Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3
Technique: One way Anova
Dependent variable: Sales (in Rs. Lakhs)
Factor: Type of Packaging
ANOVA
Sales (in Rs. Lakhs)
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Between Groups
3808.867
1904.433
Within Groups
3140.500
27
116.315
Total
6949.367
29
F
16.373
p-value
Sig.
.000
Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the sales across the three types of packaging (The sales is significantly the same irrespective of the packaging)
Alternative Hypothesis: there is a significant difference in the sales across the three types of packaging.
HOMOSCADAATY
Interpretation:
Assuming alpha = 5% (or confidence interval is 95%)
p-value < 0.05 ; Reject null; Accept alternative.
ie., there is a significant difference in the sales across the three types of packaging
Since we have found that there is a significant difference, we perform Tukeys test (a series of t-tests) to check wthere there is any significant difference in sales between the
pair of packaging type.
Hi Alan, Naveen,
1
Mean Difference
Std. Error
Sig.
(I-J)
Plastic
Glass
Tetra packs
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Glass
27.600
4.823
.000
15.64
39.56
Tetra packs
13.700*
4.823
.022
1.74
25.66
Plastic
-27.600
4.823
.000
-39.56
-15.64
Tetra packs
-13.900*
4.823
.020
-25.86
-1.94
-13.700
4.823
.022
-25.66
-1.74
13.900
4.823
.020
1.94
25.86
Plastic
Glass
p-value
<0.05,
reject null
p-value
<0.05,
reject null
p-value
<0.05,
reject null
(A) Null hypothesis (1): there is no significant difference in the sales across the plastic and glass type of packaging
Alternative Hypothesis (1): there is a significant difference in the sales across the plastic and glass type of packaging
Interpretation: p-value < 0.05, reject null;accept alternative.
Ie, there is a significant difference
(B) Null hypothesis (2): there is no significant difference in the sales across the plastic and tetra packs type of packaging
Alternative Hypothesis (2): there is a significant difference in the sales across the plastic and tetra packs type of packaging
Interpretation: p-value < 0.05, reject null;accept alternative.
Ie, there is a significant difference
(C) Null hypothesis (3): there is no significant difference in the sales across the glass and tetra packs type of packaging
Alternative Hypothesis (3): there is a significant difference in the sales across the glass and tetra packs type of packaging
Interpretation: p-value < 0.05, reject null;accept alternative.
Ie, there is a significant difference
2
Std. Deviation
Preference
4.7250
1.79726
40
Nutrition Value
4.0250
1.73187
40
Taste
4.0000
2.08782
40
Preservation Quality
3.8750
1.71251
40
Table 2: Correlations
Preference
Nutrition Value
Taste
Preservation
Quality
Preference
Pearson Correlation
1.000
.810
.841
.888
Nutrition Value
.810
1.000
.759
.719
Taste
.841
.759
1.000
.818
Preservation Quality
.888
.719
.818
1.000
.000
.000
.000
Nutrition Value
.000
.000
.000
Taste
.000
.000
.000
Preservation Quality
.000
.000
.000
Preference
40
40
40
40
Nutrition Value
40
40
40
40
Taste
40
40
40
40
Preservation Quality
40
40
40
40
Preference
Sig. (1-tailed)
13.5
13.9
R Square
.928a
Adjusted R
Square
Estimate
.860
.849
.69921
Table 4: ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
Residual
Total
df
Mean Square
108.375
36.125
17.600
36
.489
125.975
39
Sig.
.000b
73.891
p-value <
0.05
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
.733
.301
Nutrition Value
.295
.103
Taste
.170
Preservation Quality
.548
Beta
Tolerance
VIF
2.436
.020
.284
2.865
.007
.395
2.531
.103
.198
1.655
4.107
.271
3.690
.118
.522
4.660
.000
.309
3.238
variables
0.05nutrition value, taste & preservation quality
Coefficient f nutrition value(perception)o
There is a significant impact of variables nutrition value, taste & preservation quality on preference for the product