Somaiya Institute of Management and Research Studies

Business research Methods

PGDM-A&B , II Trimester
Time: 3 hours
Note:
Attempt any 3 questions. All are compulsory
Use of calculators is allowed
Take assumptions where ever necessary and make a note of it.

MM: 50

Q1 Explain briefly Research Process using your own BRM project as an example. (10 marks)
Q2 In the following situations, decide whether you would use:
Primary data (personal interview/ Telephone survey / self-administered questionnaire) or
Secondary data.
Suggest the appropriate sampling technique.
Give your reasons. (15 marks)
1. A poll of students at Mumbai University on their preferences among three candidates
who are running for presidency of the student union.
2. A survey of 58 wholesale grocery companies scattered over all India, on their
personnel management policies for wholesale personnel. This assigned task is to be
completed within short duration of time.
3. A survey of financial officers of the BSE 500 companies to learn their predictions for
the economic outlook in their industries in the next year.
4. Data is to be collected on a complicated issue of drug addicts.
5. Data about opening up a new company in a remote rural area.
Q3 Mahesh Enterprise has a chain of high class restaurants in Punjab and Haryana serving High
quality multicusine food at premium prices. This company wants to open up a fast food joint
owing to the requirement of the youngsters. However before starting the joint, they want to
understand the preference of the people on various parameters namely: Age, income, gender. (10
marks)

On the basis of the given output comment about the relationship among the variable
showing the significant results
Frame hypothesis.
What is the type of scale required?
1

Income
Observed N

Expected N

Residual

Low Income

26

33.3

-7.3

Middle Income

29

33.3

-4.3

High Income

45

33.3

11.7

Total

100

Test Statistics
Preference
Redefined
Chi-Square

Income

.640a

6.260b

.424

.044

df
Asymp. Sig.

Test Statistics
Preference
Redefined
Chi-Square

.640a

61.320b

36

.424

.005

df
Asymp. Sig.

Age

Preference
Redefined
Chi-Square
df
Asymp. Sig.

Gender

.640a

.360a

.424

.549

Q4.A Company wants to know the customers preference about the basic features of toothpaste.
Six parameters are taken at random and a sample of size 30 is taken were asked to rate the below
given parameters on a scale of 1-5, one being the least preferred and 5 being the most preferred..
Given below is the result of factor analysis to reduce and summarize the factors which a
customer look for before buying a tooth paste. Answer the following question on the basis of the
given output: (10 marks)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Explain if the sample size is sufficient to run a factor analysis

Is the scale appropriate to run a factor analysis?
Is the variance explained is sufficient to run factor analysis.
Interpret the factors obtained and summarize the results.
Comment on the significance of the correlation matrix to verify results.
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity

.660

Communalities

Approx.
InitialChi-Extractio 111.314
Square
n
df

PREVENTS
CAVITIES

1.000

.926

Sig.

15
.000

SHINY TEETH

1.000

.723

STRENGTHEN
GUMS

1.000

.894

FRESHENS
BREATH

1.000

.739

PREVENTS
TOOTH DECAY

1.000

.878

ATTRACTIVE
TEETH

1.000

.790

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues
Componen
t
1

Total
2.731

% of
Variance
45.520

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Cumulative
%
45.520
3

Total
2.731

% of
Variance
45.520

Cumulative
%
45.520

2.218

36.969

82.488

.442

7.360

89.848

.341

5.688

95.536

.183

3.044

98.580

.085

1.420

100.000

2.218

36.969

82.488

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix(a)
Component
1
PREVENTS
CAVITIES

.928

.253

SHINY TEETH

-.301

.795

STRENGTHEN
GUMS

.936

.131

FRESHENS
BREATH

-.342

.789

PREVENTS
TOOTH DECAY

-.869

-.351

ATTRACTIVE
TEETH

-.177

.871

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

SPENDING AND EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT (10 marks)
Q5.Is the educational achievement level of students related to how much the state in which they
reside spends on education? In many communities tax payers are asking this important question
as school districts request the tax revenue increase for education. Analyze the data on spending
and achievement scores in order to determine whether there is any relationship between both in
case of public schools.
The federal governments national assessment of national progress (NAEP) program is
frequently used to measure the educational achievement of students. Table 1.1 shows the total
4

current spending per pupil per year, and the total NAEP score for 35 states that participated in
NAEP program. The composite test score is the sum of Math, Science, and reading scores
achieved last year. Pupils tested are in grade 8 and the maximum possible score is 1300. 13 states
that did not participate in relevant NAEP surveys. These data were reported in the article on
spending and achievement level appearing in Forbes (Nov 3, 2013)
Table 1.1
State

Spending
per Pupil ($)

Composite
Score

Louisiana

4,049

581

Mississippi
California
Hawaii
South
Carolina
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
New Mexico
Arkansas

3,423
4,917
5,532
4,304

582
580
580
603

3,777
4,663
4,934
4,097
4,060

604
611
611
614
615

Delaware
Tennessee
Arizona
West Virginia
Maryland
Kentucky
Texas
New York

6,208
3,800
4,041
5,247
6,100
5,020
4,520
8,162

615
618
618
625
625
626
627
628

Spending
per Pupil ($)

Composite
Score

North
Carolina
Rhode Island
Washington
Missouri
Colorado

4,521

629

6,554
5,338
4,483
4,772

638
639
641
644

Indiana
Utah
Wyoming
Connecticut
Massachusett
s
Nebraska
Minnesota
Iowa
Montana
Wisconsin
North Dakota
Maine

5,128
3,280
5,515
7,629
6,413

649
650
657
657
658

5,410
5,477
5,060
4,985
6,055
4,374
5,561

660
661
665
667
667
671
675

Composite
Score
700
Composite
Score
f(x) = 0.02x + 541.3
Linear (Composite
R = 0.11
Score)

650
ccompisite score

600
550

500
2,000 4,000 6,000
spending per pupil

Table 1.2(spending between 4000-6000)

State

Spending
per Pupil ($)

Composite
Score

State

Spendin
g
per
Pupil
($)
4,521

Composit
e
Score

Louisiana

4,049

581

California

4,917

580

Hawaii
South
Carolina
Georgia
Florida
New
Mexico
Arkansas
Arizona
West
Virginia
Kentucky

5,532
4,304

580
603

North
Carolina
Washingto
n
Missouri
Colorado

5,338

639

4,483
4,772

641
644

4,663
4,934
4,097

611
611
614

Indiana
Wyoming
Nebraska

5,128
5,515
5,410

649
657
660

4,060
4,041
5,247

615
618
625

Minnesota
Iowa
Montana

5,477
5,060
4,985

661
665
667

5,020

626

4,374

671

4,520

627

North
Dakota
Maine

Texas

5,561

675

629

Scatter plot

Composite
Score
700
Composite
Score
f(x) = 0.01x + 587.32
R = 0.12
Linear (Composite
Score)

650
composite score

600
550
500
0

5,000 10,000

spending per pupil

Managerial Report: (10 marks)

7

1. Develop numerical and graphical summaries of data.

2. Use regression analysis to investigate the relationship between amounts spent per pupil
and the composite score on NAEP test. Discuss your findings.
3. Do you think that this estimated regression model developed for these data could be used
to estimate the test score for the states that did not participate in the NAEP program?
4. Suppose you consider the states that spend at least $4000 per pupil but not more than
$6000 per pupil (table 1.2). For these states does the relationship between the two
variables appear to be different than for the complete data set? Discuss the results of your
findings and whether you think deleting the aforesaid states is appropriate?
5. Developing the estimates of composite test scores for the states that did not participate in
NAEP program is a worthwhile proposition? Comment on the basis of data available.
6. Based on your analysis, do you think that the educational achievement level of student is
related to how much the state spends on education?
Q6. Perception of people about ban on plastic bags in Delhi (10 marks)
Plastic bags play an integral role in our day today life. Be it carrying grosser from the local
market (Kirana Store) or storing of the household article in a poly bag. The omnipresence of this
utility object brought to the force an impending problem that needed to be resolved. The problem
associated with plastic bag is that they are non-biodegradable and in fact take a close to 60 years
to decompose. Apart from that there are different problems like drain clogging and death of
castles etc. this prompted the Delhi government to finally take a notice and introduce a blanket
ban on plastic bags in 2008. The storage and sale of plastic bags is banned and a penalty of Rs. 1,
00,000 or five years of imprisonment or both.
The officials empowered to enforce ban are the staff of the health and environment department.
Food and supply officers and sub divisional magistrates are also empowered to enforce the ban.
The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) has been assigned the task of implementation. It
has formed a special inspection team for the purpose. The team would visit the retailers and the
manufacturing unit and would initiate the punishment to the violators. The scope of this ban has
been widened by including four star hotels under its preview. The imposition of this wide span
ban at that time prompted the researcher to analyze the impact of this ban and its effectiveness
from the perspective of both the consumer and vendor. They first checked whether the consumer
and the vendor are aware of this ban or not. Along with that they analyzed the preference,
choices and willingness of the consumers and vendors from the diverse backgrounds to switch to
the eco-friendly alternatives so as to ascertain the effectiveness of the ban on the plastic bags. In
a survey conducted in Delhi to understand the perception of the consumers about the plastic bags
ban. The statements related to the respondents perception are listed below:

What are your views about plastic bags since ban? (Rate it on a scale of 1-5)
parameters

1Strongly
agree

2Moderately
agree

3Neutral

4Moderately
disagree

5Strongly
Disagree

Plastic bag is a must

when
buying
a
groceries/veg.
(X12a)
Plastic
bag
is
harmful for the
environment(X12b)
I do not wish to quit
using
plastic
bags(X12c)
I try to avoid plastic
bags (X12d)
Plastic bag ban is
not
enforced
properly (X12e)
Paper bag is not a
useful substitute for
plastic bag(X12f)
Managerial Implications:
1. Write 3 objectives of the study conducted above.
2. What are the possible hypotheses?
3. By using the one sample t test, identify, the parameters of the plastic bags ban on which
consumer has a favorable opinion (hint: test the null hypothesis H0: Average rating=3
against an appropriate alternative hypothesis)
4. All the respondents are divided into two groups and by taking respondents aged 30 and
below as the younger respondent and those who are age 31 and above as the older
respondents. Now statically examine on the basis of the output given about the views of
the younger and the older generation differs significantly.
5. What is the application of ANOVA in this case? Can it be used in this situation? Explain.
6. Would ANOVA give better results than a t test (as conducted in this case). Or either of
them can be used to explain the average difference.
7. Is it an action or basic research?
8. Suggest an appropriate sampling technique. What could be the type of errors that may
come up?
9. What is the relationship between sample size and standard error?
9

10. what is p value (significance value) in case of software generated outputs and how

Table 1 - One-Sample Statistics

N
[Plastic Bag is must
when buying
groceries/vegetables ]
[Plastic Bag is harmful
for environment]
[I do not wish to quit
using Plastic Bags]
[I try to avoid Plastic
Bags as much as I can]
[Plastic Bag Ban is not
enforced properly]
[Paper Bag is not a
useful substitute for
plastic bag ]

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error
Mean

44

2.7955

1.37383

.20711

44

1.4091

.87120

.13134

44

3.5000

1.15134

.17357

44

2.7727

1.13841

.17162

44

1.7955

.92960

.14014

44

3.1591

1.32846

.20027

Table 2 - One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t
[Plastic Bag is must
when buying
groceries/vegetables ]
[Plastic Bag is harmful
for environment]
[I do not wish to quit
using Plastic Bags]
[I try to avoid Plastic
Bags as much as I can]
[Plastic Bag Ban is not
enforced properly]
[Paper Bag is not a
useful substitute for
plastic bag ]

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

-.988

43

.329

-.20455

-.6222

.2131

-12.113

43

.000

-1.59091

-1.8558

-1.3260

2.881

43

.006

.50000

.1500

.8500

-1.324

43

.192

-.22727

-.5734

.1188

-8.595

43

.000

-1.20455

-1.4872

-.9219

.794

43

.431

.15909

-.2448

.5630

10

Table 3 - Group Statistics

31

Mean
2.9032

Std. Deviation
1.49119

Std. Error
Mean
.26783

Female

13

2.5385

1.05003

.29123

[Plastic Bag is harmful Male

for environment]
Female

31

1.4194

.95827

.17211

13

1.3846

.65044

.18040

[I do not wish to quit

using Plastic Bags]

31
13
31
13
31
13
31
13

3.3548
3.8462
2.8387
2.6154
1.8710
1.6154
3.2903
2.8462

1.17042
1.06819
1.24088
.86972
.95715
.86972
1.34644
1.28103

.21021
.29626
.22287
.24122
.17191
.24122
.24183
.35529

[Plastic Bag is must

when buying
groceries/vegetables ]

[I try to avoid Plastic

Bags as much as I can]
[Plastic Bag Ban is not
enforced properly]
[Paper Bag is not a
useful substitute for
plastic bag ]

Gender
Male

Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female

Table 4 - Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

F
[Plastic Bag is must
when buying
groceries/vegetables ]

Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[Plastic Bag is harmful Equal variances
for environment]
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[I do not wish to quit
Equal variances
using Plastic Bags]
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[I try to avoid Plastic
Equal variances
Bags as much as I can] assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[Plastic Bag Ban is not Equal variances
enforced properly]
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[Paper Bag is not a
Equal variances
useful substitute for
assumed
plastic bag ]
Equal variances
not assumed

5.327

.331

.192

3.195

.123

.841

Sig.

t-test for Equality of Means

.026

.568

.663

.081

.727

.364

11

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

.800

42

.428

.36476

.45586

-.55520

1.28473

.922

31.787

.364

.36476

.39566

-.44137

1.17090

.119

42

.906

.03474

.29122

-.55297

.62245

.139

32.888

.890

.03474

.24933

-.47260

.54207

-1.302

42

.200

-.49132

.37740

-1.25293

.27030

-1.352

24.628

.189

-.49132

.36326

-1.24005

.25742

.589

42

.559

.22333

.37905

-.54163

.98828

.680

31.926

.501

.22333

.32841

-.44569

.89234

.829

42

.412

.25558

.30829

-.36657

.87773

.863

24.733

.397

.25558

.29621

-.35480

.86596

1.012

42

.317

.44417

.43883

-.44143

1.32977

1.033

23.663

.312

.44417

.42978

-.44353

1.33187

Table 5 - Group Statistics

40

Mean
2.8500

Std. Deviation
1.33109

Std. Error
Mean
.21046

2.2500

1.89297

.94648

[Plastic Bag is harmful Younger respondent

for environment]
Older Respondent

40

1.3000

.68687

.10860

2.5000

1.73205

.86603

[I do not wish to quit

using Plastic Bags]

40
4
40
4
40
4
40
4

3.5000
3.5000
2.7500
3.0000
1.7250
2.5000
3.2750
2.0000

1.15470
1.29099
1.12660
1.41421
.93336
.57735
1.32021
.81650

.18257
.64550
.17813
.70711
.14758
.28868
.20874
.40825

[Plastic Bag is must

when buying
groceries/vegetables ]

[I try to avoid Plastic

Bags as much as I can]
[Plastic Bag Ban is not
enforced properly]
[Paper Bag is not a
useful substitute for
plastic bag ]

age_redefined
Younger respondent

Older Respondent

Younger respondent
Older Respondent
Younger respondent
Older Respondent
Younger respondent
Older Respondent
Younger respondent
Older Respondent

Table 6 - Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

F
[Plastic Bag is must
when buying
groceries/vegetables ]

Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[Plastic Bag is harmful Equal variances
for environment]
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[I do not wish to quit
Equal variances
using Plastic Bags]
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[I try to avoid Plastic
Equal variances
Bags as much as I can] assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[Plastic Bag Ban is not Equal variances
enforced properly]
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
[Paper Bag is not a
Equal variances
useful substitute for
assumed
plastic bag ]
Equal variances
not assumed

.424

7.588

.000

.025

.597

7.508

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig.

.519

.009

1.000

.876

.444

.009

12

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

.830

42

.411

.60000

.72307

-.85921

2.05921

.619

3.303

.576

.60000

.96960

-2.33142

3.53142

-2.833

42

.007

-1.20000

.42356

-2.05478

-.34522

-1.375

3.095

.260

-1.20000

.87281

-3.93003

1.53003

.000

42

1.000

.00000

.61091

-1.23287

1.23287

.000

3.497

1.000

.00000

.67082

-1.97293

1.97293

-.415

42

.680

-.25000

.60282

-1.46654

.96654

-.343

3.392

.752

-.25000

.72920

-2.42612

1.92612

-1.620

42

.113

-.77500

.47854

-1.74074

.19074

-2.390

4.748

.065

-.77500

.32421

-1.62189

.07189

1.884

42

.067

1.27500

.67688

-.09100

2.64100

2.781

4.749

.041

1.27500

.45852

.07733

2.47267

ANOVA
rating
Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

Between Groups

124.699

31.175

Within Groups

263.639

214

1.232

Total

388.338

218

13

F
25.305

Sig.
.000

Multiple Comparisons
rating
Scheffe
95% Confidence Interval

Mean Difference
(I) parameters

(J) parameters

(I-J)

Plastic bag is a must when

Plastic bag is harmful for the

buying a groceries/veg

environment
I do not wish to quit using

Std. Error

Sig.

Lower Bound

Upper Boun

1.38636*

.23664

.000

.6511

2.1

-.70455

.23664

.068

-1.4399

.0

.02273

.23664

1.000

-.7126

.7

1.00476*

.23801

.002

.2652

1.7

-1.38636*

.23664

.000

-2.1217

-.6

-2.09091*

.23664

.000

-2.8262

-1.3

-1.36364*

.23664

.000

-2.0989

-.6

-.38161

.23801

.633

-1.1212

.3

.70455

.23664

.068

-.0308

1.4

2.09091*

.23664

.000

1.3556

2.8

.72727

.23664

.054

-.0080

1.4

1.70930*

.23801

.000

.9697

2.4

-.02273

.23664

1.000

-.7580

.7

1.36364*

.23664

.000

.6283

2.0

-.72727

.23664

.054

-1.4626

.0

.98203*

.23801

.002

.2425

1.7

-1.00476*

.23801

.002

-1.7443

-.2

plastic bags
I try to avoid plastic bags
Plastic bag ban is not
enforced properly
Plastic bag is harmful for the Plastic bag is a must when
environment

buying a groceries/veg
I do not wish to quit using
plastic bags
I try to avoid plastic bags
Plastic bag ban is not
enforced properly

I do not wish to quit using

Plastic bag is a must when

plastic bags

buying a groceries/veg
Plastic bag is harmful for the
environment
I try to avoid plastic bags
Plastic bag ban is not
enforced properly

I try to avoid plastic bags

Plastic bag is a must when

buying a groceries/veg
Plastic bag is harmful for the
environment
I do not wish to quit using
plastic bags
Plastic bag ban is not
enforced properly

Plastic bag ban is not

Plastic bag is a must when

enforced properly

buying a groceries/veg

14

15