SPSS EXERCISE 1

ANALYSIS TO BE PERFORMED (write based on the following structure)

1. Using your questionnaire, identify any two variables each for the following:
 Nominal variable: gender and programme
 Ordinal variable: faculty and types of gadgets owned
 Interval variable: time spending on the gadget a day and I often change my gadget
 Ratio variable: age and number of gadgets owned

2. Describe the background and demography of the respondents based on the

questions/items below:
 Gender: Our respondents for this research involving 15 males and 35 females

 Age: The age of the respondent of our research consists of 42 people who 23 years
old and below and 8 people who 24 years old and above.

 Faculty: Our respondents mostly from faculty of science administration and policy
studies which is consists of 42 people while the other respondents is from faculty of
science and mathematics which is 6 people and the remaining 2 respondents is from
faculty of sports science and recreation.

 Programme: For the programme, the major one is from AM228 as it consists of 34
respondents compared to other programme such as AM225, CS227, CS228, CS247,
CS248, CS249, SR241, SR243 and CS290. For programme AM225, the respondents
consist of 8 people while the remaining programme is all consists of only 1 people
per programme.

 Current academic undertaking: Our respondent mostly from degree for the current
academic undertaking which is consists of 45 people out of 50 respondents while the
remaining 5 people is from diploma. None of our respondent is from master or Phd.
 Types of gadget owned: From this research, we can see most of the respondents
have their own laptop and smartphone and those who have only these gadget is 18
people while other respondent have more than laptop and smartphone. Other than
having laptop and smartphone, there are 3 respondents who has extra gadget like
camera, 1 respondent who has ipad and airpods. Besides, 3 respondents who has play
station and 1 respondent who has tablet as their extra gadget. There are 14
respondents who has laptop, smartphone and tablet as their gadget while 3 other
respondents who also have these 3 gadget and one more extra gadget which is
camera. Furthermore, 2 respondents who already has the previous gadget but with an
extra one gadget that they own which is MP3 and there are 1 respondent who has
more extra gadget than the previous one which is Play station. Lastly, there are only 1
respondent who only has smartphone and 2 respondents who has tablet and
smartphone.

 Number of gadget owned: From our research, there are 7 respondents who only has
1 gadget, 16 respondents who has 2 gadgets, 18 respondents who has 3 gadgets, 7
respondents who has 4 gadgets, 1 respondent who has 7 gadgets and lastly, only 1
respondent who has 8 gadgets.

 Time spending on the gadget a day: Based on the data that we got, most of our
respondent spent on their gadget more than 6 hours which is 26 people and 16 of
respondents spent on their gadget 4 to 6 hours. Besides, there are 5 respondents who
make time for their gadget 2 to 4 hours while the remaining 3 respondents is only
spent time on their gadget 1 to 2 hours in a day.

 Purpose of using gadget:

- Communication:
 From the data that we got, 35 respondents are most preferable towards the
communication while 10 respondents are preferable, 2 respondents having mix
feeling, 2 respondents vote for really not preferable and 1 respondent is least
preferable.
- Entertainment:
There are 29 respondents are most preferable for entertainment while 15
respondents are preferable, 4 respondents having mix feeling and 2 respondents
are voted for least preferable.
- Study:
From our research, there are 27 respondents are preferable for study while 17
respondents are preferable, 3 respondents having mix feeling, 2 respondents vote
for really not preferable and 1 respondent is least preferable.
- Socialize:
From the data that we got, 28 respondents are most preferable towards socialize
while 15 respondents are preferable, 3 respondents having mix feeling, 2
respondents vote for really not preferable and 2 respondents is least preferable.
- Gaming:
There are 17 respondents are preferable for gaming while 13 respondents are
preferable, 7 respondents having mix feeling, 5 respondents vote for really not
preferable and 8 respondents is least preferable.

 I often change my gadget:

Based on the data we got from the research, most of the respondent will change their
gadget only when its broken which is 35 respondents while 8 respondents will change
their gadget once in two year. Besides, 4 respondents change their gadget once a year
and 3 respondents will change their gadget twice a year.
SPSS EXERCISE 2

ANALYSIS TO BE PERFORMED:

1. Recode all negatively worded items

2. Compute the variables

RECODE Scale8 Scale12 Scale16 Scale22 Scale23 Scale24 Scale25 Scale26 Scale27
(1=5) (2=4) (4=2)
(5=1).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE total_scale_part_A=Scale1 + Scale2 + Scale3 + Scale4 + Scale5 + Scale6
+ Scale7 .
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE total_scale_part_B=Scale8 + Scale9 + Scale10 + Scale11 + Scale12 +
Scale13.
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE total_scale_part_C=Scale14 + Scale15 + Scale16 + Scale17 + Scale18 +
Scale19 + Scale20.
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE total_scale_part_D=Scale21 + Scale22 + Scale23 + Scale24 + Scale25 +
Scale26 + Scale27.
EXECUTE.
EXERCISE 3 (T-TEST)

1)

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

Current_academic_undertaking N Percent N Percent N Percent

Gender diploma 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

degree 45 100.0% 0 0.0% 45 100.0%

Age diploma 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

degree 45 100.0% 0 0.0% 45 100.0%

In this analysis shows that there is no missing value for this data for the both gender and age in diploma and degree students. Our
respondents are consist of 5 students from diploma and 45 students from degree.

2)
EXERCISE 4

Correlation Analysis

Explain whether time spent on gadget, possession of the gadget, and functions of the gadget correlate
with their total overall level of gadget dependency. For each state the null and alternative hypotheses.
What is your decision/finding?

QUESTION

1. Is there a significant and strong correlation between the total overall level of gadget
dependency with:

i. Time Spent on Gadget,

ii. Possession of the Gadget,

iii. Functions of the Gadget

ANALYSIS TO BE PERFORMED

1. Carry out preliminary univariate analysis to examine the assumptions for all the variables.

2. Carry out bivariate correlational analysis of time spent on gadget, possession of the gadget, and
functions of the gadget correlate with their total overall level of gadget dependency.

3. Plot a scattergram of time spent on gadget, possession of the gadget, and functions of the
gadget correlate with their total overall level of gadget dependency.
 1) Carry out preliminary univariate analysis to examine the assumptions for all the variables.

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

total_scale_part_time_spe
50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
nd_on_gadget

total_scale_part_Possessio
50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
n_of_gadget

total_scale_part_Fucntion
50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0%
_of_gadget

In this analysis, it shows that there is no missing value for this data, for all time spent on gadget,
possession of the gadget, and the functions of the gadget. According to the table, all 50 respondents
have given their respond for all time spent on gadget and the functions of the gadget.
 2. Carry out bivariate correlational analysis of time spent on gadget, possession of the gadget, and
functions of the gadget correlate with their total overall level of gadget dependency.

i) Time Spent on Gadget:

Correlations

total_timespent total_gadgetde
ongadget pendency

total_timespentongadget Pearson Correlation 1 -.682**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000

N 50 50

total_gadgetdependency Pearson Correlation -.682** 1

Sig. (1-tailed) .000

N 50 50
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

The result shows the output that P values shows p<0.05 (0.00). There is significant
positive relationship exist between these two variable which is time spend on
gadget and total gadget dependency.

So, there is correlation between is time spend on gadget and total gadget
dependency .

Therefore, the result indicates that higher time spend on gadget are significantly
associated with total gadget dependency.

ii) Posession of the Gadget:

Correlations

total_posession total_gadgetde
ofthegadget pendency

total_posessionofthegadge Pearson Correlation 1 -.551**

t
Sig. (1-tailed) .000

N 50 50

total_gadgetdependency Pearson Correlation -.551** 1

Sig. (1-tailed) .000

N 50 50
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

The result shows the output that P values shows p<0.05 (0.00). There is significant
positive relationship exist between these two variable which is possession of the
gadget and total gadget dependency.

So, there is correlation between possession of the gadget and total gadget
dependency.

Therefore, the result indicates that higher possession of the gadget are
significantly associated with total gadget dependency.

iii) Functions of the Gadget:

Correlations

total_functions total_gadgetde
ofthegadget pendency

total_functionsofthegadgetPearson Correlation 1 -.364**

Sig. (1-tailed) .005

N 50 50

total_gadgetdependency Pearson Correlation -.364** 1

Sig. (1-tailed) .005

N 50 50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

The result shows the output that P values shows p<0.05 (0.00). There is significant positive relationship
exist between these two variable which is functions of the gadget and total gadget dependency.

So, there is correlation between functions of the and total gadget dependency.
Therefore, the result indicates that higher functions of the are significantly associated with total gadget
dependency.

3. Plot a scattergram of time spent on gadget, possession of the gadget, and functions of the
gadget correlate with their total overall level of gadget dependency.

i) Time Spent on gadget:

There is significant between time spend on gadget and total gadget dependency.

The scatterplot have one linear plot.

It shows it is significant.
ii) Posession of the Gadget:

There is significant between possession of the gadget and total gadget dependency.

The scatterplot have one linear plot.

It shows it is significant.

ii) Function of the Gadget:

There is significant between functions of the gadget and total gadget dependency.

The scatterplot have one linear plot.

It shows it is significant.
SPSS EXERCISE 5

Chi-Square Analysis

Find out if the total overall level of gadget dependency is influenced or dependent on demography of
the respondents. Is there any relationship with the variables you addressed in analysis to be performed
in Exercise 1 (2). For each state the null and alternative hypotheses. What is your decision/finding?

QUESTION

1. Is total overall intention level into agroprenurship dependent on background variables? Please
identify at least THREE demography of respondent.

ANALYSIS TO BE PERFORMED

1. Carry out preliminary univariate analysis to examine the assumptions for all the variables.

2. Carry out relevant statistical analysis to generate the findings

Question 1:

In this analysis, it shows that there is no missing value for this data, for gadget dependency on all
faculties. According to the table, all 6 respondents from FSKM, 42 respondents from FSPPP and 2
respondents from FSR, have given their respond for gadget dependency.

In this analysis, it shows that there is no missing value for this data for gadget dependency for both age
group. According to the table, all 42 respondents aged 23 and below and 8 respondents aged 24 and
above have given their respond for gadget dependency.

Notes:

1= male

2= female
In this analysis, it shows that there is no missing value for this data, for gadget dependency both on
gender male and female. According to the table, all 15 male respondents and 35 female respondents,
have given their respond for gadget dependency.

Question 2:
Gender: The result shows the chi-square value is 0.000. It is less than 0.05 which is significant, p values is
smaller than 0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that there are significant differences in gender
towards gadget dependency, and the result shows that female are more dependent on gadget.

Age: The result shows the chi-square value is 0.000. It is less than 0.05 which is significant, p values is
smaller than 0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that there are significant differences in gender
towards gadget dependency, and the result shows that respondent who aged 23 and below are more
dependent on gadget.

Faculty: The result shows the chi-square value is 0.000. It is less than 0.05 which is significant, p values is
smaller than 0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that there are significant differences in gender
towards gadget dependency, and the result shows that respondents from FSPPP are more dependent on
gadget.

a. The significant level is 0.050.

b. Asymptotic significance is displayed.

c. This result shown that to reject the null hypothesis, and accept H1.
SPSS EXERCISE 6

One-Way ANOVA

QUESTION 1

Carry out preliminary univariate analysis to examine the assumptions for all the variables.

FACULTY

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Faculty N Percent N Percent N Percent
GADGET_DEPENDENCY FSPPP 31 100.0% 0 0.0% 31 100.0%
FSKM 20 100.0% 0 0.0% 20 100.0%
FSSR 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0%

The analysis shows that there is no missing cases for these data which are faculty. According to
the table, all of 52 respondents have give their respond to the questions.

PROGRAM

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Program N Percent N Percent N Percent
GADGET_DEPENDENCY AM225 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 2 100.0%
AM228 28 100.0% 0 0.0% 28 100.0%
CS221 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0%
CS227 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 2 100.0%
CS228 3 100.0% 0 0.0% 3 100.0%
CS241 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%
CS247 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0%
CS248 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0%
CS249 7 100.0% 0 0.0% 7 100.0%
CS290 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 2 100.0%
The analysis shows that there is no missing cases for these data which are program. According to
the table, all of 52 respondents have give their respond to the questions.

TYPE OF GADGET OWNED

Case Processing Summarya

Cases
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Type of gadget 52 100.0% 0 0.0% 52 100.0%
(computer/laptop) *
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Type of gadget (tablet) * 52 100.0% 0 0.0% 52 100.0%
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Type of gadget (smartphone) 52 100.0% 0 0.0% 52 100.0%
* GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Type of gadget (camera) * 52 100.0% 0 0.0% 52 100.0%
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Type of gadget (MP3) * 52 100.0% 0 0.0% 52 100.0%
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Type of gadget (play station 52 100.0% 0 0.0% 52 100.0%
player) *
GADGET_DEPENDENCY

The analysis shows that there is no missing cases for these data which are type of gadget owned.
According to the table, all of 52 respondents have give their respond to the questions.
QUESTION 2
Carry out relevant statistical analysis to generate the findings.

FACULTY

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
GADGET_DEPENDENCY Based on Mean 19.886 1 49 .000
Based on Median 11.147 1 49 .002
Based on Median and with 11.147 1 37.739 .002
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean 19.180 1 49 .000

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances shows 0.000 which is less than 0.05 (p<0.05), so
there is significant. Therefore, type of faculty does not significantly influence the gadget
dependency.

ANOVA
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 64.393 2 32.197 .643 .530
Within Groups 2452.434 49 50.050
Total 2516.827 51

Given that p value is 0.53 (p>0.05). There is not significant and it shows that retain Ho.
Therefore the result shows that no significance of gadget dependency is equal across the faculty.
PROGRAM

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
GADGET_DEPENDENCY Based on Mean 7.311 6 42 .000
Based on Median 2.256 6 42 .056
Based on Median and with 2.256 6 32.501 .062
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean 6.627 6 42 .000

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances shows 0.000 which is less than 0.05 (p<0.05), so
there is significant. Therefore, type of program does not significantly influence the gadget
dependency.

ANOVA
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 155.991 9 17.332 .308 .968
Within Groups 2360.836 42 56.210
Total 2516.827 51

Given that p value is 0.968 (p>0.05). There is not significant and it shows that retain Ho.
Therefore the result shows that no significance of gadget dependency is equal across the
program.
TYPE OF GADGET (Computer/ Laptop)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
GADGET_DEPENDENCY Based on Mean .786 1 50 .380
Based on Median .880 1 50 .353
Based on Median and with .880 1 49.310 .353
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean .769 1 50 .385

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances shows 0.380 which is more than 0.05 (p>0.05), so
there is not significant. Therefore, type of gadget computer/laptop does not significantly
influence the gadget dependency.

ANOVA
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 41.601 1 41.601 .840 .364
Within Groups 2475.226 50 49.505
Total 2516.827 51

Given that p value is 0.364 (p>0.05). There is not significant and it shows that retain Ho.
Therefore the result shows that no significance of gadget dependency is equal across the type of
gadget owned which is computer/laptop.
TYPE OF GADGET OWNED (Tablet)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
GADGET_DEPENDENCY Based on Mean .214 1 50 .645
Based on Median .093 1 50 .762
Based on Median and with .093 1 48.996 .762
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean .161 1 50 .690

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances shows 0.645 which is more than 0.05 (p>0.05), so
there is not significant. Therefore, type of gadget tablet does not significantly influence the
gadget dependency.

ANOVA
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 291.577 1 291.577 6.552 .014
Within Groups 2225.250 50 44.505
Total 2516.827 51

Given that p value is 0.014 (p<0.05). There is significant and it shows that we can reject Ho and
accept H1. Therefore the result shows that significance of gadget dependency is difference across
the type of gadget owned which is tablet.
TYPE OF GADGET OWNED (Smartphone)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
GADGET_DEPENDENCY Based on Mean .006 1 50 .938
Based on Median .124 1 50 .727
Based on Median and with .124 1 45.390 .727
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean .003 1 50 .957

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances shows 0.938 which is more than 0.05 (p>0.05), so
there is not significant. Therefore, type of gadget smartphone does not significantly influence the
gadget dependency

ANOVA
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 77.766 1 77.766 1.594 .213
Within Groups 2439.061 50 48.781
Total 2516.827 51

Given that p value is 0.213 (p>0.05). There is no significant and it shows that we can accept Ho.
Therefore the result shows that significance of gadget dependency is equal across the type of
gadget owned which is smartphone.
TYPE OF GADGET OWNED (Camera)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
GADGET_DEPENDENCY Based on Mean 2.253 1 50 .140
Based on Median .121 1 50 .730
Based on Median and with .121 1 25.819 .731
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean 1.742 1 50 .193

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances shows 0.140 which is more than 0.05 (p>0.05), so
there is not significant. Therefore, type of gadget camera does not significantly influence the
gadget dependency

ANOVA
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 123.970 1 123.970 2.590 .114
Within Groups 2392.857 50 47.857
Total 2516.827 51

Given that p value is 0.114 (p>0.05). There is no significant and it shows that we can accept Ho.
Therefore the result shows that significance of gadget dependency is equal across the type of
gadget owned which is camera.
TYPE OF GADGET OWNED (MP3)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
GADGET_DEPENDENCY Based on Mean .944 1 50 .336
Based on Median 1.651 1 50 .205
Based on Median and with 1.651 1 48.896 .205
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean 1.098 1 50 .300

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances shows 0.336 which is more than 0.05 (p>0.05), so
there is not significant. Therefore, type of gadget MP3 does not significantly influence the gadget
dependency

ANOVA
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 262.776 1 262.776 5.829 .019
Within Groups 2254.051 50 45.081
Total 2516.827 51

Given that p value is 0.019 (p<0.05). There is significant and it shows that we can reject Ho and
accept H1. Therefore the result shows that significance of gadget dependency is difference across
the type of gadget owned which is MP3.
TYPE OF GADGET OWNED (Playstation Player)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
GADGET_DEPENDENCY Based on Mean .085 1 50 .771
Based on Median .112 1 50 .740
Based on Median and with .112 1 37.667 .740
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean .064 1 50 .801

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances shows 0.771 which is more than 0.05 (p>0.05), so
there is not significant. Therefore, type of gadget playstation player does not significantly
influence the gadget dependency

ANOVA
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 71.058 1 71.058 1.453 .234
Within Groups 2445.769 50 48.915
Total 2516.827 51

Given that p value is 0.234 (p>0.05). There is no significant and it shows that we can retain Ho.
Therefore the result shows that significance of gadget dependency is equal across the type of
gadget owned which is playstation player.
SPSS EXERCISE 7
Multiple-Regression
a
ANALYSIS TO BE PERFORMED

1. Carry out preliminary univariate analysis to examine the assumption for all the variables

Case Processing Summarya

Cases
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
TIME_SPENT_ON_GADGE 52 100.0% 0 0.0% 52 100.0%
T *
GADGET_DEPENDENCY
POSESSION_OF_THE_GA 52 100.0% 0 0.0% 52 100.0%
DGET *
GADGET_DEPENDENCY

The analysis shows that there is no missing cases for these data which are time spent on
gadget, possession of the gadget and function of gadget. According to the table, all of 52
respondents have give their respond to the questions.
 2. Carry out a standard (ENTER) method of regression analysis of the 3 IVs on the
DV.

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .992a .983 .982 .93425

The three independent variable which are time spent on gadget, possession of the gadget and
function of the gadget is highly significant as the R Square explain that the variance almost
100% in total overall gadget dependency.

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2474.932 3 824.977 945.187 .000b
Residual 41.895 48 .873
Total 2516.827 51

The significant value for analysis of variance is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 where the result is
significant.
 Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.154 1.351 .854 .397
TIME_SPENT_ON_GADGE .438 .135 .415 3.253 .002
T
POSESSION_OF_THE_GA .711 .086 .658 8.289 .000
DGET
FUNCTION_OF_THE_GAD -.105 .144 -.077 -.725 .472
GET

As shown in the table, time spent on gadget and possession of the gadget has p value 0.002 and
0.000 respectively. Both of the significant value is less than 0.05 which make both of the data
significant. Therefore, we can conclude that time spent on gadget and possession of the gadget
highly affected the total overall level of gadget dependency.

ANALYSIS TO BE PERFORMED

iii) Carry out a STEPWISE procedure to determine which of the IVs are influencing the DV significantly.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .988 a
.977 .976 1.08321
2 .992 b
.983 .982 .92972
a. Predictors: (Constant), POSESSION_OF_THE_GADGET
b. Predictors: (Constant), POSESSION_OF_THE_GADGET,
TIME_SPENT_ON_GADGET
 ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2458.160 1 2458.160 2095.005 .000b
Residual 58.667 50 1.173
Total 2516.827 51
2 Regression 2474.472 2 1237.236 1431.363 .000c
Residual 42.354 49 .864
Total 2516.827 51
a. Dependent Variable: GADGET_DEPENDENCY
b. Predictors: (Constant), POSESSION_OF_THE_GADGET
c. Predictors: (Constant), POSESSION_OF_THE_GADGET, TIME_SPENT_ON_GADGET

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.687 .509 5.280 .000
POSESSION_OF_THE_GA 1.068 .023 .988 45.771 .000
DGET
2 (Constant) .317 .699 .454 .652
POSESSION_OF_THE_GA .708 .085 .655 8.301 .000
DGET
TIME_SPENT_ON_GADGE .361 .083 .343 4.344 .000
T
a. Dependent Variable: GADGET_DEPENDENCY
 Excluded Variablesa
Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 TIME_SPENT_ON_GADGE .343 b
4.344 .000 .527 .055
T
FUNCTION_OF_THE_GAD .193b 2.688 .010 .358 .080
GET
2 FUNCTION_OF_THE_GAD -.077c -.725 .472 -.104 .031
GET
a. Dependent Variable: GADGET_DEPENDENCY
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), POSESSION_OF_THE_GADGET
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), POSESSION_OF_THE_GADGET, TIME_SPENT_ON_GADGET

The result shows that only variable possession of the gadget and time spent on gadget has been entered
into the regression equation. These variable explains 97% and 98% respectively of the variability in the
gadget dependency and the result for ANOVA explains significant where p<0.05 (0.000). The third
independent variable for function of the gadget has failed to meet the selection criteria, where it shows
not significant p>0.05(0.472).