Significant Relationship between Variables

Regression Analysis

Multiple regression was applied to test the explanatory and predictive power of

the different independent variables; level of implementation of the factors affecting the

distribution performance of fast-moving consumer goods stores in General Santos City in

terms of capacity, capability, and availability, and delivery of product to the dependent

variable; extent of distribution performance of fast-moving consumer goods stores. At

first ‘stepwise’ method was used, however, based on the result no variables were entered.

Thus, force entry was utilized using ‘enter’ method was used to generate a result. Still the

following tests were performed first before the different models were tested for its

predictive and explanatory power: collinearity test, normality test, homoscedasticity test,

and sufficient number of observations. Then the results of multiple regression (model

summary, ANOVA, and coefficients) were analyzed.

Table 1. Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Collinearity Statistics

Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 3.462 .349 9.931 .000

Capacity -.002 .062 -.003 -.035 .972 .996 1.005

Availability -.024 .062 -.031 -.388 .698 .993 1.007

Delivery of
.048 .056 .068 .853 .395 .988 1.012
Product

a. Dependent Variable: Extent of Distribution Performance

Multiple Regression Analysis Assumptions
Collinearity Test

On collinearity test, Table 1 shows that there is only (1) model generated and the

collinearity statistics are no VIF values greater than 5 for model 1 that indicate a strong

presence of collinearity. The highest VIF is 1.012 for model 1.

Table 2. Collinearity Diagnosticsa

Condition Variance Proportions

Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) Capacity Availability Delivery of Product

1 1 3.953 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00

2 .021 13.728 .00 .11 .17 .81

3 .020 13.943 .00 .50 .49 .00

4 .006 25.821 1.00 .39 .34 .18

a. Dependent Variable: Extent of Distribution Performance

On collinearity diagnostics that is shown in Table 2, model 1 has the highest

condition index of 25.821 that is lesser than 30. Thus, the researcher can say that there is

no multicollinearity issue for model 1.

Normality Test

On Normality Test, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests on

standardized residuals were performed to determine the null hypothesis that is no

significant normality concern among the observed variables. The results show in Table 3

that the p values of .013 (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) and .089 (Shapiro-Wilk), respectively,

only Kolmogorov-Smirnov is significant. Since the number of observations is 164, then

Kolmogorov-Smirnov should be considered in this study. Because the value is lesser than
.05, the null hypothesis is rejected. Also, the histogram and normal probability plot are

formally confirmed here. Thus, this study violates the assumption on normality (Janssens

et al., 2008). Hence, the data (observed variables) are not normally distributed.

[Recommendation: Increase the respondents, at least 200]

Table 3. Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Standardized Residual .080 164 .013 .986 164 .089

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Homoscedasticity Test

Homoscedasticity is used to measure if the variance of the residuals is similar for

all predicted scores. To assess homoscedasticity, the scatterplot is used specifically to

determine if there is triangle or diamond pattern in the graph. Figure 1 does not show a

diamond pattern or a triangle pattern (whether to the left or right) and does not indicate

the presence of heteroscedasticity. Therefore, the data passed the homoscedasticity

assumption and all of the relevant variables in model 1 are part of the regression model.

Figure 1.
On the Sufficient Number of Observations

On the sufficient number of observations, the minimum number of observations

for each independent variable is 5:1 (Janssens, 2008) but increases when stepwise

estimation (e.g.,15 to 50 observations: 1 independent variable). This study has four (4)

independent variables thus the minimum number of observations should be 200. The total

number of respondents in this study is just 164, thus the assumption on the sufficient

number of observations is not met. As pinpointed by Hair et al. (2014), the effect of

sample size can be considered in assessing normality. Specifically, if the data turns out to

be not normally distributed with the sample size being used is small such as 50 or fewer

and especially if the sample is less than 30, the non-normal distribution can have a

detrimental effect to the regression results. However, if the sample is large such as 200 or

more, the effect of non-normality to the regression results is negligible.

Multiple Regression Analysis Result

For the main analysis, it is shown in Table 4 the coefficient of determination (R 2)

for the model 1 is 0.005. It has a very weak statistical and practical significance because

of its very weak explanatory value, which only accounts for 0.5% of the variances and

99.5% cannot be explained greatly by it as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Model Summaryb

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .072a
.005 -.014 .39863

a. Predictors: (Constant), Delivery of Product, Capacity, Availability

b. Dependent Variable: Extent of Distribution Performance
 Its ANOVA shown in Table 5 below that model 1 has an F value of 0.276 (p

value =.843) which means that all the variables in model 1 are significantly not related to

the dependent variable. Specifically, all the independent variables have p-values that are

greater than .05 and, thus all variables are insignificant see Table 1 (Coefficients).

Table 5. ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression .132 3 .044 .276 .843b

Residual 25.425 160 .159

Total 25.557 163

a. Dependent Variable: Extent of Distribution Performance

b. Predictors: (Constant), Delivery of Product, Capacity, Availability