we can analyze the outcome of each progressive multiple
regression model with each iteration being more accurate than the last model. This indicates
that the last model must be the best at our required regression. So, we can say that the 8th
model is the best, with a high R value of 0.792 and R square of 0.628. An R value of 0.792
indicates that this model is highly correlated with expenditure and can explain expenditure by
62.8%. Additionally, the error estimate is the lowest at only 0.594 for this same model.
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regressio 86.380 1 86.380 166.44 .000
n 7
Residual 112.615 217 .519
Total 198.995 218
2 Regressio 104.034 2 52.017 118.31 .000
n 7
Residual 94.962 216 .440
Total 198.995 218
3 Regressio 112.525 3 37.508 93.260 .000
n
Residual 86.471 215 .402
Total 198.995 218
4 Regressio 117.063 4 29.266 76.440 .000
n
Residual 81.932 214 .383
Total 198.995 218
5 Regressio 119.282 5 23.856 63.746 .000
n
Residual 79.713 213 .374
Total 198.995 218
6 Regressio 121.041 6 20.173 54.862 .000
n
Residual 77.955 212 .368
Total 198.995 218
7 Regressio 122.797 7 17.542 48.576 .000
n
Residual 76.199 211 .361
Total 198.995 218
8 Regressio 124.886 8 15.611 44.235 .000
n
Residual 74.110 210 .353
Total 198.995 218
Also from the ANOVA table above, we can infer that the best model is the 8th model which has
statistically best results. This 8th model has a significance coefficient of 0.000 which is below
0.05, confirming the clear predictive strength of this model, and again implying it to be a good
fit.
Coefficients
Standardiz
ed
Unstandardized Coefficient
Coefficients s
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.960 .117 42.265 .000
food at the market
2 (Constant) 4.642 .119 38.980 .000
food at the market
Variety of the cooked .294 .046 .396 6.337 .000
food at the market
3 (Constant) 4.230 .145 29.156 .000
food at the market
food at the market
The seating adequacy .156 .034 .208 4.595 .000
at the market
4 (Constant) 4.071 .149 27.357 .000
food at the market
food at the market
at the market
The atmosphere of .154 .045 .201 3.443 .001
the food market
5 (Constant) 3.926 .159 24.722 .000
food at the market
food at the market
at the market
the food market
Level of cleanliness .085 .035 .119 2.435 .016
of the market
6 (Constant) 3.546 .234 15.126 .000
food at the market
food at the market
at the market
the food market
of the market
The value for money .096 .044 .096 2.187 .030
7 (Constant) 3.720 .245 15.161 .000
food at the market
food at the market
at the market
the food market
of the market
Promptness of staff -.063 .029 -.095 -2.205 .029
when serving
customers
8 (Constant) 3.573 .250 14.290 .000
food at the market
food at the market
at the market
the food market
of the market
Promptness of staff -.090 .030 -.136 -2.964 .003
when serving
customers
Food knowledge of .078 .032 .111 2.433 .016
staff at the market
The coefficient table above, has coefficients and constant values for all the models that were
generated and tested during this multiple regression test. Again, we can only look at the 8th
model which is clearly the best as indicated by previous data. For this model we have a constant
of 3.573 with respective constants for each of the items. Using these values, one can create a
regression equation like the linear regression equation in the previous test of the linear
regression problem.
Excluded Variables
Collinearity
Statistics
Partial
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 Food knowledge of .070b 1.369 .172 .093 1.000
staff at the market
Health & safety of -.052b -1.022 .308 -.069 .999
staff at the market
Promptness of staff -.113b -2.223 .027 -.150 .995
when serving
customers
Staff support to -.080b -1.578 .116 -.107 .999
customers
The atmosphere of .303b 5.048 .000 .325 .651
the food market
Variety of the cooked .396b 6.337 .000 .396 .567
food at the market
The value for money .094b 1.848 .066 .125 .992
Level of cleanliness of .166b 3.326 .001 .221 .998
the market
The seating adequacy .210b 4.259 .000 .278 .991
at the market
The crowd and queue .146b 2.900 .004 .194 1.000
The state of the toilet .144b 2.861 .005 .191 1.000
facilities
2 Food knowledge of .074c 1.574 .117 .107 1.000
staff at the market
Health & safety of -.018c -.371 .711 -.025 .985
staff at the market
Promptness of staff -.111c -2.374 .018 -.160 .995
when serving
customers
Staff support to -.045c -.949 .344 -.065 .985
customers
The atmosphere of .193c 3.147 .002 .210 .563
the food market
The value for money .082c 1.742 .083 .118 .990
Level of cleanliness of .185c 4.066 .000 .267 .995
the market
The seating adequacy .208c 4.595 .000 .299 .991
at the market
The crowd and queue .137c 2.956 .003 .198 .999
The state of the toilet .112c 2.398 .017 .161 .988
facilities
3 Food knowledge of .061d 1.365 .174 .093 .996
staff at the market
Health & safety of -.002d -.042 .966 -.003 .980
staff at the market
Promptness of staff -.085d -1.883 .061 -.128 .978
when serving
customers
Staff support to -.024d -.533 .594 -.036 .975
customers
The atmosphere of .201d 3.443 .001 .229 .562
the food market
The value for money .111d 2.454 .015 .165 .973
Level of cleanliness of .114d 2.282 .023 .154 .788
the market
The crowd and queue .081d 1.734 .084 .118 .907
The state of the toilet .085d 1.870 .063 .127 .969
facilities
4 Food knowledge of .068e 1.551 .122 .106 .994
staff at the market
Health & safety of .003e .075 .940 .005 .978
staff at the market
Promptness of staff -.087e -1.964 .051 -.133 .978
when serving
customers
Staff support to -.032e -.726 .468 -.050 .972
customers
The value for money .105e 2.386 .018 .161 .972
Level of cleanliness of .119e 2.435 .016 .165 .788
the market
The crowd and queue .088e 1.923 .056 .131 .906
The state of the toilet .073e 1.635 .104 .111 .962
facilities
5 Food knowledge of .073f 1.674 .096 .114 .992
staff at the market
Health & safety of .002f .053 .958 .004 .978
staff at the market
Promptness of staff -.090f -2.071 .040 -.141 .977
when serving
customers
Staff support to -.019f -.418 .677 -.029 .955
customers
The value for money .096f 2.187 .030 .149 .963
The crowd and queue .067f 1.428 .155 .098 .861
The state of the toilet .065f 1.473 .142 .101 .957
facilities
6 Food knowledge of .062g 1.426 .155 .098 .977
staff at the market
Health & safety of .000g .006 .995 .000 .978
staff at the market
Promptness of staff -.095g -2.205 .029 -.150 .975
when serving
customers
Staff support to -.024g -.547 .585 -.038 .952
customers
The crowd and queue .047g .987 .325 .068 .820
The state of the toilet .062g 1.417 .158 .097 .956
facilities
7 Food knowledge of .111h 2.433 .016 .166 .847
staff at the market
Health & safety of .079h 1.514 .132 .104 .668
staff at the market
Staff support to .061h 1.087 .278 .075 .571
customers
The crowd and queue .038h .812 .418 .056 .814
The state of the toilet .068h 1.568 .118 .108 .952
facilities
8 Health & safety of .047i .879 .381 .061 .615
staff at the market
Staff support to .036i .640 .523 .044 .550
customers
The crowd and queue .030i .630 .530 .044 .809
The state of the toilet .068i 1.587 .114 .109 .952
facilities
From this above table of Excluded Variables, we can infer the information about the excluded
or the variables that were removed in each of the multiple regression iterations.
Residuals Statistics
Minim Maxim Std.
um um Mean Deviation N
Predicted Value 4.77 7.89 6.34 .757 219
Residual -1.646 1.525 .000 .583 219
Std. Predicted -2.078 2.056 .000 1.000 219
Value
Std. Residual -2.771 2.567 .000 .981 219
The residual statistics of the regression model can be seen in the above table of Residuals
Statistics.
● Conclusion
We ran a multiple regression which yielded the results shown in the tables above. Since in
this Stepwise multiple regression, a weakly correlated variable is removed at each step, only
the variables that best explain the output data remain at the final model.
The variables remaining or used in the final model are Quality of the cooked food at the
market, Variety of the cooked food at the market, the seating adequacy at the market, the
atmosphere of the food market, Level of cleanliness of the market, the value for money of
food at the market.
Hence, we can conclude that if these variables are combined, the best regression model to
predict the weekly expenditure of the customers can be created.

Research Question 1:: Frequency Tables For The Demographic Profile

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Question 1:: Frequency Tables For The Demographic Profile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Question 1:

● Frequency tables for the demographic profile

Gender of the customer

Frequen Percen Valid Cumulative

Age of the customer

Income category of customer

Professional work status of the customer

● Test that the proportion of all male customers is equal to 75%

Binomial Test for If the proportion of male customers is 75%

Categor Observed Test Exact Sig.

Gender of Group Male 162 .74 .75 .388a

Group Female 57 .26

Total 219 1.00

➔ H0: Proportion of all male customers = 75%

➔ H1: Proportion of all male customers ≠ 75%

customers is statistically equal to 75%. The claim is valid.

● Test that the proportion of customers under the age of 20 is equal to 5%

➔ Ho: Proportion of customers under the age of 20 = 5%

➔ Two tailed test

statistically equal to 5%. Therefore, the claim is valid.

Null and alternative hypothesis used for this test is:

➔ Two tailed test

● Descriptive statistics for all the service quality item

● Descriptive Statistics for the service quality factor.

Descriptive Statistics for Professionalism

Descriptive Statistics for Core Service

Descriptive Statistics for Environment

● Goodness-of-fit of all the twelve services quality items.

Hypothesis Test Summary

● Association between each of the service quality items and gender.

Chi-Square Test for Food knowledge of staff * Gender

Chi-Square Test for Health & Safety of staff * Gender

Chi-Square Test for Promptness of staff when serving * Gender

Chi-Square Test for Staff support to customers * Gender

Likelihood Ratio 13.030 4 .011

Chi-Square Test for Atmosphere of the food market * Gender

Chi-Square Test for Quality of cooked food in the market * Gender

Chi-Square Test for Variety of cooked food in the market * Gender

Chi-Square Test for Level of cleanliness of the market * Gender

Chi-Square Test for Seating Adequacy at the market * Gender

Chi-Square Test for Crowd and queue levels at market * Gender

Likelihood Ratio 11.407 4 .022

Chi-Square Test for Toilet facilities of market * Gender

N of Valid Cases 219

Amount spent on food and

Correlations between Core Service Factors and Expenditure

Amount spent on food and

This table of residuals gives us the residual statistics of the regression

You might also like